Allahabad Court April 1931 Judgments
Bhola Nath Vs. Chunni Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All41
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a civil revision from an order of the District Judge passed on appeal in an insolvency matter. It was filed originally as a second appeal, but its style was later on altered. It is quite clear that not being a matter within Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, the case is not in the nature of a second appeal but more like a revision in a Small Cause Court case where the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order passed on appeal was according to law may call for the case and pass such order as it thinks fit Section 75, Sub-section (1), Prov. 1.2. A receiver has bean appointed by the insolvency Court of the assets of the insolvent. The question which arose in the Courts below was whether he can in any way deal with these exproprietary holdings or be authorized to attach the standing crops or realize past and future rents. The form of the order passed by the first Court was modified by the lower appellate Court.3. There is no doubt that u...
Tag this Judgment!David, E.V. Vs. the Judge, Small Cause Court
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All723
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a civil revision from an order made by the Court of Small Causes calling upon the Official Receiver to refund certain amounts which he had taken in the course of realising the assets of an insolvent. The insolvent's property was heavily mortgaged and the amount due to a mortgagee was Rs. 32.349. Under an arrangement with the mortgagee the receiver obtained his consent to sell the property free from the incumbrance and to pay him the mortgage money. The property fetched Rs. 33,000 free of the incumbrance. The receiver charged his commission at the rate of 5 per cent on the whole amount of the sale proceeds, namely, Rs. 33,000 and also charged expenses of administration in the form of salaries said to have been paid to the ministerial and clerical staff appointed by him. The mortgagee received Rupees 31,320, that is to say, the balance after 5 per cent on the gross amount as commission had been deducted from the sale proceeds together with an extra sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Har Dei Vs. Sri Kishun and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All60
Boys, J.1. This is a second appeal arising only out of the question of the proper application of Section 34, Evidence Act. The facts are simple. The plaintiff sued the defendant on a balance of account for three years and claimed a sum of Rs. 1,158-2-0. Certain other issues arise which we need not mention except one which deals with the question of whether the plaintiff was the owner of the firm or not, and had the right to sue. The plaintiff supported her case by the production of bahis and by the evidence of her munib. The trial Court dealt with the question of whether the accounts had been proved, as follows:The plaintiff's witness Munib has come into the witness-box and has said that Rs. 1,089 is inserted in the bahi khata which is the balance drawn against the defendant; and then he has said that Rs. 30 is of interest and Rs 1-4-0 is of registration and notice expenses; thus the whole amount comes to Rs. 1,120-11-0. This is the whole evidence of the plaintiff about the amount. The...
Tag this Judgment!Bunni Pandy Vs. Brahmdeo Pandy and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All735
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff arising out of a suit brought in the Munsif's Court for maintenance of joint possession over a one-third share in certain fixed rate tenancies and for a declaration of the plaintiff's right. In the plaint it was admitted that the defendants wore tenants of the plots, but it was said that they were claiming exclusive title and denying the plaintiff's rights. It was alleged that the cause of action for the suit accrued in 1925, when the defendants denied the plaintiff's title and also in February 1926, when the revenue Court declined to correct the jamabandi. It appears that on a previous occasion the plaintiff's application in the revenue Court for correction of jamabandi was disallowed, the Court being of opinion that the dispute was as to title to property which should properly be litigated in a civil Court. The suit was filed on 19th February 1929 long after the now Tenancy Act had come into force. The defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Shankar Vs. B.B. and C.i. Ry. Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All740; 136Ind.Cas.380
Mukerji, J.1. This is a second appeal by one who was the plaintiff in the Court; below. By this suit the plaintiff claimed against the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Company a sum of Rupees 1,300 as damages. The Court of first instance allowed a sum of Rs. 1,200 as damages, but on appeal by the railway company the learned Subordinate Judge who beard the appeal dismissed the suit altogether.2. The allegation in which the suit was founded and the facts which have been found established by the lower appellate Court are these. There was a fair at Bithur in the District of Cawnpore. The plaintiff was coming from the fair and was going towards Cawnpore. At a short distance from the Bithur Railway Station the plaintiff had to cross the railway line. There was a pair of gates which was open and permitted the plaintiff to cross the railway line. As the plaintiff arrived on the rails, travelling at a moderate speed of about 7 miles an hour, a railway engine coming from the direction of...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Lal Vs. Abdul Salam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All754
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand made under the following circumstances:The respondent, Abdul Salam, executed a mortgage in favour of three persons, Hari Chand and others, and thereby hypothecated a third share in two shops and other properties on foot of a mortgage bond, dated 18th November 1920. He acquired the remaining two-thirds share in the two shops which we have mentioned, and, later, on 26th July 1924, he sold the two shops to the appellant Bhiam Lal, for a sum of Rs. 6,250. Abdul Salam left with the vendee out of the purchase money a sum of Rs. 3,107-2-0 to be paid to Hari Chand and others in, order that the mortgage of 1920 might be cleared off. Owing to certain circumstances, which we need not mention and which will be duly enquired into by the Court of first instance, Shiam Lal made no payment to the mortgagees. The mortgagees brought a suit for sale and' obtained a decree on 3rd January 1929. This mortgage decree was partly based on a compromise....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Vs. Shiva Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All55
Mukerji, J.1. This is a very unfortunate case and the misfortune to the parties has arisen mainly because everybody concerned, namely the Court, the decree-holders and the judgment-debtor, has neglected the proceedings.2. A decree for sale on foot of a mortgage dated 9th May 1919 was made in favour of the respondents on 20th May 1928. A decree was made for the sum of something less than Rs. 3,400 against the present appellant, which sum is said to be now due.3. The decree-holders took out an execution of the decree, but proceeded in a very slovenly manner. They made their application on 7th December 1928, but without any verified statement and without any certificate of encumbrance granted by the sub-registrar. Although the important documents mentioned above had not been filed by the decree-holders, the Court ordered a notice to issue to the judgment debtor, in order to settle the terms of the auction notification, under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C. and fixed 15th January 1929 for th...
Tag this Judgment!Mul Chand Vs. Thakur Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All61
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of a moiety share of a house in the city of Aligarh. Plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of one Basheshar Lal. He claims to have been adopted by his widow Mt. Rupanian. The action is directed against Thakur Das who is the brother of Basheshar Lal. The parties are Jains. The family of Basheshar Lal and Thakur Das was admittedly joint.2. The adoption is alleged to have taken place in 1906, The defendant denied the adoption and impugned it upon the ground that the adoptive mother had obtained no authority from her husband or from his male agnates to adopt and also contended that the suit was barred by 12 years' limitation. These pleas ware repelled by the trial Court which gave the plaintiff a decree. The lower, appellate Court has accepted the finding of the trial Court in support of the factual of adoption. It has however reversed the decision of the trial Court upon two gro...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. H.L. Hutchinson
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All356
Mukerji, J.1. These are two applications made by two of the accused per-sons in what is known as the Meerut. Conspiracy Case in which a large number of persons has been charged with the commission of an offence under Section 121-A, I. P.C. namely a conspiracy to deprive the King-Emperor of His sovereignty of British India. The maximum sentence laid down in the section is transportation for life.2. The two applicants were allowed to appear in person to argue their applications as they were not represented by counsel in the Court below or in this Court. In issuing the orders for the appearance of the applicants we took care to say that the permission to appear was not to be treated as a precedent for all accused persons in all oases.3. A short history of the proceedings in Court against the applicants is as follows.4. The applicant Mr. Nimbkar and several others were arrested on 20th March 1929 and have since been in custody as under-trial prisoner's. The applicant Mr. Hutchinson was arr...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Balak Singh Vs. Mahabir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All704
Smith, J.1. This is a revision from an order refusing to entertain an application for review of judgment. The application was based on the ground that the lower Appellate Court had taken a wrong view of the facts. A second appeal had been prepared against the order of the lower appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11 before the application for review had been disposed of. The Subordinate Judge of Fatehpur, who in the end dealt with it has held that inasmuch as the order of the lower appellate Court had been affirmed on appeal by the High Court he could not entertain the application for review. In our opinion, the view taken by the Court below is perfectly correct. Once a decree was affirmed by the High Court it merged into the decree of the High Court, and it was no longer open to the lower appellate Court to vary that decree. We may refer to the cases of Ram Prasad Upadhya v. Nageshar Pande [1920] 54 I.C. 764 and Shivappa v. Ram Chandra A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 13...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »