Allahabad Court July 1930 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Matllob Hasan and ors. Vs. Mt. Kalawati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All57a
King, J.1. This is an application for stay of further proceedings in a partition case pending before an Assistant Collector of Moradabad. In this case it appears that an objection was made involving a question of proprietary title, and the Court took action under Section 111 (1) (b), Land Revenue Act of 1901, and required the applicant for partition to institute within three months a suit in the civil Court for the determination of such question. The applicant for partition accordingly did institute a suit in the civil Court and got a declaration of title in her favour. An appeal from this civil Court decree has been filed and is now pending before the High Court. Meanwhile the Assistant Collector is continuing the partition proceedings in accordance with Section 111 (2), that is to say, he is dealing with the case in accordance with the decision of the civil Court, i. e., the civil Court of first instance. The appellant before this Court prays that the partition proceedings in the rev...
Kishen Chand Singh Vs. Mukan Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All91
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order dated 5th February 1930 of the Court below cancelling a previous order dated 19th January 1929, under which an issue was remitted to the revenue Court under Section 273, Agra Tenancy Act. It is quite clear that at that time the Court must have been of opinion that the suit related to an agricultural holding and therefore an issue had to be remitted on the plea of tenancy raised by the defendant. The revenue Court on the receipt of the record inquired into the matter and recorded its finding and submitted it to the civil Court. After the receipt of the finding the defendant filed an application without indicating under what section it was made in which the Court was asked to treat the decision of the revenue Court as being ultra vires and to rehear the case on the merits. The learned Subordinate Judge entertained this objection and has set aside his former order and fixed a date for the disposal of the suit.2. Subsequently the defendant fil...
Makund Ram Vs. Mt. Ruqaiya Khatun and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All251
King, J.1. This is a stamp reference in respect of an appeal which purports to seek the relief of a mere declaration. The reference arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage. One of the defendants, Makund Ram, was impleaded as a subsequent transferee of a portion of the mortgaged property. Subsequently, it transpired that Makund Ram had parted with his proprietary interest in the property by a partition in favour of his two sons and a grandson. Under the terms of the partition the property went to the sons, while Makund Ram himself was entitled to get a maintenance allowance of Rs. 80 per mensem from his sons and grandsons. The latter were to be personally liable for payment of this amount, and the allowance was further secured by a charge upon the property in the hands of the sons. The suit was dismissed as against the sons as being time barred, but was decreed against the remaining defendants, including Makund Ram; and the decree contained a direction that Mukund Ram's charge upo...
Kallu Vs. Bashiruddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All3; 129Ind.Cas.269
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares recommending that an order passed by a Special Magistrate of the First Class under Section 145, Criminal P.C., be set aside, or in the alternative that the order be modified as to costs.2. It appears that one Bashiruddin started proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., against the opposite party, who are now the applicants before me, alleging that a certain chabutra belonged to him and that the accused were interfering with his possession and were likely to commit a breach of the peace. The Magistrate found that the chabutra was in Bashiruddin's possession and passed orders restraining the opposite party from interfering with Bashiruddin's possession and ordered them severally and jointly to pay to Bashiruddin a sum of Rs. 428-6-0 as costs under Section 148 (3). It appears that the Magistrate recorded the evidence of the witnesses in English and that the evidence of the witnesses was not recorded in the v...
Muhammad Yunis Khan Vs. Muhammad Saleh Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All106
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption under the Mahomedan law. On 25th October 1922 the plaintiff's sister Mt. Rabia Begam executed a dead of exchange in favour of the defendant Haji Mohammad Saleh Khan in which shares in 12 villages were transferred to him in return for a bigger share in another village transferred by him to her. There was another deed of exchange dated 5th December 1922 between Haji Saleh Khan and Haji Yusuf Khan. Two suits for pre-emption were instituted by the plaintiff in respect of these two transactions. In these deeds of exchange there was a condition for the annulment of the transaction at the option of either party. The plaintiff alleged that he had made demands as required by the Mahomedan law, and that he was entitled to pre-empt half of these properties because he was a cosharer on the same footing as the transferees. He also alleged that the real consideration was Rs. 12,000 and not Rs. 20,000. The claims were r...
Moti Lal Nehru and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All12
Mears, C.J.1. On 1st July 1930, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru and Dr. Syed Mahmud were charged before Mr. Bom-ford, District Magistrate of Allahabad, with having committed offences under Section 17 (1), Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Section 117, I. P.C. Both were convicted on both charges, and each sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment, such sentences to run concurrently. On 3rd July 1930 an application was made to this Court asking that the record might be called for in the exercise of its power of superintendence and revision. The record was called for by an order of this Court and a Bench was appointed. At the request of the Government Advocate the hearing which had been fixed by Kendall, J., for the 14th, was postponed till to-day.2. The grounds of application are not clearly drafted, and there is no indication as to which of them apply to Section 17 (1) or to Section 117. A reference to the record however shows that Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 relate to Section 17, whilst Nos. ...
Mohammed Yusuf and ors. Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All53
ORDERKing, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh, setting aside an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate of the First Class and directing further inquiry to be made under Section 107, Criminal P.C.2. It appears that there were two parties who were hostile to each other, one party consisted of Abdul Majid and his associates and the other party consisted of Mohammad Yusuf and his associates. Mohammad Yusuf made an application to the Magistrate under Section 107 for having the opposite party bound over to keep the peace. This was followed by a similar application made by Abdul Majid that security for keeping the peace should be taken from Mohammad Yusuf and his party. Both the applications were sent to the police for inquiry. The police reported that there was fear of a breach of the peace, but the breach of the peace was to be apprehended from the side of Abdul Majid and his party, and that there was no apprehension f...
Sat Parkash and anr. Vs. Bahal Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All386
ORDER1. The question that has been referred to this Bench for decision is as follows:In a mortgage suit, where a preliminary decree has been passed by the trial Court and an appeal has been preferred, can a final decree be prepared by the trial Court at the end of the period allowed for payment of the mortgage debt or not.2. An application under Order 41, Rule 5, Civil P.C., was presented by Mr. Panna Lal in First Appeal No. 101 of 1930, praying that the preparation of the final decree in a suit, Satparkash and Anr. v. Bahal Rai and Anr. be stayed till the decision of the appeal. The application was opposed, and during the hearing of the application it was submitted by Mr. Panna Lal that by reason of an appeal against the original preliminary decree having been preferred the Court that passed the preliminary decree ceased to have jurisdiction to pass the final decree. It is upon that objection being raised that the present reference was made to this Bench.3. Mr. Panna Lal appearing for...
Collector of Etah Vs. Kishori Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All721
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference to a Full Bench by the learned Judges of a Division Bench, the points for decision being as follows:(1) Whether an agreement can be proved (by oral evidence) by the defendant to show that on payment of a sum of money less than what would be due on calculating the correct amount of principal and interest at the stipulated rate entered in the mortgage deed, the debt would be discharged.(2) Whether such evidence would be admissible to prove (and accord) satisfaction of the debt.2. (N.B. In question No. 1 the words in brackets were agreed to be added during the hearing of the case by the Full Bench, and in question No. 2 it was agreed that the words within brackets should be taken out).3. The facts which are necessary to be considered in order to appreciate the reference are given in the order of reference and are briefly these: One Rao Maharaj Singh, whose estate is now under the management of the Court of Wards executed a mortgage deed on 21st March 1918...
Panna Lal Vs. Bhola Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All843
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a revision from an order passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut, reversing an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of that district who set aside the sale of a house held in execution of a decree under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C.2. Har Sahai obtained a decree for sale or foot of a mortgage in respect of several houses, and a shop including house No. 559 against the applicant Panna Lal and three others. Two of the houses, including No. 559 and the shop, were sold by auction and fetched sufficient price to satisfy the decree. House No. 559 was sold by a separate lot for Rs. 1,000 to Bhola Nath, the opposite party. The remaining house and the shop sold by separate lots fetched prices which together with Rs. 1,000, the price of house No. 559, fully satisfied the decree as we have already stated. Within thirty days of the sale of house No. 559 Panna Lal, who is probably solely interested in that house, deposited under Order 21, Rule 89, Rs. 1,000 plus Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »