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.
Mrs. Beatrice Honor Agatha Goodal Vs. Mr. Harrylock Charles David Good ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All135a
ORDERYoung, J.1. This is the petition of Mrs. Beatrice Goodal against her husband, Harry Charles David Goodal, for dissolution of her marriage to him on the ground of adultery, desertion and cruelty. No written statement has been filed. Counsel for the respondent says he is not in a position to put his client in the box. The petition is undefended. The parties are Anglo-Indians domiciled in India, and last resided together at Cawnpore. This Court therefore has jurisdiction to hear and decide this petition. The marriage took place at All Saints Cathedral, Allahabad, on 2nd October 1926. The petitioner was born on 27th August 1913. When this fact was brought to my attention on examining the pleadings I added an issue: 'Was there a valid marriage; was the petitioner able to consent to the said marriage.' At the time of the marriage the petitioner was just 13 years old. The petitioner was married at this early age because the respondent seduced her under promise of marriage. The mother tho...
Nathu Ram Vs. Salim Abdul Karim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All165
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Aligarh rejecting an application for the restoration of a suit filed by the defendant-applicant under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. It cannot be disputed that the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., are disjunctive; and to entitle a defendant to have an ex parte decree set aside he has to satisfy the Court either that the summons was not duly served on him or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. It is further to be noted that, in accordance with the proviso added to Rule 13 by this Court, an ex parte decree cannot be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity in the service of summons, if the Court is satisfied that the defendant knew or but for his wilful conduct, would have known, of the date of hearing in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.2. In the present ...
Cantonment Board Vs. L. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All163
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal may be described as the last round in a protracted fight that has been taking place between Kanhaiya Lal and the Agra Cantonment Board over the amount of taxes to be assessed on the premises occupied by the said Kanhaiya Lal in the Agra Cantonment. The Cantonment Board is the appellant in this case and the appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree obtained by Kanhaiya Lal against the Board. On 1st August 1919, a lease of certain land within the Cantonment area in Agra was granted to Kanhaiya Lal by the Officer Commanding, Agra Division, on behalf of the Secretary of State for a period of 25 years. Condition 7(2) of the lease was in the following terms:That the lessee will keep separate and proper accounts of the income arising from the premises hereby demised and the buildings erected thereon and that the same shall be accessible at all reasonable times to the Cantonment Authority or any person duly authorized in that behalf for the purpose...
Mani Ram Vs. Badri Das-behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All175
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Cawnpore, decreeing the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 960 against the three defendants. The application is made by only one of the defendants, Mani Ram. The facts of the case are not in doubt and may be briefly repeated as follows. The debt which forms the basis of this suit was one which was incurred by the firm of Ram Prasad Ram Gopal, of which the owners were the non-contesting defendants Jagannath and Ram Prasad. This firm failed although there does not seem to have been a formal dissolution of partnership. The present applicant Mani Ram set up with Jagannath and Ram Prasad a new partnership which was called Chaturbhuj Chhedi Lal. He invested money in the new partnership to the extent of Rupees 1,500 which was paid, according to the finding of the Court below, to the plaintiff in liquidation or part liquidation of the debt due from the old firm to the plaintiff. In considerat...
Ejaz HusaIn and anr. Vs. Govind Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All188
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a judgment-debtors' appeal from the order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad dismissing their appeal from the order of the Munsif of Sambhal, who dismissed their objection to execution being taken out by one Govind Prasad. The facts are that Mt. Champa Dei obtained a decree on foot of a mortgage-deed against the appellants. Subsequently she executed a document styled as a deed or relinquishment or release by which she declared that her husband Govind Prasad was the real mortgagee and decree-holder, she being his bena-midar. The deed further mentioned that the executant had relinquished all her rights in the decree in favour of her husband, Govind Prasad. Relying on the deed of relinquishment Govind Prasad applied for execution of decree in place of Mt. Champa Dei. The appellants objected on the ground that the only person who was entitled to execute the decree was Mt. Champa Dei, and that in spite of the deed of relinquishment already referred to Govin...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Kifayat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All905
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon the basis of a mortgage dated 27th August 1915 executed by one Mehdi Ali Khan to secure a principal sum of Rs. 3,000. Defendants 1 to 4 were the heirs of the mortgagor and defendants 5 to 10 were subsequent transferees. Out of these defendants we are only concerned with Latta Prasad, defendant 7. He pleaded that he was a prior mortgagee under a deed executed by Mehdi Ali Khan on 11th July 1911. He claimed that no decree for sale could be given to the plaintiff, who was merely a subsequent mortgagee, except upon condition that the plaintiff should redeem the prior mortgage.2. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit but did not decide the issue regarding the priority of Lalta Prasad's mortgage, holding that it was unnecessary to decide that point for the purpose of deciding the suit. Lalta Prasad's interest as mortgagee were to remain unaffected. Lalta Prasad came to this Court in appeal and the Bench before whom the appeal w...
Ram Tawakal Tewari Vs. Mt. Dulari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1934All469
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for declaration that a dead of gift dated the 15th December 1926, executed by Mt. Sartaji and Mt. Abbiraji, who were arrayed as defendants 3 and 4 respectively, in favour of Mt. Sahdei defendant No. 1 and Mt Dulari, defendant No. 2 was invalid, ineffectual and null and void as against the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs. The property covered by the deed of gift admittedly belonged to a man named Sheo Mangal, who died leaving two sons named Kandhai and Bhagwati. Mt. Sartaji is the widow of Kandhai and Mt. Abhiraji is the widow of Bhagwati. Mt. Sahdei, defendant No. 1 was the daughter of Kandhai and Mt. Dulari defendant No. 2 is the daughter of Bhagwati. It has been found by the lower appellate Court that Bhagwati and Kandhai were separate from each other and its finding has not been and could not be challenged in the appeal before us. It has further been found by the lower appellate Court that Kandhai died leaving a son Ram ...
Harimal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All135
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore confirming an order of a First Class Magistrate of Cawnpore, dated 9th June 1932, dismissing the objection of the applicant Hari Mal to the attachment of his properly under Section 386, Criminal P.C., which attachment was made for the realization of a fine imposed on his brother Bisu Mal. Section 386(2) sates that the Local Government may make rules for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of a warrant. It is provided in para. 819 of the Manual of Government Orders that the inquiry shall be conducted in the same way as an inquiry under Order 21, Rules 58 to 61, Civil P.C. The objection was made that the property which had been attached and which was moveable property was property which belonged to the objector and that the objector and his brother were separate. Rule 58, Order 21, C...
NavIn Chandra Vs. Ram Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All161; 147Ind.Cas.212
Mukerji, Ag.C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to set aside a sale and arises under the following circumstances: The decree-holder Navin Chandra held a very large simple money-decree against Ram Devi and several other judgment-debtors. The property of the judgment-debtors consisted of houses and shops and they were sold in separate lots. We are concerned with the property which was sold as one lot, though it was described as lots 4 and 5. The sale was conducted by the Amin on 2nd September 1931. There were eight bidders among whom the decree holder, Navin Chandra, was one. His was the highest bid, namely, Rs. 7,100. The Amin did not conclude the sale, as he ought to have done, ordinarily. He made a report to the Court that he feared that people were in the habit of appearing in Court and making larger offers there than- before him, and therefore he did not conclude the sale and waited for the Court's orders. He added that, while he was c...
Pt. Madho Prasad Vyas Vs. B. Madho Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All230; 145Ind.Cas.668
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application which purports to have been made under Section 115, Civil P.C. it arises out of insolvency proceedings and therefore we think that the proper section under which to entertain this petition is Section 75, Insolvency Act, and we accordingly do so. It appears that a firm, Murlidhar Manglal, was actually declared insolvent on 30th May 1929, and two years' time was allowed by the order to apply for a discharge. The insolvents made an application for a discharge on 2nd July 1931 and two days later the receiver supported the application by his petition dated 4th July 1931. The Court extended the time for applying for a discharge. The creditor whose application we have got before us appealed to the District Judge and he upheld the order appealed against. Before us it is contended that it was not open to the Insolvency Court to extend the time for discharge after the expiry of the time originally fixed, inasmuch as no application had been made previous...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »