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.
(Lala) Sri Ram Vs. L. Jai Kishun Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All110
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. It appears that the appellant's father was the lambardar of a village, and he did not pay the full share of the profits to the respondents decree-holders. A suit was brought against his father and a decree was obtained against him, which was both for the amount collected by him and also for the amount remaining uncollected on account of his negligence. Before any property could be attached, the lambardar died. His son was brought on the record as his legal representative and execution was sought, against him by the attachment and sale of the joint family property. Objection was taken on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the decree could not be executed against him because he had received no assets from the deceased debtor, and that the debt was not binding upon him because it was based on the negligence of the deceased. Both the Courts below have allowed the execution and overruled the objectio...
Chandrabhan Vs. Rajkumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All100
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought on the basis of a mortgage, and the only question for determination is whether or not the suit is barred by limitation. A mortgage was executed on 14th April 1910, by two persons Dwarka Das and Jamna Das in favour of Sekhar Chand, father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was at that time a minor, living jointly with his father. Sekhr Chand died in1912, and on 15th February 1913, Dwarka Das and Jamna Das executed a second mortgage in favour of Son-pal, father of the defendant, including in that mortgage a sum of Rs. 1,511, being the whole amount due as principal and interest on the mortgage of 14th April 1910. Sonpal deposited the sum due on the mortgage of 1910, but for certain reasons, which need not be specified, subsequently withdrew his deposit, and his application was automatically struck off on 10th April 1915. On 26th August 1919, defendant 1, the son of Sonpal, purchased the mortgagor's rights from Dwarka Das, and in the sa...
Bharosa Shukul Vs. Mt. Manbasi Kuer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All690
Niamatullah, J.1. The plaintiff sued as the reversionary heir of one Ramnarain Shukul for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by Manbasi Kuer, widow of Ramnarain Shukul, in favour of one Sabhapat Pande, ia void as against the plaintiff. The property gifted is partly the property of Ramnarain Shukul and partly property obtained by pre-emption by the widow. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but in appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree only in respect of that portion of the property which belonged to Ramnarain. As to the other half he held that although it would have been considered to be an accretion to the husband's estate if the widow had died without making any disposition of it, the fact that the widow had actually disposed of it in her lifetime shows it to have been her own exclusive property, and the transaction as to this portion of the property cannot be challenged by her husband's heirs. We have been asked in second appeal to cons...
Bharsoa Shukul Vs. Musammat Manbasi Kuer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1932
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.259
1. The plaintiff sued as the reversionary heir of one Ramnarain Shukul for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by Manbasi Kuer, widow of Ramnarain Shukul, in favour of one Sabhapat Pande, is void as against the plaintiff The property gifted is partly the property of Ramnarain Shukul and partly property obtained by pre-emption by the widow. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but in appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree only in respect of that portion of the property which belonged to Ramnarain. As to the other half he held that although it would have been considered to be an accretion to the husband's estate if the widow had died without making any disposition of it, the fact that the widow had actually disposed of it in her lifetime shows it to have been her own exclusive property, and the transaction as to this portion of the property cannot be challenged by her husband's heirs, We have been asked in second appeal to consider that there ...
Kanauji Lal Vs. Chiranji Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All589
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendant from an order setting aside a dismissal for default of appearance in a suit for profits in the Revenue Court. The Assistant Collector rightly or wrongly came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the plaintiff, and has there fore ordered that the dismissal for default be set aside and the original suit be restored to its number. It is quite clear that no appeal lies from an order setting aside such a dismissal. Section 248(3), Agra Tenancy Act, makes only such orders as are mentioned in Sections 47, 104 and Order 43 appealable. This is not such an order. It follows therefore that although if a decree were passed in a suit, an appeal might have laid to the District Judge, no appeal lies to him from the order in question. The language of Section 253, Agra Tenancy Act, which has replaced the provisions of Section 115, Civil P.C., therefore precludes us from entertaining a revision, b...
Anand Singh and anr. Vs. Collector of Bijnor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All610
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by defendant 1, Kunwar Anand Singh with whom his son Kunwar Sundar Singh has been joined as an appellant. The lower appellate Court has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the Collector of Bijnor in charge of the Kashipur Estate under the Court of Wards, the estate being owned at present by the Raj Kumar Hari Chand Raj Singh, minor. The transactions out of which this suit has arisen areas follows:2. On 14th June 1911 the appellant Kunwar Anand Singh borrowed Rs. 20,000, on a simple bond payable on demand from Bisheshwar Nath and Gauri Shankar, the rate of interest being annas 0-12-0 per cent per mensem with six-monthly rests. On the same date defendant 2 the brother of Kunwar Anand Singh, Raja Udai Raj Singh, who was at that time the Raja of Kashipur, executed a surety bond by which he mortgaged certain property in Naini Tal called Strawberry Hall and Kashipur house. The deed set forth that he stood surety for the appellant and if the appell...
Barmha Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All681
King, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The application raises the question whether the Magistrate's omission to record in his order under Section 145(1) the grounds of his being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning some immovable property vitiates the subsequent proceedings. One Madho Singh made an application under Section 145, Criminal P.C. alleging that there was a dispute between him and the persons of the opposite party regarding the possession of a certain field, and that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace on account of the interference by the opposite party. He stated that the land was his sir and he had begun cutting his crop when the opposite party came with lathis and drove him away by force and threatened to kill him if he came near the field again. The Magistrate called for a police report and also took evidence under Section 202, Criminal...
Ram Agyan Pandey Vs. Chatrughun Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All44
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a holding. In the plaint the plaintiff frankly admitted that defendant 2 is one of several zamindars in the village and defendant 1 as a ryot of defendant 2 and that two defendants forcibly ejected the plaintiff from his holding and sowed crops. The relief claimed was a decree for possession and mesne profits. The first Court came to the conclusion that the defendant's plea that the claim was not cognisible by the civil Court could not be entertained. On appeal the lower appellate Court came to a contrary conclusion. It is admitted that the dispossession took place after the coming in- to force of the new Tenancy Act and the case is no longer governed by the old Tenancy Act.2. No doubt for some 3 years prior to the passing of the new Tenancy Act there were a few rulings of this Court in which it was laid down that an ejectment to come within the scope of Section 79, of the Ole Tenancy Act,...
Edna May Olivia Hardless Vs. Harold Richard Hardless
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All536; 145Ind.Cas.845
ORDERYoung, J.1. This is a petition by the respondent alleging that on 24th December 1931 he wrote a letter to Capt. Carleton, Barrister who now appears for the petitioner, engaging him in the case and giving him confidential information which might prejudice the respondent if Capt. Carleton continued to act for the petitioner. He asks that an order should be made prohibiting Capt. Carleton from appearing in the case. I have read the letter of 24th December and there is nothing whatever in the letter which would prejudice the respondent if Capt. Carleton appears for the petitioner. The petition is for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. There is nothing in the letter alluding to the respondent's defence upon this charge. He merely refers to complaints that he has against his wife and he desired to take action so that he might obtain custody of the children. The letter did not difinitely engage counsel's services. Capt. Carleton offered a consultation to the respondent in...
Ram Ratan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All582
King, J.1. A preliminary point has been raised that Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Nagar, at the time of delivering judgment, had no jurisdiction as Sessions Judge and therefore the convictions and sentences are illegal. We have called for a report from Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Nagar. He states that he made over charge of the office of the Sessions and Subordinate Judge, Banda, on the forenoon of 25th February 1932 and he delivered judgment in this case on the forenoon of the same day, so far as he recollects. He states that when he signed the charge-sheet the judgment was ready and only a fair copy was being typed. He delivered the judgment as soon as it was ready, after the charge-sheet had been signed.2. We also have an affidavit sworn by Mr. Kutbuddin Ahmad, a pleader of Banda, who was engaged by the Crown to represent the two accused persons in the Sessions trial. He positively asserts that judgment in this case was delivered by Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Nagar between 1 and 2 p.m. on 25th February 1932. He give...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »