Allahabad Court February 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.
Mohammad Ahmad Saeed Khan Vs. Kishori Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All375
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 13th April 1923 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. It appears that by the year 1922 the defendant was indebted to various creditors to the extent of about Rs. 52,000. On 1st October 1922 he executed a deed of wakf which was a settlement in favour of his descendants, but made provision for the payment of the outstanding debts. The wakif laid down that he would discharge his previous liability, and reserved the right to transfer a part of the dedicated property in order to pay off the previous debts, if he was not able to discharge them otherwise. Such a power was expressly reserved in Clause 8(2) of the deed. Apparently he was not able to pay off the previous debts, and accordingly executed the mortgage deed in suit with a view to satisfy those debts. It is to be conceded that there was no fresh advance made by the mortgagees, but the deed was executed in ...
Mela Ram Gorwara Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All381; 137Ind.Cas.205
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision from the decree passed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Allahabad dismissing the plaintiff-applicant's suit for refund of overcharge realized from him by a railway company in respect of a consignment sent by him, from Lohgara railway station to Ultadanga. The sole ground on which the' suit was dismissed by the lower Court was that no notice under Section 77, Railways Act, was given and the fact that such, notice had been given was not mentioned, in the plaint.2. The suit was instituted against four-defendants, namely : (1) Secretary of State for India in Council, (2) the G.I.P. Railway, (3) the East Indian Railway and (4) the Eastern Bengal Railway. The three railway administrations above mentioned are all State railways and were impleaded as the goods in question had to pass through them in transit. It is, not disputed that notices, purporting to be those under Section 80, Civil P.C. were given by the applicant within s...
Rama Shankar Vs. Iqbal Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All450
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision directed against an order passed by the Judge of Small Cause Court, Aligarh, rejecting the plaintiff's application for restoration of his suit which had been dismissed in default of appearance. The suit was fixed for 17th July 1931. The learned Judge says in his order rejecting the application for restoration that the applicant was called out twice, but did not appear. This may be true; but there 'an be no denying the fact that, on the suit being dismissed for default, he made immediate preparation for an application for restoration being filed. He swore an affidavit on the same date between 12 and 1 o'clock, which stated that the applicant was present when the case was called on, but went to search his vakil, who was subsequently found busy in another Court and could not attend, and that the applicant learnt on his return that the suit had been dismissed in default of his appearance. No counter-affidavit was put in by the opposite ...
Sabir HusaIn and anr. Vs. Farzand Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All406
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, 1870.2. The suit was for Rs. 8,333-5-4 as the plaintiffs' share of the dower of their deceased daughter who was married to defendant 1; Rs. 2,994-0-8 was also claimed as interest. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rupees 8,333-5-4 against the person and personal property of defendant 1, but refused to pass a decree against the assets of Sibte Hasan in the possession of defendants 2 to 5. The claim for interest was dismissed.3. The plaintiffs in the appeal claim a further sum of Rs. 2,166-10-8 on account of interest. They also ask that the suit may be decreed against the assets of Sibte Hasan in the hands of defendants 2 to 5. An ad valorem court-fee has been paid on the amount of interest claimed. In respect of the relief that the suit be decreed against the assets of Sibte Hasan in the hands of defendants 2 to 5, a court-fee of Rs. 10 only has been paid.4. The stamp reporter contends that the court-fee...
(K.S. Molvi Sheikh) Mohammad Vs. Seth Sagar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All407
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference under Section 319, Municipalities Act, 1916 If apears that at Man, in the District of Azamgarh, there is a notified area constituted under the last chapter of the Municipalities Act. A certain gentleman who was a member of the notified area, applied for permission to build on a certain land and he got that permission in a certain way. The appellant before the DTSS Magistrate took exception to the method in which the sanction had been obtained by the applicant, and he filed an appeal to the District Magistrate. This reference has arisen out of the said appeal2. As we read Section 319 Municipalities Act the High Court is to express an opinion on a point of law on a set of facts to be stated by the District Magistrate, in the reference. It is no part of the duty of the High Court to investigate the facts. The District Magistrate is the appellate authority, and the High Court may be required to state its opinion on a point of law, for his benefir.3. The le...
Mt. Naziran Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All537; 137Ind.Cas.209
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench because a learned Judge of this Court differed from the opinion expressed in Criminal Eevision of Muhammadi v. Emperor : AIR1932All110 . The-Municipality of Agra made the following bye-law in 1917;No public prostitute shall reside in any house or building or ply her trade within the-municipal limits, except on both sides of the streets.2. The accused is a public prostitute carrying on her trade and residing in a place not within the excepted streets. She had been fined thrice before and was found guilty of continuing her trade. Accordingly the Magistrate convicted her again and imposed a fine of eight annas per day for the period during which it was found that she had broken the bye-law. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to the High Court in view of the decision in the Criminal Revision referred to above. Power has been conferred on Municipal Boards under Section 298-H(c), U.P. Municipalities Act (Act 2 ...
Badri Pande Vs. Chhangur Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All102; 140Ind.Cas.113
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application in revision from the order passed by the Munsif of Shahganj, District Jaunpur, rejecting an application for amendment of decree. The plaintiff applicant instituted a suit for enforcement of a mortgage-deed, dated 23rd May 1923, by sale of the property specified therein. The particulars of the mortgage were fully recited in the plaint and in the relief claimed, mention was made of 'the hypothecated property,' sale of which was prayed for. By a clerical mistake, the property was not detailed at the foot of the plaint. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was prepared in due course, embodying the usual terms. Under the heading 'specification of the mortgaged, property'' it was stated 'properly as mentioned in the relief.' The relief, so far as it is quoted in the decree, makes a reference to the 'hypothecated property.' A final decree was subsequently passed, but it contained no specification of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff a...
In Re: R.V.A. Stock
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All384; 137Ind.Cas.201
Mears, C.J.1. Mr. R.V.A. Stock died on 4th August 1928. He left a widow and a minor daughter. By his will dated 14th October 1927, he appointed Mr. H.L. Stringer executor. The estate consisted of Rs. 11,741-12-0-in the Provident Fund, about Ra. 700 realized from the sale of furniture and a sale of over Rs. 13,000 odd as Lee Commission dues. There were said to be other assets also the proceeds derived from the sale of a motor car and some balances outstanding in the Allahabad Bank Ltd., Calcutta and the Eastern Bank Ltd., Calcutta.2. Mr. Stringer took over the duties of executor and made little or no attempt to carry out these duties. On 2nd February 1929, he applied in the Benares Court for probate and. that application was granted. On 4th November 1929 he came into the possession of Rupees 11,741-12-0 and in breach of his duty as executor he failed to invest it in any interest bearing security and it has in fact laid in the bank unproductive from 4th November 1929 until the date of ou...
Chhotey Lal Panna Lal Vs. R.K. Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All540
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing the plaintiff's claim for refund of an excess amount charged by the railway company. A consignment of planks was dispatched from Shah-jahanpur which is on the R.K.R. line to Agra on the B.B. & C.I. Railway line under several receipts. For the sake of convenience we may take up one receipt No. 74156, by way of illustration. The weight charged was 272 maunds, which was obviously the carrying capacity of the whole wagon and the rate at which the freight was charged was As. 2-9. Apparently the consignment was not weighed at the receiving station but was weighed at Pilibhit and again at Agra and the actual weight was noted at one of these two stations. The railway authority at Agra demanded freight at the rate of Rs. 4-8 per maund on the ground that there had been an undercharge. The plaintiff paid the amount under protest. Subsequently he was given a refund of a small amount, but not the whole of ...
A.U. John and ors. Vs. Suraj Bhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All45
King, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, 1870. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 37,246 from the Agra United Mills Ltd., and from certain debenture holders of that Company, and for a declaration that the amount is recoverable in priority over the debentures in favour of defendants 2 to 7. The debenture holders have appealed to the High Court to modify the decision of the trial Court by refusing the declaration that the plaintiff's claim has priority over the debentures. The appeal is valued at Rupees 37,346 and a court-fee of Rs. 10 only has been paid. The question is, what is the proper court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal? The stamp Reporter contends that an ad valorem fee on Rs. 37,246 amounting to Rupees 1,055 is payable. The appellants' learned advocate contends that the appeal challenges nothing more than the declaratory portion of the trial Court's decree and the court-fee is governed by Article 17(3), Schedule 2.2. In my opinion, Article 17(3) has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »