Allahabad Court October 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.
Shiam Lal Vs. Jaswant Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All54; 145Ind.Cas.884
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an objector's appeal from an order refusing to set aside a sale. The application has been dismissed on the preliminary ground that the applicant has no locus standi to maintain it and the merits have not been gone into. It appears that in the decree which is in execution there is clear provision that two items of properties in, Thok Net Ram and Thok Rup Singh should be sold in the first instance and that if the sale proceeds of these two properties prove insufficient to discharge the decree, then only the third property in Thok Ganga Ram should be sold. The appellant objector holds a mortgage over Thok Ganga Ram along with other properties. His case was that the auction sale which has taken place was fraudulent and collusive and the property which was of a high value had been sold for a small price with the result that the decretal amount has not been discharged and his property has been ordered to be put up for sale. The Court below held that inasmuch as the p...
Gurdial and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All46
Pullan, J.1. This is an application in revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. The four appellants are cultivators whose crop was attached in execution of a decree and they have been prosecuted under Section 424, Penal Code, for removing that crop from the possession of the shahna. The main ground for revision of the order is that the warrant of attachment was returnable on 12th April 1932 and the attachment was made on 15th April 1932. The warrant, therefore, had no force on the date on which the attachment was made, and it is argued on behalf of the judgment-debtors that in those circumstances they committed no offence when they removed the crop from the possession of the shahna on 18th April. The Sessions Judge would not consider the point, because in his opinion once the attachment had been made and no application was made by the judgment-debtors to challenge its legality, they could not lawfully remove the crop and they are therefore guilty of an offence under S. 4...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›