Allahabad Court March 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.
Durga Shanker and ors. Vs. Lala Ganga Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All500
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants 1st party against a decree of redemption passed by the lower appellate Court. A large number of points, have been argued. The mortgage in question was dated 31st July 1869 and was a mortgage of a shop executed by one Magni Ram to Bohj Ram and Chhote Lal for Rs. 1,200 for a period of five years with the condition that the profits-were to be taken in lieu of interest. The suit for redemption was brought by one of the heirs of Magni Ram, and other heirs were joined as defendants 2nd party. The suit was brought in 1929. The defendants-appellants resisted the suit on the ground that various further sums were due to them in place of the mortgage money, Rs. 1,200, and the appeal is mostly concerned with such claims. One of these claims is in regard to three documents two of which are simple bonds for Rs. 99 executed on 20th July 1870 by the predecessors of the plaintiff and the other is a promissory note for Rs. 25 of 1870. These three sums hav...
Jitmal Ram Gopal Vs. Nathu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All385
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises-out of insolvency proceedings. One Nathu Ram, respondent in this appeal, was adjudged insolvent. He applied under Section 31, Provincial Insolvency Act, for a protection order. The Judge in insolvency refused to grant the protection order. Notice of the application had been given to all the creditors. Only three appeared to contest the application, but the order was couched in general terms and refused protection as regards-the debt due to all of the creditors. The-insolvent appealed to the District Judge and impleaded the three Creditors who had appeared in the Court and who contested his application for a protection order. No notice of the appeal was issued to any of the other creditors. The District Judge allowed the appeal and granted an order for the protection of the insolvent from arrest or detention. Subsequently the appellant before us, who was not one of the three aforesaid creditors took out execution of his decree and prayed for the arre...
Subah Lal Vs. Fateh Mohamad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All393; 140Ind.Cas.653
Mukerji, J.1. After stating facts a' appear in Niamatullah, J'.s judgment, his Lordship proceeded. The contention on behalf of the plaintiffs that found favour with the Courts below was that the sons of Qadir Bakhsh and the children of Makhnu were co-owners of joint property, and possession of some of the co-owners, viz., of the sons of Qadir Bakhsh, could not be adverse to the plaintiffs till it was established that the factum that Qadir Bakhsh'a sons were claiming adversely had been brought to the notice of the plaintiffs.2. As a general proposition of law, there can be no doubt that possession, where it is referable to a title, cannot be considered to be adverse, and hence a co-owner's possession is prima facie not adverse to the other co-owners. This was held in numerous cases and was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the well-known case of Corea v. Appuhami [1912] A.C. 230. Here however we are-concerned not merely with cosharers but with a third party, viz., the...
Muzaffarnagar Bank, Ltd. Vs. HafizuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All10
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the Muzaffarnagar Bank against an order in execution which directs that of two applications for sale in execution of certain house property on different decrees of different decree-holders owe sale shall be prior to the other. Objection is taken rightly that no appeal lies and we, therefore, take up the matter in revision. One of these decrees is held by the applicant before us the Muzaffarnlagar Bank and its application for execution was made on 17th May 1930. The other decree-holder Hafizuddin applied for execution under his decree on 21st November 1928. His application for execution had been prior, and it is on this basis that the learned Subordinate Judge has decided that the sale in execution of Hafiz Uddin's decree should take place first. Neither party is concerned with the decree of the other party as a party to the suits in which these decrees were passed. We consider that the principle of priority adopted by the lower court was correc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›