Allahabad Court March 1932 Judgments
Nawal Kishore Vs. Sarju and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All546
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the two defendants in the suit. The appeal although filed jointly, has been argued separately on behalf of the two appellants. The reasons will be apparent from the facts of the case which are as follows. The Raja of Basti owned the property in suit. It was eventually purchased by certain gentlemen known as the Pandes of Narharia in the district of Basti. An eight annas share in the village of Bhatendwa was sold by the said Pandes to Babu Nawal Kishore, appellant 1, for a sum of Rs. 6,000. The entire sum was left with the vendee for payment to certain mortgagees who were in possession. This was on 10th March 1914. Defendant 1 sold the property to the plaintiff on 31st August 1915 for a sum of Rupees 15,000. Out of this consideration money a sum of Rs. 9,000 was paid in cash to appellant 1 and Rs. 6,000 was left with the vendee for payment to the mortgagees who were duly paid. After this the sons of the Pandes of Narharia brought a suit against Sarju R...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Dhapo Vs. Bakridi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All609
Mukerji, J.1. Two points have been raised in this appeal. One is really a question of fact, and the other is a question of law. If we had to decide the question of fact, we, probably, would have been inclined to remit an issue, but that is not necessary in the view we take of the point of law. One Ramji Lal got a decree for money on 29th August 1925 against the respondent Baqridi. Having got his decree, Ramji Lal proceeded to realise by attachment of an immovable property. Ramzan, Baqridi's brother, laid claim to that property. The claimant and the decree-holder came to terms, and the property was released from attachment on Ramzan paying a sum of Rs. 400 towards the decree. Baqridi appealed against the decree passed in favour of Ramji Lal, and his appeal was allowed on 6th May 1926. Ramji Lal filed a second appeal which was dismissed on 7th February 1927, Baqridi made an application under Section 144, Civil P.C. against Ramji Lal's widow, Mt. Dhapo, the applicant before us, for recove...
Tag this Judgment!B. Madan Mohan Lal Vs. Mt. Sheoraj Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All446
ORDERBoys, J.1. In my view there should be absolutely no difficulty in administering the provisions of Section 145 nor in dealing on the revisional side of this High Court with any orders that may have been passed under Ch. 12. The difficulty only arises in the Courts of Magistrates because possibly owing to pressure of work they do not read Section 145 carefully. In the present case though I propose to pass an order under Section 145, I shall have to vary the order passed by the Magistrate, because he did not read the section and pass his order in accordance with its terms. On the other hand in my opinion difficulty has been created even in this Court, if I may say so with respect to other learned Judges, by a failure to appreciate the difference between jurisdiction to entertain a matter and the power to pass particular orders in that matter. I may illustrate this immediately. The present case has been referred by the learned Sessions Judge to this Court because no order was passed b...
Tag this Judgment!Dambar Lal Vs. B. Chand Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All484
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by a judgment-debtor and the sole point raised is that the application for execution is beyond time. There was a final decree for sale in a suit on a mortgage, the decree being dated 26th October 1925. The present application for execution is dated 1st August 1930. The decree-holder claims that limitation was saved under the Limitation Act, Article 182, Clause (5) by an application under Order 21, Rule 11, dated 26th November 1927. The sole question is whether that application was an 'application in accordance with law' as is necessary under the Limitation Act article quoted. On behalf of the appellant it is alleged that the application was not in accordance with law because it was not accompanied by the affidavit required by Order 21, Rule 66(3) and the certificate of the Sub-Registrar as regards prior encumbrances. We consider that that Certificate and affidavit should be filed at a subsequent stage from the application for execution und...
Tag this Judgment!Dan Sahai Vs. Jai Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All465
Pullan, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by a zamindar for possession of an agricultural plot occupied by a person who is described by him as a trespasser and who was 'formerly his tenant. The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Khurja, who acting under Section 271, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926) remanded an issue to the Assistant Collector for the determination of the question whether the defendant was or was not a tenant of the plaintiff. The Assistant Collector returned a finding that the defendant was a trespasser, and the Munsif decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. This finding was affirmed in appeal by the Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Bulandshahr.2. Neither of the Courts below appear to have considered the question as to whether this was a suit which under the new Tenancy Act can be tried in a civil Court. The facts were as follows: The plaintiff obtained a decree for ejectment against the defendant, who was then his tenant, on 26th May 1927. Unde...
Tag this Judgment!Umrao Singh Vs. Kanwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All113
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is connected with Execution Second Appeal No. 709 of 1930. The appeals have arisen in the following circumstances: Umrao Singh, the appellant before us in both cases, filed a suit for preemption against the respondent Kehri, He set forth in the plaint that the true consideration of the sale-deed was Rs. 1,050 and that the ostensible sale consideration of Rs. 1,450 was wrong. The suit was resisted on various grounds, but it ultimately succeeded, and on 2nd September 1929 the learned Munsif decreed the claim for possession on condition of payment of Rs. 1,050 to defendants 5, namaly, Kehri, within two months of the date of the decree. The defendant was dissatisfied with the decree and went in appeal. The plaintiff on 26th October 1929 deposited in Court a sum of Rs. 145-7-0 and on 4th November 1929 asked for delivery of possession. The reason for depositing this small sum was this. The sale consideration is made up of three items, namely, Rs. 400 said to have be...
Tag this Judgment!Chitar Singh Vs. L. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All392
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises in the following circumstances:The respondent Lachmi Narain obtained a simple money decree on 18th May 1927 against the appellant Chitar Singh. Certain house property was attached in execution of the aforesaid decree, and was sold on 29th October 1927, when the decree-holder himself was declared to be the purchaser for a sum exceeding the decretal amount, so that he was bound to pay the balance in cash within 14 days after the data of sale. The decree-holder found that he had made a bad bargain, and attempted to have the sale set aside. He applied, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for the sale being set aside on the ground of fraud and material irregularity. The Court set aside the sale, not on any of those grounds, but on the ground that the auction-purchaser (decree-holder) had not paid the entire-purchase money within the time allowed by law. As part of the same order, the Court directed resale of the property under...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Aziz Fatma Vs. Mukund Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All480
Pullan, J.1. The zamindari shares of two brothers were put to sale in execution of a simple money decree and purchased by one Haji Muhammad Saleh Khan on 20th April 1925. At the time when that sale took place, another person, a mortgagee, had also brought a suit in respect of this property. The mortgagee had obtained a final decree on 3rd April 1925, and he in his turn put the property to sale. The former purchaser, Haji Muhammad Saleh Khan, had received a notice of the impending sale at the instance of the mortgagee on 2nd September 1925, and on 8th September 1925 Saleh Khan executed a lease of certain plots in favour of one Muhammad Ishaq for 20 years at what has been held by the learned District Judge to be a favourable rate of rent. On 28th July 1926 the property was sold again in execution of the mortgagee's decree and was purchased by the present plaintiffs, who filed this suit for a declaration that the lease in favour of Muhammad Ishaq was fictitious and void, for possession of...
Tag this Judgment!Bikram Singh Vs. Dip Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All502
Sen, J.1. This and the connected appeal arise out of two suits instituted by Thakur Dip Singh in the Court of the Munisif of Moradabad against Bikram Singh, Raghubir and Others, and aginst Kallu Singh others, for a declaration that certain she-buffaloes and a calf were not liable to attachment and sale in execution of decrees Nos. 512 and 515 of 1927 obtained by Bikram Sungh against Raghubir Singh and others for arrears of rent from the Court of an Assistant Collector, Second Class. Bikram Singh in execution of his decrees attached these buffaloes as the property of his judgment-debtors. Dip Singh, plaintiff, intervened with the objection that the buffaloes in question belonged to him and did not belong to the judgment-debtors. His objections were allowel by the Assistant Collector, Second Class. Bikram Singh appealed to the Collector under Section 247, Agra Tenancy-Act (Act 3 of 1926). His appeals were allowed and the appellate Court held that the buffaloes were the property of the ju...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Chitar Singh Vs. Lala Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.103
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises in the following circumstances:2. The respondent, Lachmi Narain, obtained a simple money-decree on the 18th May 1927 against the appellant Ohifcar Singh. Certain house property was attached in execution of the aforesaid decree, and was sold on the 29th October 1927, when the decree holder himself was declared to be the purchaser for a sum exceeding the decretal amount, so that he was bound to pay the balance in cash within 14 days after the date of sale. The decree-holder found that he had made a bad bargain, and attempted to have the sale set aside. He applied, under Order XXI, Rule 80, Otvil Procedure Code, for the sale being set aside on the ground of fraud and material irregularity. The court set aside sale, not on any of those grounds, but on the ground that the auction-purchaser (decree holder) had not paid the entire purchase-money within the time allowed by law. As part of the same order, the court directed re-sale of the propert...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »