Allahabad Court January 1932 Judgments
Pandit Sridat Vs. Mohar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All403
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision by the judgment-debtor arising out of a proceeding relating to the sale of his property. Shiam Lal had a money decree against Shri Datt, in execution of which the zamindari property of the judgment-debtor was attached. The Court, acting under Ch, 4, Rule 11(2) of the General Rules (Civil), appointed the Collector as the sale officer to conduct the sale. The sale proclamation stated that the amount of the decree was Rs. 3,300, the encumbrances on the property attached amounted to Rs. 2,000 and the estimated value of the property was Rs. 2,500. The property was put up to auction and several bids were made including a bid by the decree-holder himself up to Rs. 2,300 which was followed by a bid made by the respondent auction-purchaser for Rs. 2,400, The property was knocked down to him. When asked to deposit 1/4th of the sale price, the auction-purchaser expressed his astonishment and told the sale officer that ha had thought that the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Das and anr. Vs. Afzal HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All553
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and is directed against the appellate decision of Mr. J.C. Malik, dated 20th March 1929, confirming the decision of the Munsif, Mr. Kishori Lai, dated 19th June 1928. Chaudhri Afzal Husain owned zamindari shares in three villages, namely, Pindri, Moiya and Karmun. He sold these shares to Thakur Prasad and Baij Nath under a sale deed dated 14th August 1919 for Rs. 1,472. The sale deed contained the usual indemnity clause, which provided that if the vendees lost possession over the property sold in whole or in part the vendor would be liable to make good the loss together with interest at 1 per cent, per annum. Baij Nath sold his share to Gobardhan Das, plaintiff 1. Gobardhan Das was brother of Thakur Prasad. Thakur Prasad is dead. Bhagwat Das, plaintiff 2, is his son.2. Ghaudhari Afzal Husain had purchased the shares in Pindari and Moiya from Ikram Husain and Ghazanfar Husain under a sale deed dated 25th February 1919. On the datp of the exe...
Tag this Judgment!Bandhan Singh Vs. Mt. Daulata Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All152
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from committing certain acts of waste. Baijnath was the last male holder of this property. He died before the year 1924 leaving a mother of the name of Mt. Daulatakuar. The plaintiff in this claims to be a reversioner of this property as being a distant collateral of Baijnath. The suit was resisted by Mt. Daulata and her transferee upon the ground that the plaintiff was not the next presumptive reversioner of Baijnath. The defendants contend that the nearer heirs were Mt. Satraji, Mt. Sabraji, and Mt. Chabraji who were sisters of Baijnath and also three sisters' sons. Prior to the passing of the Act 2 of 1929, under the Hindu law as administered in these provinces, sisters were no heirs at all. Sisters' sons were heirs but they were not entitled to inherit the property till all the collaterals of the last male holder were exhausted. The effect of Act 2 of 1929 was to grant...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Anandi Devi Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All444
Young, J.1. This is a first appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri. The plaintiff brought an action for possession of a 20 biswas zamindari share in Mahal Mohan Lal, Mauza Birsinghpur, Pargana Kuraoli.2. The plaintiff's case was that her father, Mohan Lal, had by a deed of gift, dated 7th June 1919, given this property to his wife, Mt. Kapuri, that in 1921 Mt. Kapuri died, and she (the plaintiff) and her sister then became the heirs to their mother's stridhan; that in 1924, by two sale deeds, dated 19th January and 14th April, Mohan Lal, her father, having repented of the gift to his wife and in fraud of his own daughters, sold the property to the other defendants in the case. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession.3. The defendants admitted the gift, but said that the gift was fictitious and was never acted upon, that Mt. Kapuri had never accepted the gift and that it was therefore void. The learned Judge has found that the gift was a real gift intende...
Tag this Judgment!(Bohra) Reoti Prasad Vs. Kunji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All90
Boys, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application from a decree by a Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff sued on a bond for Rupees 700. The defendant admitted the claim, but put forward pleas ad miseri cordiam that he was an old man and could not possibly afford to discharge the decree which amounted to Rs. 884 as a whole, and he asked for the decree to be paid by instalments. The Court briefly recorded its view that he should pay in six monthly (half yearly) instalments of Rs. 60 each, on default the whole to be due, and similarly the whole was to be due if any attempt was made by the defendant to alienate his property. No future interest was allowed. The result of this decree is that it would take the plaintiff more than seven years to recover the amount now due to him, and he would also have no future interest. It is manifest that the amount of that instalments and the period for their) payment is a matter of the discretion of the Court; but it is a discretion which is to be exercised w...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Anandi Devi Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.756
1. This is a first appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri. The plaintiff brought an action for possession of a 20 biswas zamindari share in Mahal Mohan Lal, Mouza Birsinghpur, pargana Kuraoli. The plaintiff's case was that her father, Mohan Lal, had by a deed of gift, dated the 7th June, 1919, given this property to his wife, Musammat Kapuri; that in 1921 Musammat Kapuri died and she (the plaintiff) and her sister then became the heirs to their mother's stridhan, that in 1924, by two sale-deeds, dated the 19th January and the 14th April, Mohan Lal, her father, having repented of the gift to his wife, and in fraud of his own daughters, sold the property to the other defendants in the case. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession.2. The defendants admitted the gift, but said that the gift was fictitious and was never acted upon, that Musammat Kapuri had never accepted the gift and that it was, therefore, void.3. The learned Judge has found that the gift wa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Incorporation of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All291
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a reference from the Board of Revenue under the Stamp Act. The instrument in question is an agreement dated 26th January 1921 between Messrs. Horsman who were the proprietors of a private firm carrying on business under the name of Swadeshi Cotton Mills called 'the vendors' of the one part and the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. called the company' of the other part. The vendors agreed to sell all their business undertakings and assets us from 1st January 1920, including goodwill, freehold hereditaments, plants, machinery, etcetera contracts, outstanding debts and other goods, with the exception of profits for a short period which had to be assessed on a certain basis and some furniture. The nominal capital of the company was Rs. 30,00,000 which was divided into 15,000 preference shares and 15,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each. Part of the consideration consisted of the allotment of all the shares with the exception of 33 ordinary shares, the consideration for t...
Tag this Judgment!Harnam Chandar Vs. Rup Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All382
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by defendant 1 who is a creditor who holds a decree against defendant 4, one Shib Singh. The plaintiffs in the suit were four sons of Shib Singh and they sued for and obtained a declaration that certain property was not saleable or attachable under certain decrees one of which was the decree of the appellant against Shib Singh. The decree of the Court of first instance was made on 15th September 1928, and prior to that date on 24th August 1928, Shib Singh was adjudged an insolvent. The appellant has named Shib Singh as one of the respondents, and he has not made the Official Receiver a party. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of certain respondents, firstly to the effect that the appellant had not had the permission to bring this appeal and secondly, that the Official Receiver should be made a party as representing the estate of Shib Singh. In regard to the first objection learned Counsel for respondents argues that Section 28(2), Provincial...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: a Reference Under Section 57(1)(B) of Stamp Act.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1932
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.337
1. This is a reference from the Board of Revenue under the Stamp Act. The instrument in question is an agreement dated the 26th of January, 1921, between Messrs. Horsman who were the proprietors of a private firm carrying on business under the name of Swadeshi Cotton Mills called 'the vendors' of the one part and the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., called 'the company' of the other p Article The vendors agreed to sell all their business under takings and assets as from the 1st of January, 1920, including good will, free-hold hereditaments, plants machinery etc, contracts, outstanding debts and other goods, with the exception of profits for a short period which had to be assessed on a certain basis and some furniture. The nominal capital of the company was Rs. 30,00,000, which was divided into 15,000 preference shares and 15,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each. Part of the consideration consisted of the allotment of all the shares with the exception of 33 ordinary shares, the considerat...
Tag this Judgment!Bhajja Vs. Mohammad Said Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All543
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order rejecting an application to sue in forma pauperis. The plaint has been drawn up in a most in artistic way, and it is open to many serious objections. The learned Subordinate Judge however has not rejected the plaint on the ground that the facts mentioned therein do not show that any right of the plaintiff has been infringed for which there is a remedy in law, but has rejected it on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. On the question of the applicant's pauperism the finding is in his favour. The learned advocate for the applicant contends before us that it was not open to the Court below to inquire into the question whether the claim, as put forward in the plaint, was or was not barred by the law of limitation. The Court below has proceeded under Order 33, Rule 5, which makes it obligatory on the Court to reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper where inter alia the allegations of the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »