Allahabad Court June 1932 Judgments
Bhajani Lal and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All568
King, J.1. This reference arises from an application under Section 115, Civil P.C. for the revision of an order passed by a Collector under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act 1894, refusing to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge.2. A preliminary objection was raised that the High Court has no jurisdiction to revise the order as it is not an order passed by a Court subordinate to the High Court. The Division Bench before which the application was heard was of the opinion that the case raised a substantial question of law requiring an authoritative pronouncement and accordingly directed the case to be laid before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger Bench.3. Some land belonging to the applicant was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector made an award. The applicant refused to accept the award on the ground that the compensation offered was quite inadequate and sent an application to the Collector requiring him to refer the matter under ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Karan Vs. Panchaiti Akhara Chota Naya Udasi Nanak Shahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All49
Sulaiman, c.J.1. After arguments were heard in this case I dictated the order, and Mr. Ambika Prasad left the Court after the order was dictated. Mr. Shankar Sahai Verma states, and I accept his statement, that he made a request that the judgment should not be signed and that the question of limitation should be reconsidered. The order was, however, signed along with a number of other orders which were submitted by the judgment-writer. Mr. Verma then brought it to my notice that Section 20, Lim. Act, had been amended. I think there has been a misunderstanding in this case, and in view of the request made by Mr. Shankar Sahai, which was acceded to, the order was signed inadvertently. In the exercise of my inherent jurisdiction I set aside the order and direct that the case should be put up for further hearing.2. This is an application in revision by the judgment-debtor from an order of the Court of Small Causes dismissing his objection to the execution of a money decree. The decree was ...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshar Kurmi and anr. Vs. Bakhtawar Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All20
King, J.1. This reference raises the question of the proper interpretation of Schedule I, Article 5, Court-fees Act, 1870. The application for review of judgment was made on 13th May 1932. The judgment to be reviewed is dated 16th February 1932, and the memorandum of appeal, on which the judgment was passed was filed on 5th February 1932. The Court-fee leviable on the application for review is governed by Art 5 and is therefore, 'one half of the fee leviable on the memorandum of appeal.' If the words are construed in their plain and ordinary meaning we must hold that the proper fee is one half of the fee leviable on the memorandum of appeal which was filed on 5th February 1932, i.e., one half of 295. On this interpretation the proper court fee has been paid.2. The Court-fees Act has been amended in its application to the United Provinces by an amending Act which came into force on 1st May 1932. Under this amending Act the scale of advalorem fees has been enhanced. In my opinion the ame...
Tag this Judgment!Sarbati and ors. Vs. Zaminpal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All291
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing their suit on the ground that it is barred by res judicata. The plaintiffs brought a suit as the occupancy tenants of plot No. 158 in village Asrauli and plot No. 606 in village Tatarpur against the defendants who are occupancy tenants in mauza Tatarpur only of plot No. 620. A preliminary objection was taken by learned Counsel for the respondents to the hearing of this second appeal. He said that he had filed an affidavit, which is in the office but not before the Court to the effect that of the respondents, one Zaminpal had died and that Zaminpal had left two sons of whom Bindaban was now surviving. The death took place on 27th October 1930. Consequently he claimed that the whole of the appeal would have abated. He also claimed that one of the plaintiffs, Gyan Singh had died in October 1931 leaving three sons, Nathu, Sukhai and Radhcy and that none of these persons were on the recor...
Tag this Judgment!Mufti Mohammad HasnaIn Vs. Rustam Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1932
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.277
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. It appears that Hatim Ali, a predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff, was the owner of the property and after his death all his heirs executed a simple mortgage deed in 1906 in favour of certain mortgagees, the period fixed for payment being ten years. Hatim Ali had left a son, a widow and two daughters. The son Kazim Husaintook possession of the entire property and then purported to transfer the whole of it on the 7th of November 1921 to Rustam Ali. The sale deed was for R. 6,300 out of which Rs. 4,300 were left in the hands of the transferee for payment of the previous mortgage-debt. It is now found that as a matter of fact the vendee paid only Rs. 1,550-5 towards the previous mortgage debt and that he discharged the other debts with which we are not now concerned.2. The limitation on the mortgage which was for ten years would not have expired till 1928. About a year before that date, namely, 1927, the pr...
Tag this Judgment!L. Jagannath Prasad and ors. Vs. Chunni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All180
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal brought by the following defendants: defendant 2 Om Prakash, his son defendant 3, Gandharab Singh, a minor and defendant 5, Jagannath Prasad. The plaint sets forth in para. 8 that defendants 5 to 10 are the subsequent transferees of the property in mauza Shikohpur and that they have been made pro forma defendants. This allegation is admitted by Jagannath Prasad, defendant 5, who is one of the appellants before us, so far as it concerns himself. It has not been made clear from the record exactly what share the appellant Jagannath Prasad now holds. But he is a transferee from some of the defendants, defendants 1 to 4. The family pedigree is as follows: HARBANS, DIED 1920 | ___________________________ | | | Fateh Singh Udai Prakash Om Prakash defendant 4 defendant 1 defendant 2 (eldest son). (second son). (youngest son) | Gandharb Singh defendant 3.2. The plaintiffs sued on a mortgage dated 15th September 1922 executed by Udai Prakash for himself and as...
Tag this Judgment!L. Shantilal Vs. Agha Dost Mohammad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All641; 140Ind.Cas.56
King, J.1. The question of law which has been referred to this Special Bench may be stated as follows:When a Court of second appeal has remanded a case to the lower appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. is the appellant entitled under Section 13, Court-fees Act, to a refund of the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal?2. For the purpose of this reference we assume that the remand does not merely purport to have been made under Order 41, Rule 23, and that the remand was in fact made 'on any of the grounds mentioned' in Order 41, Rule 23. On this assumption the-appellant is clearly entitled to a refund; if it is held that the ' suit' has been remanded to the lower eppellate Court. The word 'suit' has not been defined for the purposes of the Court-fees. Act, 'nor is there any definition of that word in. the Code of Civil Procedure. The argument of the stamp reporter implies that a 'suit' terminates when the trial Court passes a decree and that further proceedings by way...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Kishun Piyari and anr. Vs. Gopal NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All676
Mukerji, J.1. The appeal was originally filed by two ladies Kishun Piari and Sundar Kishen Piari has died, and nobody has been brought on the record in her place. So the appeal has abated to that extent. The other appellant is Mt. Sunder, and her contention is that she has a right of residence in the property ordered to be sold, and we have to consider how far this contention is correct.2. The fasts appear to be these. Bishun Lal, defendant 1, is related to the other defendants in this way His wife was Kamdebi by whom Bishuu Lal has a daughter Mt. Kamla, defendant 2. Mt. Kiahen Piari, the deceased appellant and defendant 3, was the sister of Bishan Lal. Defendant 4, Mt. Sundar, is the mother o Biahen Ll. Bishan Lal mortgaged the house in question for a sum of Bs. 5,000 in favour of the plaintiff by the mortgage of 2nd March 1929. Then he made a gift of the house in favour of his wife, hi-3 sister and mother. Thereafter, concealing the fast that ha had made a gift; of the property, Bish...
Tag this Judgment!Sahdeo Das Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All708
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by defendant 1, Sahdeo Das, against a decree of the District Judge of Azamgarh passed under Section 92, Civil P.C. directing the removal of the appellant from the office of manager of a temple at Bahadurpur within a mile of Dohrighat in Azamgarh District. The chief point which has been raised before us in appeal is whether this temple is a public temple or a private temple. In other words, whether it is a trust created for public purposes of a religious nature which would come within the wording of Section 92, Civil P.C. and whether the plaintiffs are persons having an interest in the trust. The plaintiffs have shown that they have obtained the permission of the Legal Remembrancer to bring the present suit. The descent of the gurus and chelas of this temple is contained in the following table which is admitted by both parties. Mahabir Das | ________________________ | | Janki Das Sheo Ram Das | ______________________________ | | Baldeo Das Hari Das | ...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Singh and ors. Vs. Surendra Bahadur Singha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All527
Mukerji, J.1. His Lordship after quoting the points referred proceeded.2. The first point as framed above is. meant to decide whether, when a plaintiff sues on a mortgage deed and the mortgage deed not being admitted by the defendant or defendants, he has formally to prove it, it is necessary for him to give evidence of the fact that the deed had been attested by two witnesses; or whether it would be enough for him to comply with the provisions of Sections 68 to 71, Evidence Act. In other words, when. it is not specifically in dispute whether there were two or more attesting witnesses to the deed or less than two, whether it is enough for a party seeking to prove the document to call a marginal witness to prove the signature of the executant and the witness's own signature on the margin, the deed itself bearing on the face of it the attestation of more than one attesting witness. Again, in other words, the question is whether in the three cases decided in this Court : Ram Dei v. Munne ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »