Allahabad Court December 1931 Judgments
Raghunath Prasad and anr. Vs. Jwala Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All539
Sen, J.1. We are clearly of opinion that the judgment under appeal is correct and ought to be affirmed. The property is transferred by a usufructuary mortgage in terms of Section 14, Sub-section 5, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 and there is a stipulation in the mortgage bond that the mortgagee is to retain the full possession land the enjoyment of the mortgaged property including the trees appertaining to an exproprietary holding. The mortgagee cannot be deprived of the benefit of this stipulation. This is perfectly clear from 'the language of the last paragraph of Section 15 of the Act. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Pujan Upadhiya and ors. Vs. Bhagwat Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All4
Mears, C.J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for the grant of a certificate either under Section 110 or under Section 109(c), Civil P.C. This application arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Mirzapur, for a declaration that the two sale-deeds executed by Mt. Lalta, defendant 5 and Mt. Kausila, defendant 6 in favour of Bhagwat Prasad and three others (defendants 1 to 4) were executed without legal necessity and were not binding upon the reversioners of Nand Kishor Upadhia deceased.2. Plaintiffs alleged that Nand Kishor Upadhia was possessed of an occupancy holding situate in mouza Piprahi comprising an area of 12 bighas, and that he also held a fixed rate holding situate in mouza Bhaja and had also a brit jijmani yielding an income of about Rs. 100 per year. Nand Kishor Upadhia died in 1878 leaving a widow Mt. Lalta, defendant 5. At the time of the execution of the sale-deeds, the bulk of the fixed rate holding appears to have remain...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Lal Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All239
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the first Additional Subordinate Judge of Moradabad pass on an application for restitution under section 144, Civil P.C. The plaintiff in the suit was Seth Ram Gopal. He sued for dissolution of a partnership in two ginning factories one at Saharanpur and the other a Chandausi, and for partition of its assets. The suit was defended on the ground that the partnership was illegalowing to the fact that there were hen 20 shareholders in a factory from the very beginning. There were two other suits, also brought by Seth Ram Gopal, for dissolution of partnership in respect of two other factories at Chandausi In each case the principal defendant was Rai Bahadur Mewa Ram. All the three suits were decreed by the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, but we are concerned only with the suit dealing with the factory at Saharanpur and the old ginning factory at Chandausi.2. In this case the decree of the Subordinate Judge included the direction that a r...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Abdul Jamil Vs. Manzoor Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All572
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the lower appellate Court which reduced the damages of the Court of first instance from Rs. 50 to Rs. 25 for demolition of a wall, and which refused the remedy of injunction to the plaintiff. The defendants have filed a cross-objection claiming that on the findings of the lower appellate Court the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages. The findings of the lower appellate Court were that:the wall which was in dispute was the wall of the upper storey of the house. The wall of the lower storey on which the upper wall rested belongs admittedly to the defendants. The upper wall however appears to have been made by the plaintiff. Having regard however to the fact that the defendants must have had knowledge of the construction of the wall and to the absence of any protest on their part it may, I think, be inferred that the wall was built either with the implied consent or without any protest on the part of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshi Lal Vs. Bansi Dhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All84; 140Ind.Cas.181
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 10, Letters Patent, and arises out of a suit for possession of a house No. 12 situate in Megha gali in the city of Muttra. Mt. Ram Piari, as adoptive mother and guardian of Bansidar, minor, borrowed Rs. 3,000 from Ganeshi Lai, plaintiff and mortgaged the house in dispute. Interest was stipulated at the rate of As. 12-6 per cent per mensem. This came to Rs. 23-7-0 a month. In order to secure the payment of this interest, the mortgagee leased back the house to the mortgagor under an instrument of even date, which is known as sarkhat. It was agreed that the interest was payable in the months of Kartik and Baisakh and if there was a default in payment of interest for three years consecutively, the mortgagee was entitled to evict the mortgagor. The mortgage bond contained a stipulation that the principal money was payable in five years. The rent of the house, not having been paid, a suit for arrears of rent was instituted in the Court of the Subordi...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Pal Vs. Musatafa HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1931
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.96
1. The plaintiffs in this suit sued to recover a sum of money alleged to have been deposited by Musammat Sakina Begam, who was the mother of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 8, with the defendant in the year 1921. It is alleged that two deposits were made, a sum of Rs. 2,450 deposited directly by Musammat Sakina Begam and a sum of Rs. 550 deposited by Mustafa Hussain, plaintiff No. 1, and transferred to the account of his mother. The suit was decreed for the sum of Rs. 3,000 together with interest, and the appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge of Aligarh.2. In second appeal the only matter pressed is the point of limitation. The defendant-appellant claims that this sum should not be held to be a deposit but rather a loan and that as such it is barred by limitation. The courts below decided that the Article of the Limitation Act which applied is Article 60, and the appellant urges that rather Articles 57, 59 and 62 should beheld to apply. In our opinion the matter lies between Article ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.39
1. This is an appeal from an order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge Moradabad passed on an application for restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff in the suit was Seth Ram Gopal. He sued for dissolution of a partnership in two ginning factories; one at Saharanpur and the other at Chandausi, and for partition of its assets. The suit was defended on the ground that the partnership was illegal owing to the fact that there were more than 20 share-holders in the factory from the very beginning. There were two other suits, also brought by Seth Ram Gopal, for dissolution of partnership in respect of two other factories at Chandausi. In each case the principal defendant was Rai Bahadur Mewa Ram. All the three suits were decreed by the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, but we are concerned only with the suit dealing with factory at Saharaupur and the old Ginning Factory at Chandausi.2. In this case the decree of the Subordinate Judge included the direction that...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahab Vs. Mt. Sughra Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All248; 136Ind.Cas.619
Niamatullah, J.1. These are defendant's appeals arising out of two suits, one brought by Mt. Sughra Begam the respondent in Second Appeal No.473 of 1929, and the other by Rahim Bakhsh, the respondent in Second Appeal No.474 of 1929, for recovery of arrears of maintenance fixed by Khurshed Ali Khan who executed a deed of wakf on 1st April 1919, by which he dedicated property yielding a net income of Rs. 7,000 a year for certain charitable purposes. Khurshed Ali Khan died on 28th December 1926 up to which date he acted as mutawalli. The defendant-appellant succeeded his father in the office of the mutawalli. Among other provisions contained in the deed of wakf one is in favour of the respondents who were old servants of Khurshed Ali Khan. A certain amount was mentioned in the deed of wakf to be paid as salaries and pensions of the wakif's servants whose names were not specified, nor were the amounts mentioned.2. It was however clearly stated that particulars as regards names and the amou...
Tag this Judgment!Misri Lal Vs. Debi Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All561
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption brought by him for recovery of possession of the property in suit on payment of Rs. 400, which is alleged to be the market value of such property, on the allegation that Rs. 1,200, the consideration entered in the sale deed executed by defendants 2 to 7 in favour of defendant 1, does not represent the actual price and has been fictitiously mentioned to deprive the plaintiff of his right of pre-emption. The Court of first instance decreed the claim on payment of Rs. 400 on a finding that the price entered in the sale deed was not the actual price. The lower appellate Court took a contrary view on the question of the price shown in the sale deed being the actual price; and in allowing the plaintiff's claim to pre-emption it made him liable to pay the entire sum of Rs. 1,200. The only question in dispute in second appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the Sensible consi...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhmi NaraIn Girdhari Lal Vs. Mansa Ram Murlidhar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All82
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by certain attaching: creditors. It appears that the appellants Lachhmi Narain Girdhari Lal held a money decree of the year 1925 against Ram Din Hazari Lal respondent 2, who had obtained another decree from the High Court in 1929 for Rs. 11,750-against Mansaram Murlidhar, respondent 1. The High Court had varied the decree of the first Court and an application for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council was filed by Mansa Ram Murlidhar in October 1929. While that application was pending the appellants executed their own decree and got the decree of Ram Din Hazari Lal against Mansa Ram Murlidhar attached by the execution Court on 29th March 1930. The findings of the Court below do not make it clear whether Mansa Ram Murlidhar received notice or had knowledge of this attachment before 23rd May 1930. On 12th April 1930 Lachhmi Narain Girdhari Lal who had attached the decree of Ram Din Hazari Lal applied for the execution of the latter's decr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »