Allahabad Court February 1932 Judgments
Gajadhar Prasad and ors. Vs. Gauri Shankar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All417
ORDERSulaiman and young, JJ.1. One important question raised in this appeal is that even if the dedication made by Mt. Rajwanti, a Hindu widow, was without the oral authority of her deceased husband, the alienation was only voidable at the option of the next reversioner, and therefore the defendants have no locus standi to challenge the alienation. This is based on the contention that according to the pedigree, as printed on p. 3 of the paper book, defendants 4 and 5 are not the heritable bandhus of the last male owner Suraj Prasad. The latter question is undoubtedly a substantial and important question of Hindu law which requires an authoritative pronouncement. The learned advocate for the plaintiffs strongly relies on the statement of the law as contained in Dr. Sarvadhikari's book on the Principles of the Hindu Law of Inheritance, Edn. 2, pp. 571-2, where he emphasized that if there are two females (on the father's side), these two again must be related as mother and daughter. He al...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Siraj Fatima and ors. Vs. Mahmood Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All293
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit for a declaration of title to certain zamindari properties consisting of shares in certain villages, and for recovery of possession and niesne profits. One Afzal Ali had two daughters Siraj Fatima and Nisar Fatima from his first wife, and ho had a second wife Sagirunnisa whose children are the plaintiffs. Abid Ali defendant 2 is the husband of Nisar Fatima and Kaniz Fatima defendant 3 is her daughter. Afzal Ali died in 1918, leaving his two daughters from the first wife, his second wife and her children. Two annas share in his estate devolved on his wife Mt. Sagirunnisa. Sagirunnisa also died later in the same year and according to the strict Mahomedan law her share devolved upon her own children and not on her stepdaughters. But the narn03 of all the children of Afzal Ali wore recorded in the revenue papers against the two annas share left to Sagirunnisa on her death. Some time after this Nisar Fatima also ...
Tag this Judgment!Faqir Chand and anr. Vs. Kundan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All351
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal from an order in execution dismissing an application of the decree-holder for execution. The application has been dismissed by the lower Court on two grounds, firstly, that the execution was barred by time, being more than 12 years from the date of the decree; and secondly that the decree-holder was not entitled to execution against the property which is in the present application for execution. (His Lordship then, discussed facts with regard to the second point and proceeded) We now proceed to consider the merits of the question of limitation. There are two provisions of law dealing with limitation for applications for execution. One of these is contained in Section 48, Civil P.C. and the other is contained in Article 182, Schedule 1, Limitation Act. Article 182 states that a period of three years is allowed, time beginning to run from the date of amendment of a decree where the decree has been amended. Learned Counsel contends that his client should rec...
Tag this Judgment!Alkhu Ram Vs. Raman Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All7
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether in the circumstances of this case a mortgage, which was made by the mother and grandmother of the respondent in their personal capacity in favour of the appellant, is binding on the respondent. It appears that one Bhagwanji was possessed of property. He was ill and died on 8th of May 1927. His property was ancestral in his hands and, if he had no male child, he could bequeath the property in any way he liked. One day before his death, he executed a will which was duly registered, by which he said that his wife was pregnant and that he had his wife and mother to support. He further said that, if a son was born to him, he would be the owner of the entire property and his wife and mother would be entitled to maintenance in certain cases. He added that if no male child was born, the property would go to his wife and mother.2. On 13th of May 1927, Bhagwanji's wife and mother executed a mortgage deed in favour of the appellant for a sum o...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Rai and ors. Vs. Lala Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All386
Niamatullah, J.1. These appeals have arisen out of one suit brought by Ganga Ram and Piare Lal against Jaswant Rai, Basant Rai and Abir Chand for damages for malicious prosecution. The Court of first instance decreed Rs. 550 as damages to the plaintiff Piare Lal against the principal defendant Jaswant Rai and his servant Abir Chand. Piare Lal's claim was dismissed as against Basant Rai. Ganga Ram's claim was dismissed against all the three defendants. Three appeals were preferred in the lower appellate Court, one jointly by Ganga Ram and Piare Lal (the former claiming damages and the latter claiming enhanced damages), the second by Jaswant Rai and Abir Chand impugning the decree of the first Court so far as it awarded damages to Piare Lal, and the third by Basant Rai claiming costs against the plaintiffs whose suit had been dismissed as against him. By a consolidated decree, dated 8th March 1927, the claim of both the plaintiffs was decreed against all the three defendants, with the re...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver of Moradabad Vs. Haji Murtaza Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All434
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Receiver in insolvency from an order under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act. It appears that the respondent Murtaza Ali held a simple money decree for arrears of rent against Ahmad Ali, a thekadar. This decree was in execution but before the property was attached the judgment-debtor was declared an insolvent on 1st May 1929. In spite of his insolvency, the decree-holder proceeded to attach certain zamindari properties belonging to his judgment-debtor and they were put up for sale by the Revenue Court and sold at auction on 25th. March 1930. When the sale was confirmed the Official Receiver moved the insolvency Court under Section 4 o the Act for deciding the question -whether any title had passed to the auction purchaser by the Revenue Court's sale. The original insolvency Court decided the point in favour of the Official Receiver holding that as a result of the insolvency of the judgment-debtor, his estate had become vested in the O...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All580
Pullan, J.1. Mt. Buddo, a chamar girl, who is said to be between 14 and 16-years of age, went to a police station on 19th January 1931 and made a report which is taken to be one under Section 354, I.P.C., against four persons, two of whom, Abdul Karim and Abdul Hasan, are now appellants in this Court. There is very little in the report and the girl's father Jagna was not satisfied with the fact that no investigation was made. He made a further complaint to the Superintendent of Police and investigation followed in which the following facts came to be known : The girl used to go to the house of these Mahomedans to do work. She knew them well and was on friendly terms with them. One day they called her into a sugarcane field and had sexual intercourse with her. They also dressed her up in some Mahomedan clothes which they subsequently removed. She never left the village and she was found shortly afterwards by her father on whose instigation she seems to have made the report on the follow...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhari Karan Singh Vs. Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All109; 140Ind.Cas.117
Niamatullah, J.1. The plaintiff applicant sued for recovery of a certain sum of money advanced to the defendants by way of loan. It was stated in the plaint that the defendants executed a promissory note for the sum borrowed by them but that the promissory note being under-stamped was not admissible. Accordingly, the plaint proceeded to state, the plaintiff brought his suit on the basis of the receipt, simultaneously executed by the defendants and of other evidence.2. The lower Court held, on the authority of the Full Bench case of Nazir Khan v. Ram Mohan : AIR1931All183 that no evidence other than the promissory note could be admissible in support of the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the suit.3. It is contended by the learned advocate for the applicant in revision that the Full Bench case, referred to by the lower Court, is distinguishable on the ground that the receipt executed by the defendants and not the promissory note, is the foundation of the plaintiff's suit. The argument, a...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Chand Rekha Vs. Babu Janki Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All404
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by one Mt. Chand Rekha whose suit for Rs. 32,000 has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. The sole defendant is B. Janki Prasad, who is an advocate of that Court. The following pedigree is given in the plaint: Mauji Lal | |---------------------------------| Nand Kishor Mohan Lal Married about 1902 to | Mt. Chand Rekha, Janki Prasad, plaintiff defendant2. The plaint was filed as a pauper, and it alleged that Nand Kishor and Mohan Lal worked jointly as contractors but learned Counsel states that he does not claim that these two brothers formed a joint Hindu family. The plaint further sets forth that at the time of the marriage of the plaintiff to Nand Kiahor the father of the plaintiff insisted on Nand Kishor executing a deed of gift to the extent of Rs. 30,000 which was in deposit with Mohan Lal in favour of the petitioner. It was further set forth that at some later poriod two thousand rupees worth of ornaments had been deposit...
Tag this Judgment!inayat HusaIn Vs. Bashir Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All413
Sen, J.1. On 10th August 1929 plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Bareilly for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and partition of certain immovable property. He also prayed for the appointment of a receiver. He stated in para. 15 of his plaint:For purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court-fee, the suit has been valued at Rs. 2,500 but a further court-foe would be paid within the period allowed by the Court on such additional amount as is found due to the plaintiff against the defendant at the time when the decree is passed.2. The Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain suits up to the value of Rs. 4,000' Where the value of the subject-matter in dispute exceeded Rs. 4,000, the proper forum for the suit was the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly. The defendants contested the correctness of the value put by the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff had intentionally undervalued his claim and that the property in dispute was worth more th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »