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.
Mohammad Shafiq Ahmad and anr. Vs. Mt. Ram Katori and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All191; 145Ind.Cas.622
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order directing the attachment before judgment of certain properties of the defendants who are the appellants before us. It appears that the respondents obtained a preliminary decree for sale against the appellants on 24th February 1931. After the expiry of the usual six months' time allowed for payment, on 27th August 1931, the respondent made an application for the passing of the final decree. Ten days later, on 7th September 1931, the plaintiffs applied for attachment before judgment of the property of the defendants. An affidavit was filed along-with the application. The application was based on the ground that the property mortgaged had deteriorated in. value and was likely to deteriorate in value further owing to the remission of rents on the part of the Government.. The application further stated that it-was feared that the defendants who had already encumbered some of their properties would dispose of or encumber their remaining ...
Abdul Karim Vs. Kallan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All166; 147Ind.Cas.198
Bajpai, J.1. On the allegation that certain disputes between the parties to the present litigation had been referred to arbitration without the intervention of a court and an award had been made thereon, the opposite party to the present application applied to the Munsif of Muttra, who had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award, that the award be filed in court. The formalities enjoined by the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code were followed by the learned Munsif and after hearing the objections of the present applicant, the learned Munsif decreed the suit in terms of the award.2. It is necessary that I should at this stage indicate the procedure that ought to be followed in these matters because I have come across cases in which the procedure strictly required by the Code has not been followed by the courts below. When an application for the filing of the award under Paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code is made, it is the duty of the cour...
Ambika Prosad Upadhya Vs. M. Sada Sheo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All173
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff whose claim for joint possession along with the defendant-respondent over certain fixed rate tenancy plots and for the recovery of Rs. 270 as mesne profits has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. The plots in dispute admittedly belonged to M. Sada Sheo Lal, the defendant-respondent, and his cousin Shankar Lal. His Highness the Maharaja of Benares held a simple money-decree against Shankar Lal and, in execution of the same, the rights and interests of Shankar Lal in the plots were attached and sold and purchased by the Maharaja on 21st August 1905, and he obtained formal delivery of possession on 19th February 1907. The Maharaja however could not obtain actual possession of the plots and he filed a suit in 1914 against Sada Sheo Lal and his sons for partition and for separate possession of his share. The suit was contested by Sada Sheo Lal. The prayer for parti...
Dilsukh Rai Baijnath and anr. Vs. Dwarka Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All189
Kendall, J.1. This application has been made for the revision of an order of the Munsif of Hathras, permitting the plaintiff opposite party to amend his plaint. As originally filed, the plaint was one for a specified sum of money on the ground that as the result of three transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, who was his commission agent, that sum was due to the plaintiff. After all the evidence had been recorded, and on account of some admissions made by the defendant in the course of his examination, the plaintiff made an application to amend the plaint so as to make the suit one for rendition of accounts. The present application is made on the grounds that the Court acted irregularly in allowing the plaint to be amended after the case had been closed by the parties and was ripe for decision, and also because the proposed amendment has the effect of changing the nature of the suit. A preliminary objection has been made on the ground that as the case has not been decide...
Mt. Kishwar Jahan Begam Vs. Zafar Mohammad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All186
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in the suit and she raises two questions: one of construction of a document and the other of law. There is a pedigree appended to the plaint which explains the relationship that exists between the parties. It appears that Mt. Bismilla Begum, the mother of the defendant, executed, among other documents, a deed of wakf by which she sought to confer certain benefits in certain properties on Akhtar Jahan Begum and after her on some other persons. We have to decide whether the plaintiff-respondent is one of those some other persons to benefit under the deed of wakf. The document is dated 24th September 1926. It has not been translated and printed but the original document has been read out to us and we are of opinion that the Court below was right in its construction of the document. The document says at two places that on the death of Akhtar Jahan Begum her heirs, according to the Mahomedan law; would be entitled to the profits (from t...
Raghunath Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All211; 145Ind.Cas.400
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is a reference from the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad, recommending that the charges framed against the three applicants, Raghunath Das, Bishwanath Prasad and Mt. Ram Devi be quashed. The charge was drawn as long ago as 10th May 1932, and is under Section 406, I.P.C, as against the first two applicants and under Section 406/109 as against Mt. Ram Devi. The reference order which was passed on 17th August 1932, shows that the Sessions Judge agreed with the contentions of the applicants that no offence of criminal breach of trust had been made out on the evidence brought for the prosecution, and that the charges framed by the Magistrate had no foundation. The case has been fully and carefully stated in the referring order, and it is unnecessary for me to do more than to repeat briefly its main ingredients. Raghunath Dass and Bishwanath Prasad were appointed executors under a will executed by the deceased Babu Ramji Das, whose widow, one of the beneficiaries und...
indarjit Singh Vs. Jaddu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All169
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that the sale-deed, dated 4th May 1928, executed by Mt. Phulesra and Dhanai Sahu, in favour of the defendant-appellant is not binding on the plaintiffs and other reversioners of Ram Subhag, deceased, after the death of Mt. Phulesra. Ram Subhag was admittedly the last male holder of the property covered by the sale-deed. Mt. Phulesra is the widow of Ram Subhag. The relationship of Dhanai and of the plaintiffs with Ram Subhag will appear from the following pedigree: SAMBODH SAHU_________________________________|_______________________________________| | | |Mangru Tika Prag Ajodhya | | ____________|____________ |Ram Subhag | | | | Dhani | | Thakur Gaya Dubri defendant, 3.Mt. Phulesra, wife, | | |defendant 2. | Jaddu, | Khem Karan plaintiff. | ____________|_____________ ____________|__________ | | | | | Bhola Parmeshar Ram Kishun, Sheo Saran, Raj Kumar, | | plaint...
Bhawani Prasad and ors. Vs. Secy. of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All168
King, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the President of the Tribunal under the U.P. Town Improvements Act, 1919, on 20th January 1931 rejecting an application for setting aside an ex parte decision. Some land was being acquired by the Town Improvement Trust of Allahabad and the Land Acquisition Officer gave his award declaring the compensation payable to one Mohan Lal (respondent in this appeal) and to the three appellants respectively. Mohan Lal and the appellants applied for a reference to the Tribunal, both regarding the amount of compensation and regarding the apportionment thereof. On 30th July 1930, the President of the Tribunal, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 64 (1) (b), Town Improvements Act, decided the question of the apportionment of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 33-5-4 to the three appellants. This order was passed ex parte so far as the three appellants are concerned. Within a month from 30th July 1930 the appellants made a...
In Re: R., a Pleader
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All224; 145Ind.Cas.847
King, J.1. Mr. R., a pleader, has appeared before us in response to a notice issued by a Bench of this Court to show cause who he should not be suspended or dismissed as a pleader on the ground that he has been convicted of a criminal offence which implies a defect of character which unfits him to be a pleader on the rolls of the Court. Mr. R. was the defendant in a suit pending before the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Allahabad. He took objection to an order passed by the Judge of that Court in the course of the trial of the suit and was told that, if he did not agree to the Court's ruling, he should take his grievance to the High Court. He then remarked 'there is no Chief Justice now.' On being asked by the Judge what he meant by that remark he said, 'the Chief Justice who used to bring Judges to their senses is not here and is gone.' The matter was reported to the High Court which took proceedings against the pleader for contempt of Court. He filed a written statement giving his...
Ratan Lal Vs. Mukandi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All299
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in the present second appeal is whether the Courts below were right in refusing to extend to the defendant-appellant the benefit of the provisions of Section 78, T.P. Act,. it is provided by that section that where through the fraud, misrepresentation or gross neglect of a prior mortgagee, another person has been induced 1o advance money on the security of the mortgaged property, the prior mortgagee shall be postponed to the subsequent mortgagee.2. In order to invite the application of this section to a given case it is necessary to prove that the fraud, mis-representation or gross neglect of the prior mortgagee was the proximate cause for the advance of money by the subsequent mortgagee. If the fraud, misrepresentation or gross neglect of the prior mortgagee is not the proximate and primary cause but only one of various contributory factors that led the subsequent mortgagee to advance money, Section 78 can have no appli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »