Allahabad Court May 1932 Judgments
Mt. Kaulpati Kunwar and anr. Vs. Ram Baran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All494
Mukerji, J.1. This second appeal has been referred to a Full Bench because the learned Judges of the Division Bench before whom the appeal came in due course were doubtful of the correctness of a decision of this Court, namely, Chhotey Lal v. Brijraj Singh : AIR1928All142 .2. It appears that the defendants in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen undertook to pay a certain sum of money to the plaintiff's under an agreement, dated 20th August 1921 which was registered under the law of registration. The plaintiffs sued to recover the money -due under the agreement, principal and interest. They were met with the plea on behalf of defendants 4 to 6 that they were Wards of Court and no suit could be maintained against them in their names under Section 55, Court of Wards Act, 1912, and that the contract made by them was void in law under Section 37 of the said Act, The defence found favour with the Court of first instance and the suit was decreed only against defendants 1 to 3 and as ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Chand and anr. Vs. Lachhmi Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All15
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council from an order passed by a Bench of this Court. A suit was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of title as to property in Schedule B attached to the plaint on the basis of a private partition and for other reliefs against the defendant 1. At his own instance defendant 2, the son of defendant 1, was made a party. There was written compromise filed and signed by the plaintiffs and defendant 1 which it was alleged, at one time had been provisionally agreed to by the pleader for the defendant 2. This compromise, however, was not verified by the pleader who was absent on the date fixed. The first court decreed the claim in terms of the compromise against the defendant 1 and decreed it ex parte against defendant No. 2 in terms of the compromise.2. An application was later on filed on behalf of the defendant 2 for the setting aside of the ex parte decree passed against him. The Court aft...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Deputy Shankar Vs. Mangal Sen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All63
King, J.1. This defendant's appeal arises out of an application for the refund of purchase money by Mangal Sen and Ram Prasad, the purchasers of immovable-property sold in execution of a mortgage decree. Briefly the relevent facts are as follows: One Mathura Prasad on 7th April 1919 mortgaged a shop at Chandausi, the mortgagee being Babu Gokul Chand, the father of Deputy Shankar, minor, opposite party 1 in the application. Gokul Chand who is now deceased, in respect of the mortgage, obtained a final decree for sale on 5th March 1924. The property was put up for sale under the decree and was sold to Mangal Sen and Ram Prasad; the applicant, on 4th September 1924. The proceeds of the sale were distributed eventually amongst opposite party 1 (the son of the mortgagee), opposite party 2 (the mortgagor Mathura Prasad)' and opposite party 3, (Pandit Bhoj, Raj, a creditor of No. 2), by virtue of attachment in execution of a decree against' him. Between the date of the final decree and the sal...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Matter of and Advocate of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All492
Young, J.1. Complaint having been made by one Suraj Prasad Dube on 26th November 1929 against Mr. B., an advocate enrolled in this Court, this Court under the Bar Council Act, Section 10, referred the matter to the Bar Council for inquiry and report. In due course the Bar Council nominated a tribunal for the above purpose. Several charges had been formulated against the advocate. Three charges were withdrawn by per. mission of the tribunal and they also found as regards those charges that they were not proved. The charges which were pressed against the advocate were : (1) that he deliberately made false allegations involving imputations upon the fairness and impartiality of two judicial officers in proceedings connected with an execution case to which he was himself a party; (2) that he made contradictory statements in two proceedings arising out of Suit No. 23d of 1921 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares, with the object of supporting the claim of his brother, Jawahir Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Shukrulla and ors. Vs. Mt. Zuhra Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All512
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 3 and 10 from the decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur, in a suit for joint possession of a large number of immovable properties, including three mills, all detailed in Schedule A annexed to the plaint, and for a declaration of their right to a share in the sums due from third persons under a number of bonds, detailed in Schedule O, together with mesne profits. The share of the plaintiffs in all the properties in dispute is alleged to be 16 out of 72 'sihams,' that is two-ninths belonging to the first three plaintiffs, who have assigned half of their rights to the other three plaintiffs. The contesting respondents are five of the original plaintiffs and the legal representatives of the assignee plaintiff, Maqsud Ali, who died during the pendency of this appeal and is now represented by his heirs. Other defendants, who do not appeal, have been impleaded as pro forma respondents. The following pedigree will ...
Tag this Judgment!Tota Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All489
Mukerji, J.1. This case has been referred to a Full Bench for a decision of the following point of law, namely:Where a third mortgagee professes to keep in his hand a part of the mortgage money in order to pay off the first and second mortgages and pays of only the first mortgage, whether in a suit by the second mortgagee to enforce his mortgage it is open to the third mortgagee to insist on his being treated as a first mortgagee whose mortgage must be paid of before the plaintiff brings the mortgaged property to sale.2. The facts of the case are stated in the referring judgment and briefly are as follows:One Ram Chandra was the owner of a certain property. He mortgaged the same for a sum of Rs. 200 to one Paras Ram on 19th October 1915. The next year on 16th October 1916, he made a simple mortgage of the same property in favour of one Ram Lal and one Ganga Sahai, son of Tika Ram. The second mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 400 and' Ram Lal and Ganga Sahai kept a portion of the mortgage m...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Misir Vs. Bijai Nand Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All685
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff s appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of a part of the property sold under a sale deed by the vendor in favour of the vendee. At the time of the sale the property transferred was not in the possession of the vendor, but was held by a third party against whom a suit had to be instituted in order to recover its possession. The vendor was not in a position to raise money and was consequently unable to sue for recovery of the property and merely transferred his entire proprietary interest to the vendee for a sum of Rs. 5,000 which included certain prior debts as well. The vendee then brought a suit and subsequently recovered the property from the third party. It was after this that the present suit for preemption was instituted by the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge in a careful judgment came to the conclusion that the sale was pre-emptible and that the plaintiff should pay the market value of the property as it now stands free from al...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Charan Singh and anr. Vs. Janak Deo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All694
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 10 and 11 arising out of four pre-emption suits. The suits were consolidated, and that is why there is only one appeal. For purposes of convenience we shall adhere to the serial numbers of the parties in Suit No. 635 of 1926. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 entered into a contract for the sale of certain zamindari property with defendants 10 and 11, who were strangers to the mahal. Subsequently defendants 4, 5 and 6 and the predecessor of defendants 7, 8 and 9 took a sale deed from defendants 1, 2 and 3 apparently with knowledge of the previous contract. A suit for specific performance of the previous contract was brought by defendants 10 and 11, in which the vendees pleaded inter alia that they had a preferential claim for pre-emption. The claim was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrators held that the right of pre-emption was no defence, to the suit for specific performance of the contract, and that if there was such a right, it should be p...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabdeo Bharthi Vs. Ram Bali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All19
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is 'a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff alleging himself to be the duly installed mahant, for possession of certain properties transferred by the former mahant. In the connected appeals we have held that the plaintiff has established his claim as the chela of the last mahant, that it is proved that that mahant abdicated and resigned his mahant ship and that he could validly do so, and that the present plaintiff was duly installed as his successor by election. It follows that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit for recovery of possession of property transferred by the last mahant provided there was no legal necessity for the transfer and provided his claim was within time. This appeal relates exclusively to a sale deed dated 18th November 1912 executed by the former mahant, Ram Prasad, for Rupees 3,499-15-0 in favour of Mt. Ureha predecessor of defendants 3 and 4 in respect of village Batelpur. The Court below has held th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Shankar Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All575
Bennet, J.1. This is a case which has come before a Bench of this Court on revision on the application of the plaintiff, one Ram Shankar, who brought a suit against the Secretary of State for India. The chief grounds put forward in the application in revision are that the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Agra, had no jurisdiction to review his ex parte decree and that sufficient grounds were not made out for that review. Further that the claim of the plaintiff should have been allowed on the merits.2. The claim of the plaintiff as set forth in his plaint was that one Damodar Das proprietor of a printing press was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Receiver of the time was appointed receiver of the insolvent's assets-and that the Official Receiver took possession of the press and the premises which were leased at a rent of Rs. 55 to the Damodar Printing Press by the plaintiff. Further that the Official Receiver on 1st April 1927 agreed to pay the said rent and that the Official Recei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »