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.
Makkhan Lal and ors. Vs. Mt. Sardar Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All555; 137Ind.Cas.193
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession brought by a Hindu daughter by avoidance of a possessory mortgage deed executed by her deceased mother Tursa Kunwar. The plaintiff's father Mukhram Singh died in 1906 leaving some brothers, his widow and a daughter the present plaintiff. The brothers of Mukhram Singh put forward a claim that the family was joint and that they were entitled to the deceased's estate by right of survivorship. There was litigation in the mutation Court in which the widow succeeded. A civil suit was instituted which resulted in a decree in favour of the brothers with regard to all the villages excepting Sasain on 30th November 1908. In appeal to the High Court the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed. It appears that the brothers on their success in the trial Court obtained delivery of possession after November 1908 and on the widow's success in the High Court possession was restored to her in May or June ...
Raghunandan and ors. Vs. Shew Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All366
ORDERBoys, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh in proceedings under Section 133, Criminal P.C.2. It does not appear that the Magistrate had in view from the outset at any rate the provisions of Section 139-A of the Code. I have already had to comment on the unfortunate position in which this section has been placed in the Chapter. It should really have found place immediately after Section 135. When a notice has issued under Section 33 and been duly served under Section 134, the person to whom the notice is sues and whom for convenience sake I will call the opposite party must then either perform that which he is called upon to do, or appear to show cause why he should not. If he decides to show cause he will also have to decide whether he wants the matter tried by a jury, and if he does want it so tried, he will make the claim.3. At this stage Section 139-A should have been introduced, for it is provided that upon the opposite party's appearance the Magistrate s...
Lal Bahadur Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All42; 140Ind.Cas.97
Boys, J.1. The applicant Lal Bahadur brought a case against Sulaiman and others under Sections 418 and 420, and Section 109, Penal Code, also being relied upon. His case that he negotiated a purchase from Abdul Latif, Basu Bibi, etc., of a plot of land. Sulaiman, the accused, carrying on the negotiations as representing Basu Bibi and Abdul Latif -- Sulaiman being a son-in-law of Basu Bibi. Lal Bahadur set out to prove that he was deceived by Sulaiman into believing that there was only one incumbrance on the property to the amount of Rs. 205 or a little more whereas in fact subsequent to the sale being completed he had discovered that there was another incumbrance of Rs. 1000 of which Sulaiman most assuredly knew because he executed the mortgage himself as attorney. These facts if established very strongly suggest an offence committed by Sulaiman of cheating. The exact section applicable is immaterial for the present purpose. The Magistrate has thrown the case out being almost entirely ...
Gobardhan Das Vs. Dau Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All273
ORDERSulaiman, Ag. C.J. and Bajpai, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of an. execution proceeding. A simple money decree was passed on 10th February 1915. On 21st March 1923, an application which was in accordance with law had bean file 1 for execution praying for attachment an 1 sale an 1 in the alternative for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. In the course of the execution proceeding the parties appear to have come to terms, the judgment-debtor agreeing to pay the decretal amount in instalments extending over several years, the last date being 15th January 1928. All the instalments except the last one were paid. On 10th January 1928, the judgment-debtor sent Rs. 57-3 0 by money order which was refused by the decree-holder who appears to have claimed Rs. 222 in all.2. The decree-holder filed an application for execution on loth January 1928, for recovery of the balance claimed by attachment and sale of the property of the judgment-debtor He admitted that; the last app...
Bhupendra NaraIn Singh Vs. Ashtabhuja Ratan Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All379
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings relating to the grant of letters of administration. The respondent filed an application in the Court of the District Judge of Benares, who has jurisdiction over Jaunpur District, on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by her father at Jaunpur. In the objection which was originally filed by the objectors, no point was taken that the convenience and justice of the case required that the proceedings should not be carried on in the Court at Benares. Later on it was argued on behalf of the objectors that the point arose by implication, and the discretion of the District Judge under Section 271, Succession Act, was invoked. The report of the Collector undoubtedly indicated that a very insignificant part of the property was situated within the District of Jaunpur, and almost the whole of the estate was in Oudh. It was however urged on behalf of the respondent that as the will was executed at Jaunpur, the witnesses would come f...
Salle Singh Vs. Mullo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All656
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to revise a decree of a Small Cause Court under the following circumstances:The plaintiff, who is the applicant before this Court, filed a suit for recovery of money, and the defence was that the-defendant had paid back a certain sum of money. The plaintiff is a minor. The plaintiff's next friend and the defendant agreed to refer the point in dispute to the arbitration of a certain gentleman. The arbitrator did not give any award within the time allowed by the Court, and on 22nd June 1931, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, passed an order superseding the reference to arbitration and fixed 16th July 1931 for hearing of the case. On 16th July 1531, the case was taken up and I find on the order sheet an order bearing that date, by which the arbitrator was to be summoned to appear before the Court on 5th August 1931. After this order there is a note that the arbitrator has heard the case referred to him on the merits. This information, which is reco...
Shahzad Singh Vs. Madan Gopal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All146; 140Ind.Cas.120
Mukerji, J.1. Defendant 2 in a suit for money, is the applicant before me. He (Shahzad Singh) was impleaded in the suit which was based on a bond, executed by one Kumar Singh, on the allegation that Shahzad Singh was a universal donee and was therefore liable to pay the debt to the extent of property received by him under the gift. Defendant, Kumar Singh pleaded that he had no property and he had handed over everything to Shahzad Singh. Shahzad Singh led evidence to the effect that the donor was still possessed of a house and a large number of cattle. This evidence has been disbelieved by the Court below. It appears that after the deed of gift was executed, Kumar Singh instituted a suit against Shahzad Singh to contest the validity of the gift. There was a compromise by which Kumar Singh was given 6 bighas of land to be held by him on payment of a rent of Rs. 12 per annum to Shahzad Singh, with the condition attached that in the case of his death without a male issue, the property woul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›