Allahabad Court January 1932 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.
Mt. Hankar Kunwari Vs. B. Ishwar Dayal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All469
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of shares in villages Pakri and Tengri transferred under a sale deed dated 12th February 1927 by the plaintiff's sister. The plaintiff alleged that under a deed of gift from her mother, Mt. Sunraj Kunwari, she was the sole owner of the property, and her sister had no interest in the major part of the property; as regards the rest she admitted her title. She claimed pre-emption of the property admittedly belonging to her sister, and also of the rest of the property, in the alternative, if her own title was not established. She offered to pay the amount to the Court which was found to be the true consideration. The claim was resisted on various grounds, but not on the ground that the fact that the plaintiff had asked for pre-emption in the alternative was fatal. The learned Munsif decreed the claim for pre-emption on payment of Rs. 230 in cash, and subject to the charge of a mortgage deed dated 9th Septembe...
Raghunath Das Vs. Ganesh Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All603
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration of his right as mahanth of the Kabirpanthi Math, situate in muhalla Ghasi Katra, city Gorakhpur, in succession to the preceding mahanth Malhu Das. Ganesh Das, defendant 1, is a rival claimant to the gaddi while the other defendants were transferees of certain properties alleged to belong to the math but wrongfully transferred by Mahanth Malhu Das.2. The plaintiff appellant, who claims to be the disciple of Khelawan Das, a disciple of Malhu Das and who is described in the proceedings as grand chela of Malhu Das, has been engaged in litigation for about 15 years. He had instituted with the permission of the District Judge, Gorakhpur, a suit under the Religious and Charitable Endowment Act against Mahanth Malhu Das (1) for removal of Malhu Das from the office of mahanth, (2) for certain alienations made by him in favour of the present defendants 2 to 6 being declared invalid, and (3...
M. Amir Hasan Khan Vs. H. Mohammad Nazir Hasan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All345
Niamatullah, J.1. This second appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of possession of a 6 anna share in village Bahrampur, District Fatehpur. The Subordinate Judge, in whose Court the suit had been instituted, dismissed it; but on appeal by the plaintiff it was decreed by the District Judge.2. Village Bahrampur above mentioned belonged to Saghir Hasan, husband of Kulsum Bibi, defendant 2, and Munshi Amir Hasan Khan, a vakil practising in Fatehpur in equal shares. The two do not appear to belong to the same family, and the fact that they were cosharers may be due to circumstances which are not material for the purposes of this case. Saghir Husain died in or about 1920, leaving his brother Nazir Husain, plaintiff-respondent, and Mb. Kulsum Bibi, defendant 2, as his heirs, the latter being entitled to one-fourth of Saghir Husain's property, and the former to the remaining three-fourths. The widow however entered into possession of the entire 8 ann...
Zia UddIn Ahmad Khan and anr. Vs. Akbar Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All358
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 3,580-10-0 as compensation for breach of a covenant container in a mortgage deed executed by the defendants-appellants in his favour. Both the Courts have decreed the suit. The facts are that the defendants executed, on 10th March 1928, a deed of simple mortgage for Rs. 1,600 in favour of the plaintiff, hypothecating a house situate in Firozabad, District Agra. The plaintiff brought Suit No. 10 of 1925 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Agra, for recovery of principal and interest due under the aforesaid deed by sale of the mortgaged property. A decree for sale under Order 34, Rule 4, Civil P.C., was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Ismail Khan, the first cousin of the defendants, objected, in execution proceedings, to him the house being sold on the allegation that it belonged to him and not to the mortgagors, the defendants. His objection was di...
Babu Lal Vs. Ragunandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All475
Niamatullah, J.1. One application in revision, one second appeal and one appeal from the order of a Munsif, which is connected with the said application for revision and second appeal have come before us in the following circumstances. In the year 1924 Raghunandan obtained a decree against Babu Lal on a mortgage which had been executed in the year 1913. On 2nd July 1925 he obtained a final decree, but he never brought the property to sale because one Datti Lal brought a suit for a declaration that the mortgaged property belonged to him (Datti Lal)and not to the mortgagor Babu Lal, and this suit was decreed in favour of Datti Lal on 13th February 1926, On 30th August 1927 Raghunandan applied for a decree Rule 6, Order 34, Civil P.C., and obtained a decree ex parte on 22nd October 1927. Babu Lal applied for setting aside the ex parte decree and at first his application was dismissed on a technical ground. The decision of the Munsif dismissing the application was upheld in appeal by the D...
In Re: B. Bhagwati Prasad Rais
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All390
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, made in pursuance of an order of this Court, dated 19th June 1931.2. It appears that an assessment under Section 23, Clause (4), Income-tax Act, 1922, was made against the assessee, one Babu Bhagwati Prasad of Gorakhpur. He filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and one of his contentions was that the Income-tax Officer was not in the circumstances justified in treating the case as one falling under Section 23, Sub-section (4).3. The Assistant Income-tax Commissioner scrutinized the memorandum of appeal and the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, but he did so behind the back of the assessee or his counsel. He came to the conclusion that the order under Section 23(4) had been rightly made, in the circumstances of the case. He refused to admit the appeal and directed that the appellant, the assessee, should be informed of the fact. The assessee went before the Commissioner of Income-tax, and ...
Babu Lal Vs. Raghunandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.372
1. One application in revision, one second appeal and one appeal from the order of a Munsif which is connected with the said application for revision and second appeal have come before us in the following circumstances. In the year 1924, Raghunandan obtained a decree against Babu Lal on a mortgage which had been executed in the year 1913. On the 2nd of July, 1925, he obtained a final decree, but he never brought the property to sale because one Datti Lal brought a suit for a declaration that the mortgaged property belonged to him (Datti Lal) and not to the mortgagor Babu Lal, and this suit was decreed in favour of Datti Lal on 13th February, 1926. On the 30th of August, 1927, Raghunandan applied for a decree under Rule 6 of Order XXXIV, of the Civil Procedure Code and obtained a decree ex parte on 22nd October, 1927. Babu Lal applied for setting aside the ex parte decree and at first his application was dismissed on a technical ground. The decision of the Munsif dismissing the applicat...
Kr. Bhagwant Singh Vs. Bhao Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All337
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Budaun in proceedings taken by the present applicant for amendment of a decree passed by him, which decree was subsequently appealed from and affirmed by this Court.2. The applicant was the plaintiff in the suit originally instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun. It was decreed ex parte. An application for an order to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by that Court; but on appeal to this Court it was successful. The suit was however remanded not to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, but to that of the District Judge for trial on the merits. It was eventually dismissed by the District Judge with costs. Included in the memo of costs appended to the-decree prepared by the District Judge were two sums taxed as costs properly incurred by the defendants : one was a sum of Rs. 735, paid to Babu Sheo Narain Jafa, senior vakil, and the other a sum...
Munna Lall and Sons Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All550; 137Ind.Cas.208
Sen, J.1. Hathi Ramani, who is a shopkeeper, borrowed certain sums of money from firm Munna Lal and Sons on 3rd November 1928 and made a simple mortgage of the goods of his shop by way of security for the loan. He sued for the money due and gave in evidence and placed reliance upon the fact that he had advanced money on the security of goods in the shop of the defendant. The plaint was not well drafted and the operative portion of the decree could have been more clearly expressed. The intention however of the decree was to give the plaintiff recourse to the goods. The sole question which arises in this appeal is as to whether by reason of the terms of the decree the plaintiff firm can be considered as a secured creditor. The concluding portion of the order of the learned Munsif runs thus:The plaintiff's claim for Rs. 1,757-12-0 be decreed with costs and usual pendente lite and future interest. Defendant shall pay Rs. 45 at the end of each month till the whole is paid and in case of def...
B. Brij Gopal Vs. B. Suraj Karan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All560
Mukerji, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal and is directed against an order rejecting his plaint. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted to obtain a declaration that the entire family property in the hands of the plaintiff, as the head of a joint family belonged equally to the plaintiff and the male defendant, defendant 1, and that certain documents executed by certain deceased members of the family did not affect the jointness of the family.2. When the suit was filed, the Munsarim reported that the relief called for payment of an additional court-fee of Rs. 10, as, in the opinion of the Munsarim, there were two declarations involved in the relief. Thereupon the plaintiff got the relief amended, and the Court decided that the court-fee paid, namely, Rs. 10, was sufficient.3. Defendant 1 in his written statement, filed on 17th July 1928, took the plea that the court-fee paid was insufficient. He did not ask that the question of court-fee should be tried as a pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »