Allahabad Court June 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.
Ram Raj Pandey Vs. Har Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All249
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The plaintiff had acquired some property and became a cosharer by virtue of a sale deed within 12 months of the sale deed in question. Before the suit was filed there was a compromise decree under which his rights as a cosharer were finally confirmed. The claim was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff's suit as cosharer at the time of the sale deed was not determined and his title was inchoate and that therefore he was not entitled to maintain the suit. The argument is that the plaintiff must establish that from the time of the sale deed till the time of the passing of the decree he all along had an indefeasible interest as a cosharer.2. It seems to us that it is not for the Court to start any such inquiry. If the plaintiff had been given a chance he might well have shown that the other interested cosharers had acquiesced in the sale and they had been estopped from claiming pre-emption. In addi...
P.K. Banerji, Official Liquidator Vs. Mangal Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All243; 137Ind.Cas.235
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Receiver from an order of the insolvency Court refusing to set aside a sale dated 4th October 1926. It has now been finally settled by the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Privy Council, in the case of the Official Receiver v. P.L.K.M.E.M. Chettiar Firm (1) that the burden of proof is upon the receiver to show that the transfer sought to be impugned had not been made in good faith and for full consideration. In the present case the sale deed was ostensibly for Rs. 1,500 out of which Rs. 500 were set forth against an amount due on a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the vendee's son, Rs. 500 were to be paid to one Shahzade Lai said to be due on a promissory note dated 5th September 1926, Rs. 450 wore to be paid to Kishore Lai on a promissory note dated 2nd May 1926 and Rs. 50 were paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar. The vendee led evidence to prove the due execution of the mortgage deed and the promissory notes, and the a...
Mt. Saiful Bibi Vs. Abdul Aziz Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All596
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The vendor was the husband and transferred the property in question to his wife, the vendee, under a document dated 16th July 1927 which was styled as a sale deed. The document recited that the amount of her dower debt was Rs. 5,000 and no part of it had been paid, and that the transfer was made in lieu of Rs. 2,500 out of that amount. One of the pleas in defence was that the suit for pre-emption did not lie because the transaction was a hiba bil ewaz and not a sale at all. This contention was accepted by the first Court and the suit was dismissed. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the transaction was one of sale and was pre-emptible. The learned advocate for the defendant has drawn our attention to two cases of the Oudh Chief Court where it seems to have been held that a transfer of property by a husband to his wife in satisfaction of her dower debt was hiba-bil-ewaz and not at...
Bhim Shah and anr. Vs. Ude Ram Shah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All133
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for preemption in Kumaun. It is not suggested that by any notification the Local Government has extended the provisions of the Agra Pre-emption Act to the scheduled districts in Kumaun. The Pre-emption Act accordingly does not apply.2. The case depends on the custom prevailing in Kumaun. Mr. Stowell in the Manual of Land Tenures of the Kumaun Division at p. 46 has stated the custom in the following words:A relative of the vendor within the third degree has a right of pre-emption against any purchaser who is an unrelated or a mere distantly related cosharer.3. It is obvious that that record does not give preference to relatives within the third degree inter se; a relative within the third degree has a right against a purchaser who is either unrelated to the vendor or is related more distantly than the third degree. It does not mean that if both the plaintiff and the vendee are within the third degree the plaintiff w...
Mahabir Singh Vs. NaraIn Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All490
ORDER1. A simple mortgage had been executed in 1907 by one Sheo Nath in favour of Mahabir Singh. Sheo Nath died and was succeeded by his son Chandi. Before his death Sheo Nath had sold a part of the mortgaged property to Shri Bhagwat.2. In 1915 Mahabir Singh sued on his mortgage against Chandi and Shri Bhagwat and obtained a preliminary decree for sale on 22nd December 1920 against both.3. Shri Bhagwat died after the passing of the preliminary decree. Then Mahabir Singh applied for the preparation of the final decree but omitted to implead the legal representatives of Shri Bhagwat. The Court actually declared that the application had abated as far as the property held by Sri Bhagwat deceased was concerned. A final decree was passed against Chandi alone. The name of Shri Bhagwat was of course not shown as a judgment-debtor in the decree but the whole mortgaged property was included in it.4. When Mahabir Singh put his decree into execution the sons of Shri Bhagwat filed an objection in t...
Nand Gopal Das and anr. Vs. Batuk Prasad Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All78
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the case are briefly these : There were two houses, one to the north of the other with a blind lane running between the two. Both the houses belonged to the plaintiff-respondent, Batuk Prasad Gupta. The house to the north is still in possession of the plaintiff, but the house to the south was sold by him to one Fatch Chand by a sale deed dated 13th January 1920. It was agreed, among other matters, between the vendor and the vendee that, if and when, Batuk Prasad wanted the vendes to remove the chatta which had been constructed on the lane between the two houses and which opened into the defendant's house, it would be removed by the defendant at his own cost.2. After the sale, Fiteh Chand was declared insolvent and his property was sold by the receiver in insolvency and the house of Fatch Chand was purchased by the defendants who are the appellants before us. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for compelling the def...
Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All442; 140Ind.Cas.578
Young, J.1. Abdul Aziz, Chand Khan, Ghafur Khan, Yusuf, Wahid, Tahsin, Mustafa Khan and Shibdad Khan were charged before the Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr, the first six under Section 302, I.P.C. and the last two under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. The first six accused were found guilty of murder, and condemned to death by the learned Sessions Judge. The last two, Mustafa Khan and Shibdad Khan, were acquitted. Those condemned to death have appealed to this Court. They have been represented here by Mr. O'Neill; he has addressed to us an able argument and has said everything for his clients which could possibly be said.2. On the morning of 9th September 1930 between the hours of 9 and 10, Mahmud Ali Khan, a man aged 60 years, was assaulted, severely beaten, and subsequently died. The case for the prosecution is that in the month of May 1900 a dacoity had taken place in a village called Mirpur. On 6th September Raza Ahmad, a police officer, was making investigation in the nei...
(Sahu) Nand Kishore Vs. L. Dhanpat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All49
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal from an order passed by the execution Court allowing certain objections of the judgment-debtors. Under a mortgage of 1904 in favour of Bansidhar Kuar Sen and Jagannath 5 biswas shara in village Nawada had been sold in execution and purchased by Shadi Ram. Under another mortgage of the same date in favour of Cheddan Lal and others, another 5 biswas share was sold in execution of the mortgagees' decree and purchased by Shadi Ram. Under the third and fourth mortgages of the same date in favour of Brijbasi Lal 20 biswas of Nawada were again sold at auction and purchased by Kure Mal This sale was subsequent to the two previous sales. Kure Mal sold 10 biswas to Shadi Earn, and after some years sold whatever rights he had left in the remaining 10 biswas to the sons of Shadi Ram.2. Nand Kishore held a mortgage of 1910 on which he sued impleading Bansi Dhar and others, Chhedan Lal and others, Shadi Ram and others, but not impleading Brijbasi...
Municipal Board Vs. Kandhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All499
ORDER1. The question raised by Dr. Katju in this second appeal is that there was evidence in the case to prove that in respect of the sale of a house in Benares the Municipal Board could claim haq-i-chaharum as it was alleged that there was a custom in shahr khass where the house is situated that the landlord is entitled to claim one-fourth of the sale price, and that in second appeal this Court is entitled to examine the evidence to see whether he has proved the alleged custom. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that where a Court has found on the evidence before it that the alleged custom is not proved, that finding is a finding of fact which is binding on us in second appeal.2. In support of his contention Mr. Iqbal Ahmad has referred us to the case of Shakira Bibi v. Nandan Boy A.I.R. 1922 All. 241, and the decision of this Court in Munshi v. Sahu Kedar Nath L.P. A. No. 2 of 1928.3. Dr. Katju has, in support of his contention that the finding of the lea...
Anant Ram Vs. Sital DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All261
1. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for demolition of the constructions on a certain plot. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and on the plaintiff appealing to the District Judge an order was passed remanding the suit for retrial provided that within one month the plaintiff filed certain paper 'and in case that is not done,' the order concludes:the remand order shall not take effect and the appeal shall stand dismissed automatically.2. The papers were not filed within the time given, and the plaintiff made an application for an extension of time. The Judge refused, saying that he had neither the power nor the wish to extend time, but held that the language of the order passed on appeal by himself was peremptory and left him no choice. He therefore dismissed the application adding:The appeal stands dismissed automatically requiring no further order of the appellate Court.3. An appeal has been preferred against this order, and a preliminary objection is raised on behalf of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »