Allahabad Court December 1931 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.
Lachman Das Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All288
Sulaiman, J.1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench because of an important point of law involved in it. Ganeshi Lal was the receiver of the estate of an insolvent Jagpal Saran. He brought a suit against one Mt, Bhagwati for a declaration that a will in her favour was not genuine and the property devised by the testator passed to the insolvent and not to her. The suit was dismissed with costs, the order being that 'the plaintiff do pay Rs. 323-12-0 to the defendant as costs.' An application for executing the decree for costs against Ganeshi Lal personally was dismissed by the execution Court on 12th January 1924. The receiver had in the meantime appealed to the High Court and on 14th February 1927 the High Court dismissed the appeal. The order for costs as entered in the decree, was in the following words:And it is further ordered that the appellant aforesaid do pay to respondent 1 aforesaid a sum of Rs. 481-11-0 only the amount of the costs incurred by the latter in this Co...
Mt. Asia Bibi Vs. Malik Azir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All704; 137Ind.Cas.50
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. In 1901 Bhawani Prasad and other obtained a decree for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed against one Faqir Bux. The mortgaged properties were put up for sale from time to time but they proved insufficient to pay the whole decretal amount. Faqir Bux died during the pendency of these proceedings. In 1918 the decree-holders obtained a decree for money for the balance of the amount under Order 34, Rule 6, against the heirs of Faqir Bux. The form of this decree was slightly defective and we shall discuss it later. This decree was transferred in 1925 to Mt. Asia Bibi, the wife of Abdul Rauf, one of the heirs of Faqir Bux. It is not now disputed that Asia Bibi was not a benamidar for her husband, but had purchased this decree in her own right. She put the decree in execution against the heirs of Faqir Bux, including her husband Abdul Rauf. During the pendency of the execution proceedings Abdul Rauf died in 1929, an...
Bhagauti Shukul and ors. Vs. Chandrika Prasad Kueri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All147; 150Ind.Cas.289
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a revision directed against a decree passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Deoria, district Gorakhpur, in a suit brought by the plaintiff, opposite party for recovery of Rs. 100 and interest, being an unpaid part of premium payable in respect of a lease, executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants 2-4, at Saran in the province of Behar. The grove to which the lease relates is situate at Saran but the plaintiff resides at Deoria in the Gorakhpur District where most of her landed property is situated. Defendant 1, Sankar Lal Sukul, was the plaintiff's agent and the suit was originally instituted against him alone, on the allegation that he recovered Rs. 900-as premium from the defendants 2-4 who were liable to pay that amount under the lease, but that he did not pay Rs. 100-out of the total sum received by him on the plaintiff's behalf. He pleaded that he had received only Rs. 800 which he paid to the plaintiff and that the remaining Rupee? 100 w...
Kapoor Chand and anr. Vs. Jawahar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All154
Sen, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., and is directed against an order of Mr. Munir dated 15th January 1931 refusing to entertain an application filed by Lalas Kapur Chand and Ram Ratan that they should be impleaded in the action brought by Lala Jawahar Lal plaintiff in Suit No. 911 of 1920 under Sub-rule 2, Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C. There is a temple situate in mohalla Old Generalgunj which is known as the Digambar Jain old temple. The temple is presided over by a deity and its affairs are administered and controlled by a managing committee consisting of the members of the Digambar Jain community of Cawnpore. Lala Faqir Chand was secretary and manager of this temple and had the control of funds which chiefly consisted of voluntary offerings and contributions made by the Jain community for the maintenance and upkeep of the temple. Lala Faqir Chand vacated his office on 10th September 1927. Lala Jahawar Lal Jaini was elected secretary and manager...
Lala Lachhman Das Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.70
1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench because of an important point of law involved in it. Ganeshi Lal was the Receiver of the estate of an insolvent Jagpal Saran. He brought a suit against one Musammat Bhagwati for a declaration that a will in her favour was not genuine and the property devised by the testator passed to the insolvent and not to her. The suit was dismissed with costs, the order being that 'the plaintiff do pay Rs. 323-12 to the defendant as costs.' An application for executing the decree for costs against Ganeshi Lal personally was dismissed by the execution Court on the 12th of January, 1924. The Receiver had in the meantime appealed to the High Court and on the 14th of February, 1927, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The order for costs as entered in the decree was in the following words, 'And it is further ordered that the appellant aforesaid do pay to the respondent No. 1 aforesaid a sum of Rs. 481-11 only the amount of the costs incurred by the la...
(Swain) Paramarath Gir Vs. Ram Sarup Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All487
Sen, J.1. This is an application for revision under Schedule 115, Civil P.C., and is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares, dated 3rd November 1930, dismissing the plaintiff's application for leave to sue as a pauper upon the ground that the plaint did not Disclose any cause of action. The facts of this case which have given rise to this application are briefly these: The plaintiff alleges that there is an ancestral mutt belonging to Daanami Sanyasis of the Gir sect in mohalla Suraj Kund in the city of Benares and that this mutt owns property worth Rs. 10,00,000. A genealogical table has been set out in para. 3 of this application. Narain Gir is alleged to be the last mahant of this gaddi. He died a minor on 9th July 1910. Swarath Gir, Guru of the applicant, who was a chachera Guru Bhai of Narain Gir, is described as the next mahant of the gaddi, as (according to Parmarath Gir), he was duly given the chaddar according to the custom of the mutt and thus b...
Ajodhya Chaudhari and ors. Vs. Ram Dayal Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All654; 145Ind.Cas.731
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal which has been brought by the judgment-debtors against the order of the lower appellate Court confirming an order of the execution Court of first instance disallowing the objection. A preliminary objection that no second appeal lay against the objection as it was made under Order 21, Rule 90, and it is no doubt correct that if the objection does come under Rule 90 that no second appeal would lie. A first appeal would lie under Order 43, Rule 1(j), and according to the provisions of Section 104, Civil P.C. According to Rule 104(2) no second appeal would lie from an order in appeal passed under that section. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that his objection was not an objection under Rule 90, but lay outside the provisions of that rule and came under the general provisions of Section 47 of the Code. It is regrettable that the judgment-debtor did not, while making his objections, state under what rule or section he made it. As far as I c...
Swami Parmarath Gir Vs. Ramsarup Singh Alias Trigunanand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.269
1. This an application for re vision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares, dated the 3rd of November, 1930, dismissing the plaintiff's application lor leave to sue as a pauper upon the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. The facts of this cage which have given rise to this application are briefly these: The plaintiff alleges that there is an ancestral math belonging to Dasnami sanyasis of the gir sect in Mohalla Suraj Kund in the city of Benares and that this math owns property worth Rs. 10,000,00. A geneolegical table has been set out in para. 3 of this application. Narain Gir is alleged to be the last mahant of this gaddi. He died a minor on the ath of July 1910. Swarath Gir, guru of the applicant, who was a chachera guru bhat of Narain Gir, is described as the next mahant of the, gaddi, as according to Paramarath Gir), he was duly given the chadar according to the custom of the ...
Shiv Dayal Vs. Putto Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All50; 140Ind.Cas.491
Sen, J.1. This appeal was heard on 26th June, 1931, when certain issues were remitted. On return of the findings, there was a further hearing on 3rd November, 1931. The facts of the case which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these: On the 2nd August 1902, one Bhole, Chamar, husband of Mt. Amri, defendant 2 executed a usufructuary mortgage-deed in favour of Maharaj Baldeo Prasad, father of plaintffs 1 and 2, for Rs. 400. The mortgaged property consisted of 18: mango trees and one jaman tree. The mortgage bond purported to be attested by four witnesses including one Baldeo Prasad. The mortgagor, the mortgagee and the four attesting witnesses are all dead. On 26th April 1929, a suit was instituted by Puttu Lal and Banwari Lal, sons of the mortgagee and by one Rustam Kisan to whom the mango crops were sold for one year. They brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Farrukhabadi against Shib Dayal, the Zemindar, for a perpetual injunction restraining the latter from interferi...
Natha Lal and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All8
Sen, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for leave to appeal to His Majesty on Council from a decree of this Court in a second appeal which reversed the decrees of the Courts below and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The application purports to be under Sections 109(c) and 110, Civil P.C. The facts which have given rise to this application lie within a narrow compass and are these: --Ram Sahai, Jai Sukh Ram and Sita Ram were members of a joint Hindu family, which possessed considerable property. On 17th April 1873, Sita Ram separated. Jai Sukh Ram died in 1891 leaving a widow Mt. Jamna and three daughters Mt. Naraini, Mt. Ram Dei and Mt. Mullo. A dispute arose between Mt. Jamna and Ram Sahai, the former claiming that her husband was separate from Ram Sahai and the latter asserting that he died as a member of a joint family with him. The dispute was referred to arbitration and an award was given on 9th February 1892 under which the entire 20 biswas zamindari in mouza Jauharpur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »