Allahabad Court March 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.
Raghu Lal and ors. Vs. Babu Arjun Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All766
Banerji, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal under the following circumstances. Satnarain Lal and Dewan Lal, defendants 1 and 2, had executed a promissory note on 12th November 1925 in favour of the plaintiffs Arjun Singh and Sarwan Singh. A suit for recovery of the money due on the promissory note was instituted by Arjun Singh and Sarwan Singh against Satnarain Lal, Dewan Lal and five other members of the family who were brothers and nephews of the two executants of the promissory note. The Court of first instance passed a decree against all the defendants. Three of the defendants, namely, Satnarain, Dewan Lal and Jagdeo Lal, presented an appeal to the learned District Judge of Gorakhpur alleging that the appeal was on behalf of all the defendants, but the other defendants, four in number, were not made parties to the appeal. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal dismissed the appeal of Satnarain Lal and Dewan Lal and allowed the appeal of Jagdeo Lal. He was aske...
Ganga Prasad Vs. Mt. Hardei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All32
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the case briefly are these: In 1900 there was an auction sale of a certain property and it was purchased in the name of a lady, Mt. Gobindi. The property was subject to a usufructuary mortgage for the sum of Rs. 450, so that what was sold was the mortgagor's right in the property. The purchaser did not get possession because the possession was with the mortgagee, Mir Imdad All. The respondents' father Banwari Lal claims that the real purchaser was Hira Lal, his son. Gobindi was a sister to Hira Lai's wife and was living with Hira Lai. Gobindi's name continued in the village papers till 1911, about which time, it appears, Gobindi died. Hira Lai's son Suraj Prasad instituted a suit for possession on redemption of the property-and was successful in 1916, when hejpaid the sum of Rs. 450 and redeemed the property and took possession of it.2. After the death of Suraj Prasad his son Hanuman Prasad succeeded to his property. He however died shortly after and Mt. Jaik...
L. Parmeshwari Das Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All58a
Sen, J.1. The facts of the casa which have given rise to this appeal occupy a very narrow orbit and may be set out briefly. The name of L. Parmeshwari Das appears to have been recorded on the electoral roll of Ward No. 9 of the Municipal Board of Bareilly. L. Girdhari Lal, defendant 2, applied to the District Magistrate of Bareilly for removal of the name of Parmeshwari Das from the electoral roll upon the ground that he was an undischarged insolvent. He was evidently moved to do so under the authority contained in Section 14(3)(d), U.P. Municipalities Act (Act 2 of 1916). The learned District Magistrate removed the name of Parmeshwari Das from the roll by his order dated 30th November 1925. Hence this suit for a declaration that Parmeshwari Das was a qualified voter, that he was not an undischarged bankrupt and that his name was properly entered in the electoral roll of the Bareilly Municipality.2. The suit was resisted principally on the ground that the plaintiff was, as a matter of ...
Badam Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Kasturi Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All605
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the judgment debtor objectors arising out of a suit in the revenue Court for arrears of rent. Part of the amount of the decree had remained unpaid, and the Assistant Collector on 25th June 1928 ordered the ejectment of the objectors. On 6th August 1928 they applied for a review of the order, but the application was not based on the discovery of any new and important matter, but merely on the ground of hardship; and the application was also made not to the Assistant Collector who had previously ordered their ejectment but to his successor-in-office. This application was finally allowed and the previous order for ejectment was set aside. By the same order the new Assistant Collector directed that the applicants would pay interest for the period of the execution together with costs. The decree-holder filed an appeal before the District Judge who overruled the objection that no appeal lay to him and set aside the order of the new Assistant Collect...
Tulshi Prasad Vs. L. Dip Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All631
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. The appellant is the son and legal representative of one Ram Narain. It appears that Asaf Ali who owned certain properties, executed a deed of simple mortgage on 20th August 1918, hypothecating his property, in favour of the present respondents. Five other persons, including Ram Narain, joined as executants of that deed, though they had no interest in the mortgaged property and were in fact only sureties. The deed makes it clear that they are personally liable for the debt contracted by Asaf Ali. The respondents instituted a suit for sale of the mortgaged property under Order 34, Rule 4, Civil P..C., impleading all the executants or their representatives in interest, obtained preliminary and final decrees and had the mortgaged property sold. The sale proceeds proved to be insufficient for satisfaction of the mortgage money. They then applied, under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.O. for a personal decr...
Rameshwar Dayal and ors. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All40
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order of remand passed in a suit for profits brought by a cosharer against another cosharer under Section 227, Agra Tenancy Act. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. Every order passed by a Revenue Court is not necessarily a decree. A decree has been defined as meaning an order which so far as the Revenue Court is concerned, finally disposes of the-suit.2. Under the old Agra Tenancy Act, it had been consistently held by this Court that there was no provision for an appeal from a mere order as distinct from a decree. Section 240 of the new Act lays down that no appeal shall lie from any decree-or order passed by any Court under this Act except as provided in the Act. It follows that there is no absolute right of appeal, and such right cannot be claimed unless there is provision for it in the Act itself. The Scheme of the Act is to provide for an appeal from the original decrees and also for appeals from orders in...
Binda Prasad Vs. Raja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All43
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the case are a little complicated, and to appreciate the result they have to be correctly understood.2. Defendant 3, Nijabat Ali Khan, sold his property in village Chak Sakaria to defendant 4, Ahmad Khan, on 27th January 1920.3. Ahmad Khan had not got the entire purchase money to pay to Nijabat Ali Khan, and therefore he secured the balance of the purchase money, namely Rs. 710, by executing a simple mortgage of Ghak Sakaria in favour of Nijabat Ali Khan. Defendant 5, Parshotam Das, held a promissory note against Nijabat Ali Khan. Parshotam Das instituted a suit, No. 189 of 1920, against Nijabat Ali Khan for recovery of the money due on the promissory note, and he obtained an order of temporary injunction restraining Nijabat Ali Khan from recovering the sum of Rs. 710 secured by mortgage in his favour from Ahmad Khan. We are told that a temporary injunction was also issued against Ahmad Khan restraining him from making payment to Nijabat Ali Khan, but we are ...
Shankar Lal Vs. Damodar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All450
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows according to the decision of the lower Court: One Sarbu was the owner of the property in suit. He retired from the world having become a sanyasi, and thus died a civil death. This was about 35 years ago. His wife Mt. Gobindi took possession of the property and she died some 19 or 20 years previously to the institution of the suit. Sarbu's brother Makundi died in the lifetime of Gobindi. On the death of Gobindi Mt. Basanti the widow of Makundi took possession of the property in suit. In 1922 Mt. Basanti executed a registered will professing to give the property after her death to one Niadar. Subsequently she changed her mind and sold the property to Damodar Das on 6th January 1929. She died shortly after this sale deed, and one Debi Sahai professing to be the next reversioner to the estate of Makundi on the death of Mt. Basanti executed a deed of gift in favour of school described as Sanatan Dharam School under ...
Ram Ghulam Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All434
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a reference for quashing an order of commitment under Section 215,. Criminal P. C.2. The case started on a complaint of art offence under Section 363, I.P.C. The prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined. A charge was framed under Section 363. All the defence witnesses whom the accused wished to produce were also examined and cross-examined and the case was closed. When the case was put up for passing orders next day the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the evidence disclosed a prima facie case under Section 366, I.P.C. which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Acting under Section 347, Criminal P. C, the Magistrate framed a charge under Section 366, I. P. C and passed the commitment order which is the subject-matter of this reference.3. The accused made an application complaining that he had been deprived of his right of further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and his right of producing further defence witnesses to ...
K.S. Rashid Ahmad Vs. S.F. Rich
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All366
Pullan, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut asking this Court to set aside the order of discharge passed by a Magistrate of the Fist Class in the case of one Mr. S. F. Rich who had been charged with offences under Sections 409 and 420, I. P.C. This Mr. Rich claimed to be tried as a European British subject under the special-provisions of Ch. 33, Criminal P.C. After he had made that claim and after an order had been passed under Section 443, directing that he should be tried under those special provisions a charge was framed against him by the Magistrate. The powers of a Magistrate when an order has been passed under Section 443 of the Code are strictly limited by Section 446. In that section it is laid down that the Magistrate inquiring into, or trying, a case shall, if he does not discharge the accused under Section 209 or Section 253, as the case may be, commit the case for trial to the Court of Session. This section appears to me to take away from t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »