Allahabad Court June 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.
Mt. Sabratan and anr. Vs. Dhanpat Gadariya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All70
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption instituted by the respondent, Dhanpat Gadariya. The mortgage was made by the respondent's father on 30th October 1905 for a term of sixty years in consideration of Rs. 75. The mortgagee was one Abdullah Weaver, the predecessor in title of the defendants and the terms were as follows: The mortgagee was to be in possession of the premises. The rent of the premises was. taken to be annas 8 p. m. The interest carried by the mortgage money was 2 p.c, p.m. Thus, after deducting 8 annas p. m. as the rent of the house the mortgagor had to pay Re. 1 p.m. at the end of sixty years at the time of the redemption. It was further agreed that the mortgagee would be free' to build or rebuild the house and in that case, in the case of redemption, the mortgagor would pay the amount of the money spent over the building or rebuilding with interest at 2 p.c., p.m.2. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the mortgage had been made by his fathe...
Mt. Bibi Kasturi and anr. Vs. Balmukand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All106
Sulaiman, C.J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this revision. The Court of Small Causes has returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. It is urged that the order was appealable inasmuch as an appeal lay to the District Judge, and as none has been filed, there could be no revision. In the second place, it is urged that the order of the Court of Small Causes returning the plaint does not come within the meaning of Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, and that therefore no revision lies. Reliance is placed on the case of Subal Ram Dutt v. Jagadananda Mazumdar [1903] 1 I.C. 288. In my opinion, the order returning the plaint purported to have been passed under Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and not under Order 7, C.P.C. Section 27 of the Act makes the order final. It cannot therefore be contended that an appeal lay ' from the order, because the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable under Section 17(1) of the Act only so far as it was not i...
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All670; 140Ind.Cas.536
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Magistrate of the First Glass ordering that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., that have been initiated against the applicant, be conducted by the police On 30th July 1931, one Manni Lal filed a petition before the learned Magistrate alleging that the applicant, along with certain other persons, was likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tran-quilifcy, and prayed that the persons named in the petition be bound down under Section 107, Criminal P.C. The learned Magistrate sent the petition to the police for inquiry and report. The police submitted a report on 7th October 1931, recommending that the applicant and the other persons named in the petition be bound down.2. The Magistrate then issued a notice under Section 112, Criminal P.C. and directed the Sub-Inspector, who had submitted the report above referred to, to bring all the evidence and produce the same in Court on 24th...
Badri Nath and anr. Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All698
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is by two of the plaintiffs in the original suit. The history of the case is this. One Ram Harakh Pande obtained a preliminary decree against certain defendants, including the plaintiffs of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. This decree was made oh 24th January 1924. Ram Harakh died some time in November of that year. On 3rd February 1926, Ram Harakh's four sons make an application, to the Court which had passed the preliminary decree for making the preliminary decree final. Notices were issued to the, defendants and nobody appeared to contest the application. A final decree was passed on 24th April 1926. On 26tb April 1928, the plaintiffs instituted the suit to obtain a declaration that the final decree passed againat them was null and void. The defence was various and the principal defence was that the suit was barred by res judicata. We may point out here that one of the grounds taken in the plaint was that the final decree had been obtained by f...
Syed Saeed Ahmed Vs. Syed Raza HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All57
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 4, arising out of an execution proceeding. A suit for partition was brought by the plaintiff against several defendants in respect of two houses originally. The appellant Said Ahmad was defendant 4. He pleaded that he was entitled to one house by virtue of his adverse possession. The plaintiff withdrew his claim as regards the other house, with liberty to bring a suit afresh. As regards the second house, it was claimed by Said Ahmad that the plaintiff instead of fighting the case against him, chose to exempt him from the suit. The Court ordered that defendant No. 4 be exempted from the suit, and he be given his costs. There was however no order that his name should be struck off the array of parties and should no longer appear in decree. His name continued to be on the record as one of the parties, and appeared in the decree which was subsequently passed, though it was noted that he had been exempted. In the execution department the plain...
Kishore Lal Vs. Balkishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All660
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a suit pending in the Court of the Munsif of Kasganj. A question arose whether the suit could be transferred to the Court of another Munsif in the same district and my learned brother entertaining a doubt as to the correctness of the ruling in Ram Das v. Habib Ullah [1931] 136 I.C. 384 has referred the point of law to a Division Bench.2. The question for consideration is whether the High Court or the District Judge, acting under Section 24, Civil P.C. has power to transfer a suit pending in one subordinate Court to another subordinate Court, which has pecuniary, but not territorial jurisdiction to try that suit. In one sense it might be said that the present question did not strictly arise in the case mentioned above, because the Bench came to the conclusion that the order of the District Judge directing a transfer of the case when he did not proceed suo motu, hut on an application made by a party was illegal and irregular ina...
Gresham Life Insurance Society, Ltd. Vs. Collector of Etawah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All1
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises a question which is of great importance to companies doing life insurance business. It appears that a gentleman named Raja Hukum Pratap Singh took out a Policy of insurance on 15th August 1917, which was payable either when the Raja attained the age of 40 or on his death. The Raja died on 17th May 1925. One day previous to his death he adopted a minor, who subsequently became Raja Maha Bindeswari Pratab Singh, and he also executed a Will in favour of the adopted son. The pro prietor of the estate being a minor, the Court of Wards took over superintendence and management of the estate. The Policy having become payable on the death of the assured, the Court of Wards called upon the appellant to pay the sum of Rs. 15,000 to the Court of Wards as represented by the Collector of Etawah. The Company asked for proof of title and stated that they were ready to pay the money as soon as they were satisfied as to the title of the claimant. Their letter will be fou...
Piyare Lal Vs. Chunnilal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All103
King, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is in possession of a one anna four pies share in a certain village as proprietor, and that defendant 1, Ghurai Ram has no concern with that share. It is unnecessary to recitethe history of the property which has been fully set forth in the judgments of the Courts below. The whole decision turned upon the question whether Jamna Prasad remained joint with his father Suraj Nath and his brother Suraj Prasad in the year 1908. Suraj Nath is the father of the plaintiff Piyare Lal and of Suraj Prasad and Jamna Prasad. The family remained joint until 1907 in which year the plaintiff sued his father and brothers for partition of his share. Jamna Prasad was absent and exempted from the suit and in 1909 the partition was decreed on a compromise providing that the family property would remain in the possession of Suraj Nath as before and that on his death and on the death of his wife the plaintiff wo...
Secy. of State Vs. Bhagwan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All597
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the Secretary of State against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur under the Land Acquisition Act awarding a certain sum as further compensation to the applicant. The point which has been urged before us is:that the suit as brought by the plaintiff-respondent is barred by six months' limitation as provided in Section 18(2), Land Acquisition Actand secondlythat the appellant is not estopped from pleading limitation even after the reference made by the Collector to the civil Court for adjudication.2. The language quoted is that of the appellant, but it is obvious that the matter was not a suit but an application. The facts of the present case are that the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 14th June 1923. The applicant was absent and was not represented at the time. Accordingly, under Section 18(2)(b), Land Acquisition Act, the application should have been madewithin six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector ...
Shankar Lal Vs. Mt. Hashmi Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All700
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 15th July 1916, executed by Mohammad Abdus Salam in favour of the plaintiff, L. Shan-kar Lal. It appears that after this mortgage Abdus Salam sold the equity of redemption on 1st September 1919 to Narain Das. A suit for pre-emption was brought by Mt. Hashmi Begam on 13th July 1919. In his written statement dated 26th October 1920 Narain Das admitted the existence of this previous mortgage. The suit was decreed on 2nd December 1920 under a compromise and Mt. Hashmi Begam deposited the preemption money and got the property. Subsequently on 18th February 1924 she sold the property to Mt. Nizami Begam. the present suit was instituted on 13th July 1929 against Hashmi Begum without originally impleading Nizami Begum. She was subsequsntly impleaded on 19th October 1929 and the plaint was amended and an addition was made that time was extended as against her-by virtue of the ackno...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »