Allahabad Court December 1932 Judgments
Lalta Prasad and ors. Vs. Gajadhar Shukul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All235
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question of law that arises in the present appeal is whether the sons (which expression in this judgment includes sons' sons and son's son's sons) of a Hindu, who is the manager of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his sons and his nephews and grandnephews, are under a pious obligation to pay the debt incurred by him, when the debt was incurred neither to meet family necessities nor was tainted with illegality or immorality, and on the answer to that question depends the fate of this appeal. The defendants-appellants are the sons and grandsons of Raj Kumar Lal who was also a defendant in the Court below and is a proforma respondent in the present appeal. The suit giving rise to the appeal was for recovery of the amount due on the basis of a simple money bond dated 6th April 1923, executed by Raj Kumar Lal in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff originally filed a suit against Raj Kumar Lal alone but, on an application dated 19th December 192...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Vs. Amjid Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All294
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises under the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff Badri Prasad brought a suit for sale against one Mashuq Ali and certain other persons who wereimpleaded as subsequent transferees of the property mortgaged. A preliminary decree for sale was made in due course, and an application was made for the passing of a final decree on 1st May 1925. The application did not say when Mashuq Ali died, but it was directed against the heirs of Mashuq Ali and the subsequent transferees of the mortgaged property. When a controversy arose as to when Mashuq Ali died, it was found that he had died on some date in September 1924, that is to say, more than 150 days before the application for final decree was made. The plaintiff filed an affidavit to the effect that he was not aware of the death of Mashuq Ali, and that was the reason why he could not make an application for substitution of names on the record till 1st May 1925. The learned Subordinat...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Singh Vs. Gulab Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All363
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision and is directed against the decree of a Court of Small Causes. The suit was for recovery of the amount due on the basis of an. instalment bond dated 22nd December 1924. The plaintiff alleged that certain payments that were made by the defendant gave a fresh start to the period of limitation and that, in view of those payments, the claim was within time. The defendant did not contest the suit. The learned Small Cause Court Judge observed that:none of those payments is in the defendant's handwriting. The last payment is of 7th May 192G. Under these payments there is an endorsement in the defendant's hand to the effect that these payments had been made by him. The endorsement was obviously obtained from him after 7th May 1926.2. He further noted that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the endorsement by the defendant was made within the period of limitation. As regards the endorsements with respect to the payments ma...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Vs. Chhote and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All911
King, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house. The property in suit belonged to Sheo Dayal who was a cousin of Thakur Prasad. Thakur Prasad, had one son Behari Lal by his first wife and four sons by his second wife. By a private arrangement it was provided that Behari Lal should live with Sheo Dayal and should succeed to his share of the property and that the four sons of Thakur Prasad by his second wife should be the owners of Thakur Prasad's property.2. In 1892 Sheo Dayal executed a deed of gift in favour of one Bhola Nath. The donor recites that he had brought up Bhola Nath from his childhood and he had been obedient and diligent in service to him and had worked at the shop which was the subject-matter of the deed of gift. The doner goes on to say that as he is very much pleased with Bhola Nath and anxious to provide for his permanent maintenance therefore he makes a gift of the entire stock in trade, account books and outstandings due to th...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal Vs. Banwari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All352
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Pilibhit, decreeing the plaintiff's claim which was based on a promissory note. The defence was that the defendant had executed on different dates two promissory notes in the plaintiff's favour out of which was the one' in suit, but that there had been an agreement between the parties on 8th November 1929 by which the plaintiff agreed to accept Rs. 700 as the amount due' to him on both the promissory notes, and of this amount the defendant claimed to have paid all but Rs. 150. Apart from this the defence was also raised that the claim on the promissory note in suit was barred by limitation. The finding of the Court below amounts to this, that there was no compromise between the parties on 8th November 1929, and that the plea of limitation had been met by the proof of an acknowledgment of indebtedness contained in a written statement filed by the defendant in a suit on the oth...
Tag this Judgment!SatnaraIn Pandey Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All232; 145Ind.Cas.612
Bajpai, J.1. The accused applicant was convicted by a learned Magistrate under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The facts are that the accused was driving a motor lorry No. 1064 from. Mirza Murad to Benares. Another lorry-No. 1034 was coming in the opposite direction from Benares to Mirza Murad. There was then a collision, as a result of which a woman in lorry No. 1064 fell out, received injuries on the head and died. Near about the time of this collision there was another lorry going in front of lorry No. 1064 and there was further a small car which had passed just about that time. The natural consequence of all these four vehicles passing on the road at about the same time was that a cloud of dust had gathered, and visibility was very dim.2. It has been argued before me that the death of the woman cannot be attributed directly to any actio...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Ram Sahai Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All281; 145Ind.Cas.959
ORDER1. The facts of this case are that one Sahai Gupta, the opposite party in the present revision, wrote to the Municipal Board asking for certain information in respect of Octroi dues chargeable on a certain consignment of goods which he expected. On 19th March 1932, the Octroi Superintendent of the Municipality replied to that letter and intimated to Ram Shai Gupta that the goods mentioned in his letter were dutiable according to the octroi schedule. Ram Sahai Gupta filed an appeal on 2nd April 1932, in the Court of the District Magistrate of Benares purporting to file it under Sections 34 and 160 Municipal Act. The appeal was headed as follows:Ram Sahai Gupta, importer of electric goods, resident of Kotwalpara, Benares-Applicants.v.Municipal Board of Benares and B. Thakur Prasad Sharma, Octroi Superintendent, Municipal Board-Opposite Party.2. On 12th May 1932, the District Magistrate of Benares passed an order to the effect that the imposition of octroi duty on the goods mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Hashim Vs. Notified Area
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All283; 145Ind.Cas.726
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is an application in revision against an appellate order of a Magistrate confirming the conviction and sentence passed upon the applicant by a Special Magistrate of the Third Class. A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court is precluded from entertaining the present application by reason of the uniform practice of this High Court refusing to entertain an application in revision where the applicant has not gone in revision either to the Sessions Judge or to the District Magistrate. There can be no doubt that in this Court there has grown a practice that an application in revision to the lower Court is an essential step in the procedure, and failure on the part of the applicant in this respect operates as a bar to the application being entertained by this Court. This was laid down in the case of Sharif Ahmad v. Qabul Singh AIR 1921 All 30. That case purported to follow and to approve of the case of Emperor v. Mansur Husain AIR 1919 All 258. The applica...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Tulsi Ram Vs. Salig Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1934All339; 145Ind.Cas.579
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Allahabad decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs against the assets of Pancham, if any, in the hands of the1 defendant. The application is made on the ground that the decree should have been made a personal decree against the defendant Salig Ram, and it is based on the allegation that the Judge has not proceeded according to law. The plaint shows that the plaintiffs' firm sued the defendant firm, Pancham Salig Ram, and that dealings have been going on between the two firms for several years and finally claims that a sum of nearly Rs. 700 is due from the defendant firm to the plaintiffs on the account books. The name of the defendant firm according to the plaint was Pancham Salig Ram: Pancham however died before the suit was instituted, and the plaintiff's case was that Salig Ram was liable for the debts of the firm because he had been a member of the firm during his father...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi NaraIn Rai Vs. Dip NaraIn Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All350
Kisch, J.1. The question raised in this application for revision is what is the correct court-fee payable on the applicant's petition of plaint in which he seeks a declaration that he is the owner in possession of certain zamindari property. The plaint recites that Suit No. 24 of 1901 was instituted by the plaintiff when a minor under the guardianship of his mother to get possession of the said property in respect of which Mangla Prasad Rai, the half brother of the plaintiff's grandfather and the father of the defendant, had got his name entered in the revenue papers on the death of Mt. Ram Dei Kuar, the widow of the' plaintiff's great-uncle. It further avers that this suit has been struck off through the collusion of the Mukhtar Khas of the plaintiff's mother with Mangla Prasad Rai and that the latter had caused an appeal to be preferred and a compromise to be entered into in the appellate Court by a person incompetent to enter into a compromise on behalf of the minor plaintiff. The a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »