Allahabad Court November 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.
Har Prasad and anr. Vs. (Firm) Bhagwati Prasad Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All924; 147Ind.Cas.746
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application by the defendants in our revisional jurisdiction asking us to interfere with an order of the learned Munsif of Allahabad by which he refused to entertain an objection against an award.2. The facts of the case will have to be stated in some detail because the case has been argued at great length and very ably on both sides. The respondents who are a firm brought a suit against two persons named Har Prasad and Banwari Lal and described them as the owners of a certain firm. The suit was for the recovery of damages for breach of contract entered into by the two firms.3. The summons that was issued to Har Prasad and Banwari Lal was taken by one Mathra Prasad, one of the 5 sons of Har Prasad. Mathra Prasad filed a written statement purporting to be on behalf of the firm and he signed it as the malik of the firm. Later on the case was referred to arbitration at the instance of the plaintiffs and Mathra Prasad acting through his counsel. An award was ...
Mohammad Ishaq Vs. Om Parkash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All227
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order appointing a receiver to the estate of the appellant. The history of the case briefly is as follows: The respondents obtained a decree for sale against the plaintiff and others in 1926, being decree No. 219 of 1925. The plaintiff-appellant has now instituted a suit of his own to obtain a declaration that the decree, for certain reasons stated in the plaint is not binding on him. The plaintiff made an application to the Court for an injunction restraining the defendants from executing their decree No. 219 of 1925. Thereupon, before the application for injunction could be disposed of, the defendants made an application for the appointment of a receiver of the property subject to the mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge 'heard both the applications together and while he made an order staying the execution of the decree he directed that a receiver should be appointed of the property ordered to be sold by the decree. The appellant ha...
Muhammad Ishaq Vs. Om Parkash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1932
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.451
1. This is an appeal against an order appointing a Receiver to the estate of the appellant. The history of the case briefly is as follows: The respondents obtained a decree for sale against the plaintiff and others in 1926, being decree No. 219 of 1925. The plaintiff-appellant has now instituted a suit of his own to obtain a declaration that the decree for certain reasons stated in the plaint, is not binding on him. The plaintiff made an application to the court for an injunction restraining the defendants from executing their decree No. 219 of 1925. Thereupon, before the application for injunction could be disposed of, the defendants made an application for the appointment of a Receiver of the property subject to the mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge heard both the applications together and while he made an order staying the execution of the decree he directed that a Receiver should be appointed of the property ordered to be sold by the decree. The appellant has filed this appea...
Balkrishan and anr. Vs. Mt. Bundia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All274
Bennet, J.1. This is an application for a review of judgment under Order 47, Rule 1 filed by a respondent to a second appeal which was decided by a Bench of two Judges of this Court, neither of whom is now a member of the Bench. The second appeal was decided on 16th June 1931, and the term of office of one of these Judges was terminating on 4th August 1931. On 4th August 1931, this application for review was presented; that is, it was presented after an interval of seven weeks and on a date which made it impossible that it should be heard by the two Judges who composed the Bench which disposed of the second appeal. The second appeal was brought by the plaintiffs, and the first ground was as follows:- 'Because the plaintiffs were entitled to realize their mortgage money in full from any mortgaged property and the decree declaring proportionate liability of properties possessed by defendants Nos. 2 and 5 is contrary to law.' This was the main question argued in the second appeal, and thi...
Dwarka Prasad and ors. Vs. Mt. Jasoda Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All958; 147Ind.Cas.999
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal is very easily disposed of on the ground that it is barred under Section 42, Specific Relief Act. At p. 3 of the printed record there is a pedigree. The claim related to the property of Sital Prasad whose widow Mt. Jasoda Kunwar was defendant 1. The plaintiffs, who represented two of the four branches into which Bani Prasad's family descended, asked for a declaration that Mt. Jasoda Kunwar had no interest in the property of her late husband, because Sital Prasad died joint with the other members of the family. The immediate cause of the suit was the execution by Mt. Jasoda Kunwar of a deed of relinquishment, dated 26th November 1927, in favour of her daughters. (sic) of the pleas taken in defence was that the suit was barred by Section 42, Specific Relief Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held inter alia that the suit was so barred. When the facts were disclosed to us, the learned Counsel for the appellants admitted that at the date of the suit the pl...
Alfred Robert Jones Vs. Mt. Titli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All122
Young, J.1. The petitioner, Alfred Robert Jones, of Bhim Tal near Naini Tal, by his sister, Miss Edith Jones, as his next friend, prays for a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 19(3) and (4), Divorce Act, and under Sections 4 and 5(1), Christian Marriage Act, for a declaration that his marriage to the respondent is void. To the issues formerly struck under the Divorce Act, Section 19, I have added, during the course of the hearing, two other issues under the Christian Marriage Act, namely, No. 7: ''Was the alleged marriage solemnized according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and customs of the Church of Rome (8) Was Father Livesay authorized to perform the ceremony of marriage ?'2. Issue 1 is: 'Has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit ?' There can be no doubt that by Sections 4 and 19, Divorce Act, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition in so far as the issues under Section 19, Divorce Act, are concerned, namely, 'Was the marriage null and void on the ground of t...
Ramdeo Ahir Vs. Naipal Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All184
Bajpai, J.1.This is an appeal from an order of the lower appellate Court by which that Court set aside the decree of the trial Court and remanded the case with a direction to re-admit it to its original number in the register of original suits and to try it according to law and merits. The facts of this case are that on 28th November 1930, the parties to the suit made a statement before the trial Court to the effect that they constituted Jagrup Ahir as a Munhasir IIahe in the case and that the case should be decided according to the statement of that witness. The case came up for hearing on 6th December 1930, but before Jagrup could be examined the plaintiffs submitted an application to the effect that undue influence was being exercised by the defendants on Jagrup and therefore a special kind of oath like Gangajali or sacred book be administered to Jagrup or the plaintiffs would not be bound by his statement. The trial Court without recording any reasons simply rejected this applicati...
Mohammad Irfan Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Mohammad Tahir Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All277; 147Ind.Cas.173
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The following family trees are relevant:QAZI MOHAMMAD ISMAIL(died on 6th May 1911)|________________________________________________________________| |Jalil Ahmad (died 9-8-1911) Shafiqa Khatun (died about 1921) Mt. Sughra (divorced on 22-3-1908 Yunus Ali Khan (died about 1920) and A daughter of Mt. Mariam). ||__________________________________| |(Plaintiff 1) Md. Irfan (Plaintiff 2) Mt. Hanifa(Born 1907 or 1908). Khatun (Born 1920)._______________________Muhammad Ali Khan|_______________________________________| |Yunus Ali Khan Ibrahim Ali Khan (died about 1921)(died about 1920). |Mohammad Tahir Ali Khan(Defendant).2. The wakf in question was admittedly executed on 22nd August 1906, by Qazi Md. Ismail, and it comprises a house and 10 biswas of zamindari in a certain village. The relief asked for by the plaintiffs is: On the establishment of the plaintiffs' proprietary right an...
Rajendra Behari Lal Vs. B. Gulzari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All747; 147Ind.Cas.844
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order, refusing to set aside the auction-sale held on 20th August 1931. It appears that a mortgage decree was made on 28th May 1929 against a minor, Rajendra Behari Lal, who is the appellant before us, in favour of the respondents, Gulzari Lal and others. 15 biswas of village Hirdamai and 10 biswas of village Shadipur were sold, the former for a sum of Rs. 23,000 and the latter for Rs. 20,000. On 14th September 1931 an application was made on behalf of the minor by the guardian of the minor to set aside the sale. The grounds taken were so far as we are concerned in this appeal, that there was no proper proclamation of the proposed sale in the villages and that the property sold was worth over a lakh of rupees. The Court of first instance found that there was no proclamation of the proposed sale by beat of drums but the learned Judge held that it was not an irregularity in the circumstances of the case and he found that the irregularity did ...
District Board Vs. Baijnath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1934All458
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money on account of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant. The plaintiff is a building contractor and he obtained certain contracts from the defendant, namely the District Board of Allahabad, for the construction or repairs of certain buildings. The last of the works was completed sometime in December 1927. The contractor submitted his bill sometime in January 1928 and the bill was scrutinised by the District Board sub-overseer, who did not admit that the sums claimed were correct and made certain deductions. The plaintiff persisted in his demands and even sent registered notices to the District Board from time to time demanding payment of the sums claimed. The matter was under consideration of the Board for some months. The final notice sent by the plaintiff was dated 2nd March 1929, and after the expiry of two months the plaintiff instituted his suit on 16th May 1929.2. One of the principal defences to the suit was that the suit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »