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.
B. Hargobind Das Vs. Moti Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All337; 145Ind.Cas.577
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. These two applications in revision have arisen out of the same execution proceedings but the orders were passed at two different stages. The facts appear to be these. The predecessor-in-title of the applicant before us Hargobind Das held a simple money decree against one Ram Nath Singh. In execution of that decree a certain share of Ram Nath Singh in village Jhanjhupur was put up for sale and was sold for Rupees l,900. The sale was held by the agency of the Collector as the property was a revenue paying one. The decree-holder deducted the amount due to him under the decree from the sale price and paid the balance in cash which was a sum of Rs. 329-1-0. For the amount deducted he granted a certificate showing that his decree has been satisfied. Before this sale took place the opposite party Raja Moti Chand who held a simple money decree against Ram Singh and another had applied for the execution of his decree. At his instance the share in Jhanjhupur described above a...
Emperor Vs. Sundar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.831
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Aligarh recommending that this Court should set aside an order of a Magistrate passed under Section 119, Criminal Procedure Code, discharging an accused person who had been ordered to show cause why security should not be taken from him under Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code. The law on the subject is laid down in Emperor v. Ram Lal : AIR1929All273 , where a Bench of the court held that such a case could come before this Court on its revisional side, but that this Court would not go into the merits of the case unless there was something to show that there has been a material departure from the legal principles according to which the case ought to have been dealt with, or if it is asked to go into the facts it will only do so if something is shown which particularly indicates that it is desirable to enter into those facts. In the present case some prosecution witnesses told a story to the effect that the accused ...
Pt. Ram Charan Vs. Parmeshwar Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All201
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal and arises in the following circumstances: The appellant was a mortgagee under a deed, executed by one Noorul Hasan and instituted suit-No. 57 of 1923 for the enforcement of his mortgage by foreclosure, and obtained a preliminary decree ex parte. Subsequently the ex parte decree was set aside and after contest another preliminary decree for foreclosure was passed on 30th September 1924. During the pendency of the foreclosure suit Noorul Hasan, executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the respondent, Parmeshwari Din, on 15th February 1924. Subsequently, on 25th. February 1928, Parmeshwari Din purchased Noorul Hasan's equity of redemption in execution of a simple money decree. The appellant made his application for final decree sometime after 25th February 1928, mentioning Parmeshwari Din, as one of the opposite party in the heading of his application. On 28th July 1928, when the application was heard, he discharged Parmeshw...
Sheo Kumar Vs. Bal Bhaddar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All138a
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order in execution brought by the judgment-debtor. The point in appeal is an allegation that the property which the decree-holder desires to sell is ancestral property and therefore the sale should be by the Collector. In General Rules (Civil), Chap. 4, Rule 8, there is a definition of the words 'ancestral land,' and the definition lays down in para. (a) that the land must have been owned continuously in the province of Agra from 1st January 1860, by the proprietor or by the person or persons from whom such proprietor has directly or indirectly inherited such lands. It is contended that the case in question could come under the sub-heads (b), (c) or (d). Now the evidence establishes that the maternal grandfather of the father of the judgment-debtor made a gift of the property in question to the father of the judgment-debtor. It is also admitted that this gift was after the Fasli year 1280, that is, after the year 1872 or 1873. Accordingl...
Nand Ram Vs. (Seth) Purshotam Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All203; 145Ind.Cas.615
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,848-4-0. The defendants sold certain immovable property to the plaintiff-appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,000. The property sold originally belonged to a man named Bishan Dat and, on his death, his widow and his daughter sold the property to the defendants. The defendants, as already stated, sold the same to the plaintiff-appellant. After the death of the widow and the daughter the reversionary of Bishan Dat, filed a suit for possession of the property against the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the widow and the daughter had only a life estate in the same and that, on their death, the reversioners became entitled to possession of the property. That suit was contested by the plaintiff-appellant but was decreed. Plaintiff then brought the suit, giving rise to the present appeal, for recovery of the sale consideration with interest and for the costs that he had incurred in the litigation with...
Rai Sahib Pandit Sheo Kumar Vs. Rai Bahadur Balbhaddar Prasad Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1932
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.185
1. This is a first appeal from an order in execution brought by the judgment-debtor. The point in appeal is an allegation that the property which the decree holder desires to sell is ancestral property and therefore the sale should be by the collector. In General Rules (Civil) Chapter IV, Rule 8, there is a definition of the words 'ancestral land' and the definition lays down in para, (a) that the land must have been owned continuously in the province of Agra from January 1, 1860, by the proprietor or by the person or person's from whom such proprietor has directly or indirectly inherited such lands. It is contended that the case in question could come under the Sub-heads (b), (c) or (d). Now the evidence establishes that the maternal grandfather of the father of the judgment-debtor made a gift of the property in question to the father of the judgment-debtor. It is also admitted that this gift was after the Fasli year 1280, that is, after the year 1872 or 1872. Accordingly the gift was...
(Dubey) Amba Lal Vs. Firm Ram Gopal-madho Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All218
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal and the connected Appeal No. 410 of 1929, are directed against an order for restitution passed by the Court below under Section 144, Civil P.C., under the following circumstances: Firm Ramgopal Madho Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, obtained a simple money decree from the High Court of Bombay against three brothers named, Mani Shankar, Mohan Shankar and Suraj Shankar, who are hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtors. The respondent had also implcadcd three younger brothers of the judgment-debtors named Harendra Shankar, Mahcndra Shankar and Gajendra Shankar, as defendants to the suit in which the decree was passed but the suit against them was dismissed. Before the said decree was passed Hiarendra Shankar, Mahcndra Shankar and Gajendra Shankar had brought a suit for partition against the judgment-debtors and their mother Mt. Mani Kunwar, and on 28th March 1919, a decree for partition was passed. Mt. Mani Kunwar, the mother and the ...
Abdul Aziz Khan Vs. Mt. Kaniz Fatima and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All302; 145Ind.Cas.754
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendant, Abdul Aziz Khan, against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur, awarding the plaintiffs, who arc the two sisters of the defendants, possession of a half-share of the property of their deceased father Abdul Jalil Khan, and of their brother, also deceased, Mohammad Amin Khan, and of their deceased mother, and granting a declaration that a deed of wakf alleged to have been executed by their deceased father, Abdul Jalil Khan, on 27th June 1926, was not genuine and was not executed by Abdul Jalil Khan. The sole question before us in appeal is the allegation of the appellant that the deed of wakf is genuine and was executed by his father. Abdul Jalil Khan died a month and a half after the alleged execution of this document, the date of death being 6th August 1926. The deed of wakf was not registered during the lifetime of Abdul Jalil Khan and no satisfactory reason has been given as to why registration was not made dur...
Bhola Umar Vs. Mt. Kausilla and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1937All230; 140Ind.Cas.631
1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises in the following circumstances: One Lachhmi Narain, by caste Umar Banya, was the owner of a number of properties specified at the foot of the plaint. He died, leaving a widow Mt. Kausilla, the plaintiff-respondent, and the defendant-appellant, Bhola Umar, his uncle who obtained mutation of names in respect of the entire property in dispute. Thereupon the plaintiff sic the present suit for recovery of possession of her deceased husband's property on the ground that she was entitled to it under the Hindu law. The plaintiff's claim was resisted by the defendant on the allegation that she had re-married and, according to the custom of the caste, forfeited all rights in her deceased husband's estate. It should be mentioned at this stage that the plaintiff made no reference in her plaint to her re-marriage, a fact which, on being alleged by the defendant, was admitted by her, but she maintained that her re-marriage had not the effect of divesting he...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Gobind Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All276
Mukerji, Ag. C. J.1. This is an appeal against an order dated 13th January 1932 by which the learned Subordinate Judge refused to set aside an ex parte decree that he had made against Kanhaiya Lal, the appellant. It appears that Kanhaiya Lal was one of the transferees on a part of the alleged family property in a suit for partition instituted by Govind Prasad. Kanhaiya Lal had contested the suit having filed a written statement. The case could not be heard for a long time for the reason that the learned Judge was engaged in hearing a big suit known as the Tikari Raj suit. We find from his English notes that on 27th August 1930 he made an order the concluding portion of which was this:There is no time owing to the hearing of the Tikari Raj case; and case to be postponed for fixing a date for final hearing.2. It will be noticed that on 25th August 1932 the order was that the case was to remain without any date for hearing being fixed for it. If a date for hearing had been fixed it would ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »