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.
Dharam Singh and anr. Vs. Shah Mal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All20
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by two judgment-debtors, Dharam Singh and Munshi, who are brothers, from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarnagar. confirming that of a Munsif of that district who disallowed an objection preferred by them, to the attachment of their residential house in execution of a simple money decree obtained against them by the respondents decree-holders, on the ground that they (the judgment-debtors) are agriculturists whose residential house is exempt under Section 60, Civil P.C., from attachment and sale in execution of decree. The lower appellate Court has mentioned, with reference to certain evidence, that the appellants are proprietors of 27 bighas pakka land, which they themselves cultivate. It observes thatthe burden of proof was on the judgment-debtors to prove that their main source of income is agriculture. All zamindars, however small zamindari may be, cannot be said to be agriculturists simply because they cultivate land. Section 60...
Bindraban Vs. Rajpat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All741
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff s appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The vendors first sold the property on 28th August 1923, but before the suit for pre-emption was filed they retransferrad the property to the vendors on 24th July 1924. The suit for preemption was however filed, but was dismissed on 10th November 1924, on the ground that the property had been resold. Subsequently a brother of the vendees, who had resold the property, brought a suit for cancellation of the resale on the ground that the property had been acquired with joint family funds and could not be retranaferred without the consent of all the members. This suit was ultimately compromised on 8th July 1925 and a decree was passed in terms of this compromise to the effect that the property should come back to the families of the vendees. Upon this the plaintiff instituted the present suit for pre-emption, alleging that this was in reality a collusive decree, and the property had in reality been sold for c...
Gopi Rai Vs. Baij Nath Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All840
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by Gopi Rai, one of the objectors to an application for the grant of a probate. Baij Nath Rai, who claimed to be the executor under a will, dated 29th January 1928, executed by Nakched Rai, who admittedly died on 15th April 1923, applied for the grant of probate to him. Notices were issued to a large number of persons, many of whom were beneficiaries under the alleged will. Three of these persons only entered the caveat but the beneficiaries did not put in an appearance. An application was made on behalf of Baij Nath, the applicant, and six other persons to refer the dispute relating to the genuineness of this document to an arbitrator. The learned Judge allowed this application and referred the matter to arbitration, although the other beneficiaries had not joined in the application. The agreement of reference to arbitration permitted the arbitrator to import his own personal knowledge and decide the dispute on its basis. The arbitrator delivered his a...
Tahal Saithwar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All34
Bennet, J.1. This is an application on behalf of Tahal Saithwar in criminal revision dealing with a point of procedure. Tahal is being tried tinder Sections 148 and 325, I. P. C, in the Court of a Magistrate of Gorakhpur District. After the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined and before cross-examination began, the counsel for the defence made an application under Section 162, Criminal P.C., for copies of the statements of those prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Criminal P. C, by the investigating police officer. The Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge have both held that the accused is not entitled to receive these copies, because they consider that that right would only arise in case the defence is able to show by cross-examination that there is some suggestion of contradiction by the witness of what he stated in the police inquiry. I find that this idea is supported by Madari Sikdar v. Emperor : AIR1927Cal514 where it is stated:But the cross-exam...
Mt. Deoraji Kuer Vs. Jadunandan Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All92
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application by a rival decree-holder from an order granting rateable distribution of the assets realized by the Court. The applicant had obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor and his property had been attached by him and put up for sale at auction. The respondent decree-holder, who also had a money decree against the same judgment-debtor from another Court, got the decree transferred to the same Court which was executing the applicant's decree. After the execution of the decree had been transferred, he filed an application on 15th March 1929, describing it as an application for execution. It was in fact on a printed tabular form prescribed for applications for execution under Order 21, Rule 11. All the particulars required for an application in execution were filled in from Cols. 1 to 9. In the last Col. 10 which has a heading 'the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required' he stated that the only property which the judgment-debtor ha...
Musammat Deorajo Kuer Vs. Jadunandan Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.244
1. This is an application by a rival decree holder from an order granting rateable distribution of the assets realised by the Court. The applicant had obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor and his property had been attached by him and put up for sale at auction. The respondent decree-holder who also had a money decree against the same judgment-debtor from another Court got the decree transferred to the same Court which was executing the applicant's decree. After the execution of the decree, had been transferred, he filed an application on the 15th of March, 1929, describing it as an application for execution. It was in fact on a printed tabular form prescribed for applications for execution under Order XXI, Rule 11. All the particulars required for an application in execution were filled in from columns Nos. 1 to 9. In the last column No. 10 which has a heading 'the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required' he stated that the only property which the judgment-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›