Skip to content

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.

Dec 02 1932

Udit Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Singh and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-02-1932

Reported in: AIR1933All313; 145Ind.Cas.403

Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is a petition in revision asking us to set aside an order of the learned Subordinate Judge accepting an award and directing a decree to be made in terms of the award dated 23rd December 1931. It appears that there was a partition suit before the learned Judge in the Court below and on 30th November 1931 the parties or some of them (it is stated before us that one of the applicants was not a party) made a statement in Court to the effect that three persons named by them should decide the case and that the case might be referred to them. They further said that any out of the three gentlemen might come to Court and state what was the decision arrived at by the three gentlemen to whom the case was referred. This was done and accordingly one of the three gentlemen, Mr. Kamta Prasad, appeared before the Subordinate Judge and made a statement on oath and he stated that he had consulted his other colleagues and had taken their signatures also on the written judgment.2....


Dec 02 1932

Piare Lal Vs. Bhagwan Das and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-02-1932

Reported in: AIR1933All295; 145Ind.Cas.436

Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. These are four applications in revision and are directed against four orders by which the petitions of the applicant for permission to sue as a paper have been rejected. It appears that the applicant Peare Lal filed four applications in the same Court for permission to sue as a pauper. The applications were directed against different opposite parties. The Court below came to the conclusion that the applicant was entitled to sue as a pauper, but was of opinion that his applications must be rejected because the verification at the foot of the applications was not according to law. The applications did, as they should, take the form of a plaint and contain the necessary allegations that were required to be made in a plaint but were not so verified as a plaint should be. The law (Order 6, Rule 15, Civil P.C.) says:The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon i...


Dec 02 1932

Mt. Bhagwati Vs. Dist. Judge of Aligarh

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-02-1932

Reported in: AIR1933All480

Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an order passed by the learned District Judge of Aligarh on 17th March 1932 by which he refused permission to Mt. Bhagwati, the mother and guardian of the minor Mt. Maharani, to give away the girl in marriage to one Ram Swarup. The application of Mt. Bhagwati disclosed that Maharani was about 17 years of age, that she herself wanted to marry Ram Swarup, that Ram Swarup was a man of the same brotherhood as the girl and bore a good moral character, that he was 28 years of age, that he was well to do and that although the first wife was alive she had been ailing for some time, and that as she never gave birth to a child, she herself wanted that her husband should take a second wife. We are also told though this is not stated in the application, that the brother of Mt. Maharani is also in favour of this marriage. The learned District Judge disallowed the application on the sole ground that Ram Swarup had a wife living.2. Having regard to th...


Dec 01 1932

Shyam Sunder Lal and anr. Vs. Subaju

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-01-1932

Reported in: AIR1934All13

Niamatullah, J.1. This a first appeal from an order in execution. The circumstances are as follows : The plaintiff obtained a pre-emption decree in the Court of first instance and deposited Rs. 14,731-6-0, pre-emption money. The defendant appealed to this Court and applied for stay of delivery of possession to plaintiff pending disposal of appeal. On 22nd March 1928, this Court ordered that possession be not made over to the plaintiff, but fixed Rs. 10 per cent, per annum interest to be paid to the plaintiff incase the appellant fails in his appeal. This order was obviously intended to fix a rate for the loss of mesne profits to the plaintiff in case the plaintiff was ultimately found to be entitled to succeed in his suit for pre-emption. The defendant applied to the Court of first instance on 18th April 1928, to withdraw the pre-emption money deposited by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant might be liable to pay interest on this amount. On 1st May 1928, the lower Court ord...


Dec 01 1932

S. Mahmud Hasan and ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Hamid Khan

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-01-1932

Reported in: AIR1933All287

Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen from execution proceedings following a decree for sale passed on foot of the mortgage deed dated 4th May 1921. The appellant is the decree-holder. The respondent before us was one of the defendants in the mortgage. The facts arc that one Mahfuzunnisa executed three mortgage deeds successively, the first, in 1918, in favour of Lala Chunni Lal; the second, dated 4th May 1921, in favour of Mahmud Hasan and others, the appellants before us, and the third dated 27th April 1923, in favour of Kunwar Abdul Hamid, the contesting respondent before us. The respondent, Kunwar Abdul Hamid, had been directed by the terms of the mortgage-deed in his own favour to pay off the mortgage of 1918 in favour of Lala Chunni Lal. He claims to have done so out of the consideration of the mortgage money in his hands. When Mahmud Hasan and others instituted their suit for enforcement of the mortgage of 4th May 1921, they impleaded Kunwar Hamid, the respondent, but the lat...


Dec 01 1932

Baij Nath Prasad Vs. Khedu Ram and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-01-1932

Reported in: AIR1933All959; 147Ind.Cas.1002

ORDERMukerji, Ag. C.J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that neither the revisions nor the: second appeals are competent.2. The facts on which the preliminary objections are based are simple and short. It appears that Khedu Ram was the judgment debtor in execution of a simple money decree. In execution of the decree two items of his property were sold, one was purchased, by Baij Nath Prasad, the applicant in Civil Revision No. 276 of 1932, and appellant in E. S. A., No. 1312 of 1931. The other item of property was purchased by Lachhmi Prasad who is the applicant in Revision No. 277 of 1932 and appellant in E.S.A., No. 1313 of 1931.3. When the auction purchasers applied for delivery of possession of the properties purchased by them they were resisted by the judgment-debtors on the allegation that they were in possession not on their own behalf but under two persons, Gauri Shanker and Hira Lal, who were mortgagees of the property. The learned Munsif found that this was so and disallowe...


Dec 01 1932

Syed Mahmud Hasan and ors. Vs. Mohammad Abdul Hamid Khan

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-01-1932

Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.477

1. This appeal has arisen from execution proceedings following a decree for sale passed on foot of the mortgage deed dated May 4, 1921. The appellant is the decree-holder. The respondent before us was one of the defendants in the mortgage. The facts are that one Mahfuzunnisa executed three mortgage deeds successively, the first, in 1918, in favour of Lala Chuni Lal; the second, dated May 4, 1921, in favour of Mahmud Hasan and others, the appellants before us; and the third dated April 27, 1923, in favour of Kunwar Abdul Hamid, the contesting respondent before us. The respondent, Kunwar Abdul Hamid, had been directed by the terms of the mortgage deed in his own favour to pay off the mortgage of 1918 in favour of Lala Chunni Lal. He claims to have done so out of the consideration of the mortgage money in his hands. When Mahmud Hasan and others instituted their suit for enforcement of the mortgage of May 4, 1921, they impleaded Kunwar Hamid, the respondent, but the latter did not put in a...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial