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.
Kallu Mal Vs. Ch. Bikramajit Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All13
1. On- 20th January 1930, an ex parte decree was passed in favour of Kallu Mai by a Court of Small Causes for a sum of Rs. 792-2-3 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The decree also allowed Re. 108-8-0 as costs to the plaintiff. On 4th November, 1930, the defendant applied to set aside the ex parte decree under Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. His application was accompanied by a deposit and the deposit amounted to a sum of Rs. 934-2-3. The Court below considered that the conditions of Section 17, Provincial Small. Cause Courts Act, were fulfilled and it accordingly set aside the ex parte decree. It has been contended that the amount deposited in the Court of. Small Causes fell short by a small amount and the Court had therefore no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte decree. Our attention has been drawn to a ruling of this Court in Bisesar Ram Dassi Ram v. Har Kishan Pahlad Rai A.I.R 1925 All 412 in which it has been held by a learned Judge of ...
Padarath Tewari Vs. DulhIn Tapesha Kueri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All524; 136Ind.Cas.367
1. This is an appeal from a most startling order for the arrest and detention in the civil prison of the defendants. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from the order. In our opinion this objection has no force whatsoever. Under Section 104(h), Civil P.C., an appeal is expressly provided from an order directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person otherwise than in execution of a decree. Even if there had been no provision for an appeal, we would have felt compelled to interfere in revision because there has been a gross travesty of justice in this case. Even a cursory reference to the order-sheet would show that for some reason not easily intelligible the Subordinate Judge proceeded in a very highhanded manner which would in no way do credit to any judicial officer of experience. The most astonishing thing is that the Subordinate Judge himself was fully conscious that there were no express provisions in the Civil Procedure Code which justified th...
Chockey Lal and anr. Vs. Pt. Sri Kishen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All269
Sen, J.1. On 16th April 1931 Lala Chokhey Lai and Lala Murli Dhar instituted a suit for recovery of Es. 23,254-2-0 on foot of two promissory notes, dated 10th January 1929 and 10th March 1930 executed by Sri Kishan and Bhan Deo in their favour. On the same day they made an application which purported to be under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P.C. The learned Subordinate Judge passed the following order on the application:The defendant will be ordered to appear and furnish security for Rs. 23,000 or show cause why it should not be furnished. The property in the list will be conditionally attached pending such showing of cause.2. It appears that the application of the plaintiffs was accompanied by a list of property possessed by the defendants. In answer to the notice issued to the defendants the latter appeared in Court and showed cause. The Court held that it was not established that the defendants had done anything which came within the purview of Order 33, Rule 5, Civil P.C., and the resul...
Lala Chokhey Lal and anr. Vs. Pandit Sri Kishen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1931
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.95
1. On the 16th of April, 1931, Lala Chokhey Lal and Lala Murli Dhar instituted a suit for recovery of Re. 23,254-2-0 on foot of two promissory notes, dated the 10th of January, 1929, and the 10th of March, 1830, executed by Sri Kishan and Bhan Deo in their favour, On the same day they made an application which purported to be under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge passed the following order on the application:The defendant will be ordered to appear and furnish, security for Rs. 23,000 or show cause why it should not be furnished. The property in the list will be conditionally attached pending such showing of cause.2. It appears that the application of the plaintiffs was accompanied by a list of property possessed by the defendants. In answer to the notice issued to the defendants the latter appeared in court and showed cause. The court held that it was not established that the defendants had done anything which came within the purview ...
Mohammad Ismail Vs. Liyaqat Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All316; 140Ind.Cas.191
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Agra declaring that a sum of Rs. 160 was payable by the applicant as deficiency of court-fee and directing that the same be recovered by attachment of his property.2. It appears that the applicant was the plaintiff in a suit in which he claimed a. declaration that a certain decree, obtained by the defendant, was void and ineffectual against him, the same having been obtained by the exercise of fraud. No consequential relief was claimed. The suit was dismissed by the first Court. An appeal was also dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Some time during the pendency of the litigation, the Chief Inspector of Stamps reported that the plaintiff was liable to pay Ks. 160, the ad valorem court-fee on the consequential relief which he ought to have claimed. No action appears to have been taken on this report before the appeal was decided by the learned Sub-Judge. Somehow the matter was bro...
Ram NaraIn Sahu Vs. Mt. Makhna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All14
ORDER1. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned advocate for the opposite party that no revision lies, having regard to the provisions of Section 253, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926). The facts which bear on the arguments addressed to me on the preliminary objection are briefly as follows:2. Mt. Makhna, the opposite party, instituted a suit for profits in the revenue Court against the defendant applicant in respect of a certain zamindari share. Her proprietary right to that share was denied by the defendant. Acting under Section 271, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926), the revenue Court made a reference to the civil court for a finding on the issue thus raised on the question of proprietary right. The defendant applicant had, in the meantime, instituted in the civil court, a declaratory suit in which the same question was raised. The civil court decided the common issue raised before the revenue Court and before itself in a consolidated proceeding which resulted in the dismissal o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›