Allahabad Court December 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.
Abdul Sattar Vs. M.L. Rani Hira Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All198
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that a pucca house, described in the plaint, is his property and is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of decree No. 32 of 1926 obtained by defendant 1 against the plaintiff's father, defendant 2. The plaintiff's objection to attachment under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C, was dismissed. He then filed the present regular suit for the relief above mentioned. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. On appeal by defendant 1 the lower appellate Court upheld the defence that the house in dispute belonged to defendant 2, the judgment-debtor. Accordingly it dismissed the suit; hence this appeal. The house in dispute stands on the site of an old kachcha house which was purchased in the name of the plaintiff on 25th January 1891, for a small sum of Rs. 140. It is common ground that the whole construction was pulled down and the house that now stands was erected at a cost of nearly Rs. 2,000. T...
Radhe Shiam and ors. Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All922; 147Ind.Cas.743
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Kumaon exercising the jurisdiction of a civil Court. The appellants' objection to attachment of certain property, which they alleged to be ancestral property was dismissed on the ground that a previous decision between the parties operated as a bar to the objections subsequently raised.2. The circumstances which led to the objection in question are briefly these The respondent Shyam Lal instituted a suit on foot of a promissory note purporting to have been executed by three persons; Sakhan Lal, and Bisant Lal and Bishambhar, who were impleaded as defendants 1 to 3. The son of defendant 1 and two sons of defendant 2 were also impleaded as parties on the allegation that the debt contracted by the first three defendants were such as bound the entire family. The sons, that is, defendants 4 to 6, contested the suit on the ground that the debt to which the promissory note related had been contracted for im...
Kunj Behari Singh and anr. Vs. Bindra Sahu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1934All8
Kendall, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent obtained a decree for sale on a mortgage against 21 defendants. The mortgage had been executed by the first defendant on behalf of himself and three other defendants, but defendants 13 and 14, who are the present appellants, were subsequent transferees of the mortgaged property. The trial Court decreed the suit, for sale of the mortgaged property, and directed that the parties should receive costs according to their success or failure. In the preliminary decree, defendants 13 and 14 were awarded costs amounting to Rs. 274-11-0 as against the plaintiff. Other defendants were also awarded costs in proportion to the amount of their success. Before the final decree was prepared the plaintiff-decree-holder made an application that the amount of costs awarded against him in favour of the defendants should be set off against the amount of his decree, and this the Court directed to be done. The final decree was prepared in accordance with these orders, an...
Kishan Lal-babu Lal Vs. Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All374
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Munsif of Kasganj, refusing to allow the applicant, who is the plaintiff in the suit to amend his plaint. The suit was one for a sum of Rs. 307 odd, said to be due on account of certain business transactions between the parties from 11th December 1926 to 11th March 1929; and after the' original ex parte decree had been set aside and the suit restored, the plaintiff made an application to amend his plaint in answer to the written statement. In the written statement it had been pleaded that some of the items named In the plaint were barred by limitation, and the plaintiff therefore applied to amend the plaint with reference to an acknowledgment said to to have been made by the defendant on : 27th July 1929. The Munsif refused to allow the amendment on the ground that the application was unduly delayed and that it would, in the circumstances, be unfair to the defendant to allow the application. Under Rule 17, Or...
Kishan Lal Babu Lal Vs. Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1932
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.859
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Munsif of Kasgan refusing to allow the applicant, who is the plaintiff in the suit to amend his plaint. The suit was one for a sum of Rs. 307 odd, said to be due on account of certain business transactions between the parties from December 11, 1926 10 March 11, 1929 : and after the original ex-parte decree had been set aside and the suit restored, the plaintiff made an application to amend his plaint in answer to the written statement. In the written statement it had been pleaded that some of the items named in the plaint were barred' by limitation and the plaintiff therefore, applied to amend the plaint with reference to an acknowledgment said to have been made by the defendant on July, 27, 1929. The Munsif refused to allow the, amendment on the ground that the application was unduly delayed and that it would, in the circumstances, be unfair to the defendant to allow the application. Under Rule 17, Order VI,...
Official Liquidator Vs. Liaqat Husein
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All205; 145Ind.Cas.372
ORDERYoung, J.1. This is an application under Section 280, Companies Act, praying that the Official Liquidator of the U.P. Oil Mills Co., Ltd., in liquidation should provide security for the applicants' costs. The applicant was one of the original directors of the company and on the company going into liquidation was appointed voluntary liquidator. Subsequently a compulsory winding up order was passed by this Court, and an Official Liquidator was appointed. On an investigation of the company's books the Official Liquidator has thought proper to file a misfeasance summons under Section 235, Companies Act, against the applicant. It is upon that application under Section 235 that the applicant wishes the Official Liquidator to furnish security for his costs. In my opinion, there is nothing in this application. Section 280, Companies Act, reads as follows:Where a limited company is plaintiff or petitioner in any suit or other legal proceeding, any Court having jurisdiction in the matter ma...
Sukhdeo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All210; 145Ind.Cas.392
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the applicant, Sukhdeo under Section 500, Penal Code. The facts of the case are that a notice under Section 185, Municipalities Act, was sent from the office of the Notified Area Chunar by which Sukhdeo was directed to close certain windows; and a door. Sukhdeo replied to that: notice and sent it to the President of the Notified Area, B. Mathura Prasad. There can be no doubt that the contents-of this notice are defamatory in the extreme inasmuch as they impute that B. Mathura Prasad had sent the original notice under Section 185, Municipalities. Act, because Sukhdeo had refused to accede to a demand of illegal gratification of B. Mathura Prasad. In the ordinary course of official routine B. Mathura Prasad put this reply on the records of the Committee and it was read by members of the Notified Area. Committee. B. Mathura Prasad filed a. complaint on 13th September 1928, upon which Sukhdeo was charged under S...
In Re: R., a Pleader
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All225; 145Ind.Cas.853
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an order of this Court suspending the applicant, who is a legal practitioner, from practising for a period of six months. By another order the operation of the order has been suspended till the leave is granted, and in the case the leave is granted till the decision of the case by His Majesty in Council. The facts of the case are that in respect of a certain incident which happened in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Allahabad, the petitioner, who was a party to a suit as a defendant, made certain remarks which were held to be derogatory to the dignity of the High Court. On account of those remarks the applicant was punished with a fine of Rs. 75 for contempt of Court by a Bench of this Court, and he was also directed to pay costs of the Government, which came to Rs. 80. Later on another Bench of this Court issued notice to the applicant calling on him to show cause why he should n...
Sampat Kumar Singh Vs. G.R. Peters and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All410; 145Ind.Cas.582
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. A question as to the sufficiency of security has been raised by the respondent under the following circumstances. The last date on which the security was to be furnished for_ an appeal to be presented before his Majesty in Council was 2nd December 1932. The appellant deposited with this Court Government promissory notes of the face-value of Rs. 4,000 on 1st December 1932, but the notes were not endorsed in favour of the Registrar. The endorsement was made on 3rd December, that is, one day after the expiry of 2nd December. The Imperial Bank's report shows that the market value of the securities is over Rs. 4,000; and the sole question remains whether the endorsement was essential for the purpose of security. There can be no doubt that the documents were furnished to be treated as security. If the transaction had been between private parties, the person to whom the documents were handed over would be entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance of the contract...
Chhedi Lal Vs. Mt. Nafis Fatima Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All561; 145Ind.Cas.549
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The judgment of 'the Court below has been affirmed by this Court. We have to consideraccordingly, first, whether the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was Rs. 10,000 or upwards and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council would be Rs. 10,000 or more, and, secondly, whether the appeal involves or not a substantial question of law.2. The facts are briefly these: Defendant 1, who is the father of the plaintiff, executed a waqralalaulad, or a dedication for the benefit of one's descendants, in 1919. Later on he executed a document which has been described as supurdnama (handing over the property) in favour of the proposed appellant Chhedi Lal, on 20th March 1924. By this document Chhedi Lal was put in possession of the entire property, which was the subject-matter of the wakf, and was to make a certain payments and to make a ce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »