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.
Kashi Nath and anr. Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All142a
Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal by one Kashi Nath and another against an order of the District Judge of Benares exercising insolvency jurisdiction.2. The order passed by the learned District Judge is as follows:It is ordered that the mortgage deed dated 28th November 1927, executed by the insolvent be declared to be void and fraudulent and be cancelled. The said mortgage deed be cancelled except for Rs. 933.3. Then follows an order as to costs.4. The Official Receiver of Benares presented an application on 18th June 1928, purporting to be under Section 54, Prov. Insol. Act. The application in para. 4 stated that as the insolvent had executed a mortgage deed within three months of the date of adjudication it was void as against the receiver.5. Paragraph 5 of the application stated that the transfer was made in preference to some of the creditors of the insolvent and therefore the necessity of the application for setting aside the simple mortgage deed dated 28th November 1927, and declar...
Emperor Vs. Nanhua Dhimar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All54
Sen, J.1. Nanhua Ahyria, Mt Su-fchao, Nanhua Dhimar, Bihu Chamar and Kesri Chamar were committed to the Court of Sessions of Moradabad by a Magistrate of the 1st Class of the same district to take their trial on charges, in the alternative, under Sections 366 and 366-A, I. P.C.2. Mt. Ram Kali is a maiden daughter of one Ganga Ram Ahyria. She is about 12 years old. She lived with her parents at Moradabad. Mt. Sukhao is the sister of Ganga Ram Ahyria, and is the wife of Nanhua Ahyria. Nanhua and his wife Mt. Sukhao are residents of Hapur which is within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge of Meerut.3. On 14th August 1919, Nanhua Ahyria and his wife came to Moradabad and induced Mt. Ram Kali to leave Moradabad in their company with intent that Mt. Ram Kali may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. They took her to Hapur where they were joined by Nanhua Dhimar and Bihu Chamar. Nanhua Ahyria, Mt. Sukhao, Nanhua. D...
Murli Prasad Awasthi and anr. Vs. Sheo Dat Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All625
Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff's from the decree of the learned District Judge of Gorakhpur affirming the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the same place and arises out of a suit for contribution.2. On 18th April 1895, one Sarjoo Prasad, father of defendants-respondents 1, 2 and 3, executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of Thakur Prasad Naik in respect of ten items of property detained below:(1) Kaithaulia ... 4 annas(2) Kona ... 4 annas(3) Mahwar Kol ... 1 anna 3 pies(4) Shikargarh ... 8 pies(5) Dayalgarh ... 4 annas(6) Barahra ... 4 annas(7) Sarar ... 4 annas(8) Rampur Khas ... 6 pies(9) Teona ... 6 pies(10) A tiled house in village Kathaulia3. Later on Sarju Prasad executed a deed of simple mortgage in respect of only two of the properties indicated above, viz. Mahawar Kol and Shikargarh, in favour of one Ram Harakh. The latter sued on his mortgage, obtained a decree and in execution thereof purchased the shares in Mahawar Kol and Shikargarh. On 5th ...
Nanhua Dhimar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.246
1. Nanhua Ahyria, Mu-sammat Sukhao, Nanbua Dhimar, Bihu Chamar and Kesri Chamar were committed to the Court of Session of Moradabad by a Magistrate of the First Class of the same district to take their trial on charges, in the alternative under Sections 366 and 366 A of the Indian Penal Code.2. Musammat Ram Kali is a maiden daughter of one Ganga Ram Ahyria. She is about 12 years' old. She lived with her parents at Moradabad, Musammat Sukhao is the sister of Ganga Ram Ahyria, and is the wife of Nanhua Ahyria Nanhua Ahyria and his wife Musammat Sukhao are residents of Hapur, which is within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge of Meerut.3. On the 14th of August, 1929, Nanhua Ahyria and his wife came to Moradabad and induced Musammat Ram Kali to leave Moradabad in their company with intent that Musammat Ram Kali may be or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person They took her to Hapur where they were joined by Nanhua Dhimar ...
In Re: Official Receiver
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All94
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference from the District Judge of Moradabad. It appears that the auditor auditing the accounts of the Official Receiver took an objection that the Official Receiver had paid himself too much and in this way. The Official Receiver sold properties of the insolvents and among those properties were some which were encumbered. In the case of latter properties, sometimes the mortgagee agrees that the property should be sold free from incumbrance and he should be given the same right over the sale proceeds as he had over the mortgaged property. In the case of the last mentioned sale the Official Receiver realized 5 per cent over the entire amount of the sale price received by him. The auditor's objection is that the whole amount was not ' distributable ' among the creditors of the insolvents and the amount distributable was the money that was left after paying the mortgagee. The auditor's opinion was that 5 per cent could be charged only on what remained after deduc...
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. Mithan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All16
Bennet, J.1. These are two second appeals of certain objectors in a partition suit before the revenue Court. The suit was for partition of khewats Nos. 1 and 2, Mahal Hoti Lal, Mauza Band Abdulhaipur. The objections both took the form that about 50 years ago a private partition of khewat No. 1 was made between the applicants for partition, the ancestors of the different objectors and other persons, and that from that date these sets of persons had been in separate possession and occupation of their respective shares, paying land revenue separately and had separate proprietary and adverse possession of the land of their shares. We may note that khewat No. 2 is merely a small area of presumed muafi land which goes with khewat No. 1.2. The objections taken were fundamental and if allowed would have rendered it necessary to dismiss the application for partition under Section 109, Land Revenue Act. As the objections related to questions of proprietary title, they also came under Section 111...
Nabidad Khan Vs. Abdul Rahman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All128
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision against the judgment and decree of the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Benares dismissing his suit against the opposite party. The plaintiff claims Rs. 83-14-0 due on a bond of 29th June 1927, executed by the opposite party in favour of the plaintiff. The bond recites payment of cash as consideration. The real facts are that not a penny was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. What happened was as follows : One Mohammad Baksh alias Mahngo who is the defendant's brother's son-in-law took some gold to make some ornaments for the plaintiff. Mohammad Baksh prepared the ornaments but they were not satisfactory and he took back the ornaments to prepare others. The gold of which the plaintiff was the owner thus remained with Mohammad Baksh until he was traced by the plaintiff to have come to attend a wedding at the defendant's house. The plaintiff then instituted a criminal complaint against Mohammad Baksh and obtained a warrant...
Ranchhore and ors. Vs. Bansidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All739
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by three defendants, who are transferees from a mortgagor. The facts are that on 19th February 1926 Mt. Sarawan the mother and guardian of a minor Tunde executed a simple mortgage deed for Rs. 775 in favour of the plaintiff Bansidhar. Tunde died when he was a minor and his widow defendant 1 Mt. Larhai alias Raja Beti, executed a sale deed of her right to redeem in favour of defendants 2 to 5, the appellants before us. The plaintiff has brought a suit to enforce his simple mortgage deed by sale. The Court of first instance granted a preliminary decree under Order 34, Rule 4 but stated that a final decree could not be granted because the property could not be sold owing to Section 16, Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act. In first appeal the lower appellate Court has ordered that defendants be given six months' time to pay the decretal amount, and if they do not do so within that period the plaintiff will be entitled to recover the money by getting a tempo...
Baramdeo Pandey Vs. Debi Dat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All90
Mukerji, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against a decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing his suit. There are only three grounds of appeal and all are based on the same point that the presiding officer had no jurisdiction to pass a judgment, because he had retired from office on 4th October 1927. We are not referred to any notice in the Gazette or in the Civil List to show the actual date of retirement, but the counsel says that he has a letter from the Registrar of this Court to the effect that the retirement of the learned District Judge Chaudhri Abdul Hasan, took effect from 4th October 1927. We may however point out that this statement does not show on what date the resignation of the District Judge was actually accepted, and in the ordinary course it would be accepted at a date long subsequent to 4th October 1927, the date from which it had retrospective effect.2. The judgment was signed on 9th October 1927, and was pronounced in Court by the successor of the D...
Nazir Khan and anr. Vs. Ram Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All183
ORDER1. This revision arises out of a suit for recovery of money on foot of a promissory note instituted in the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court at Allahabad. The promissory note is alleged to have been executed by the defendants for a sum of Rs. 500 and Provides for the repayment of the loan, on demand, with interest at 4 per cent per mensem. The defence was that the execution of the promissory note was admitted by the defendant not subject to additional pleas. The further pleas were to the effect that defendant 2 never borrowed any money, nor did she execute any promissory note, that the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence, for want of proper stamp duty, that defendant 1 borrowed Rs. 50 only and that that was the only consideration that passed.2. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, tried only one issue, namely the one as to the admissibility of the document in. suit in evidence and holding that it was inadmissible, dismissed the suit.3. It appears that the suit was on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »