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.
Bahadur Lal Vs. Judges of the High Court
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All18
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application by an Advocate of this court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of suspension passed against him by a Full Bench on 26th May 1932. He has been suspended for a period of three months with effect from that date. It appears that this High Court has on previous occasion treated such applications as falling under Section 109(c), Civil P.C., and granted leave in fit cases. The words of that section are no doubt general and leave to appeal from any order is allowed when the case is certified to be a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council. In Parbati Charan Chatterji 1895 17 All 498, In re Rajendro Nath Makerji 1900 22 All 49, and In re S.B. Sarbadhicary 1907 29 All 95 leave was applied for and granted by this Court. It also does not appear that any objection was taken to the granting of such leave before their Lordships of the Privy Council.2. We think that inasmuch as an advocate has been ordered to be suspended from prac...
Mohammad Rafi and anr. Vs. Kripa Ramji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All99
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out. of a suit for redemption of a mortgage, dated 12th July 1840. The plaintiffs are representatives of the original mortgagors and the defendants are the representatives of the original mortgagees. The existence of the mortgage is now in dispute, but the main plea, for consideration is whether the claim is barred by time. Obviously the suit was brought more than 60 years after the date of the mortgage and was prima facie barred by time. In the plaint the plaintiffs however relied on two acknowledgments, one contained in a dakhalnama, dated 21st November 1887, and the other contained in a scheme for partition dated 27th June 1888. The Court of first instance held that there was no valid acknowledgment under either of these two documents and accordingly dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that there was a valid acknowledgment under the dakhalnama of 1887 which extended the...
Ram Kumar and ors. Vs. Lala Girdhari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All712
Pullan, J.1. This is an application in revision of an order of the District Judge of Bareilly, who refused to entertain the applicant's application to file an appeal in forma pauperis. The order passed by the District Judge is as follows:I see no reason to allow this appeal. Appli1 cation rejected.2. It is submitted that this order was 1 passed in chambers, that it is not in accordance with the requirements of the 1 law and that the applicant should have 1 had a chance of being heard before the I District Judge. Order 44, Civil P.C., prescribe that a Court shall reject such an 1 application, unless upon a perusal there I of and of the judgment and decree appealed from it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law or is other wise erroneous or unjust. Thus the duty I of the Judge in this case was to reject j the application, unless he was satisfied ' that the judgment was wrong; and the manner in which he was so to satisfy himself wa...
Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All534
Kendall, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the Crown for the cancellation of an order passed by me on 7th December 1931, granting bail to one Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim. The arguments on the application have given rise to the legal question of whether when the High Court has passed an order under Section 498, Criminal P.C. granting bail, that order for bail may be cancelled without the accused person having done anything; since the order to violate any condition on which bail was granted. When an application for bail on behalf of Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim was made before me the position was that Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim was being prosecuted for offences under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. The actual inquiry had not started, but both the inquiring Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had refused to release him on bail. I directed his release as appears from the order of 7th December 1931 on grounds that might have been the basis of an order under Section 497, Sub-section (2), Criminal P.C., b...
Ram Charan Sahu Vs. Jumna Prasad Sahu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All696
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal purporting to be an appeal from an order passed in execution. The order in question is in the following words:In the sale proclamation the valuation be fixed at 50 times the land revenue.2. This order was passed when there was a dispute as to the valuation to be entered in the proclamation of sale. It is obvious that there has been no adjudication of the rights of the parties and such an order therefore does not amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 47 read with Sub-section 2, Civil P.C. This view is supported by the case of Ajudhia Prasad v. Gopi Nath [1917] 39 All. 415 and followed in Nathu Lal v. Yasodha Devi : AIR1932All136 . We agree with the view that every order passed in proceedings under Order 21, Rule 66 cannot be a decree within the meaning of Section 47 unless it amounts to an adjudication on the rights of parties. In the case of Shaim Lal v. Boshan Lal [1916] 35 I.C. 230 Piggott, J., was careful not to decide t...
Shri Kishan Lal and ors. Vs. Bijai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All701
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the land-holder for a declaration that the property in dispute, which is a grove land, was not liable to be sold in execution of a money decree against the landholder's grove-holder and for possession of the property. In substance the plaint is for the ejectment of the purchaser of the grove on the allegation that such a transfer was invalid and the land-holder was entitled to recover possession of the grove. The defendant pleaded that the grove was transferable as there was no custom prohibiting such a transfer. There was no plea taken that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff however put forward the case that there was a custom prohibiting transfers of groves. The suit was instituted on 6th September 1927, after the coming into force of the new Tenancy Act, and the auction sale of the grove also took place shortly after the coming into force of the new Act. The first Cou...
Jauhari and anr. Vs. Tunday
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All21
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of my learned brother. So far _as the question whether after the integrity of the mortgage has been broken a co-mortgagor can, as of right, claim redemption of his share only, is concerned, I have no doubt that he cannot claim more. He is not entitled to take possession of the share of the other co-mortgagors against the will of the mortgagee. When the mortgagee has acquired a part of the mortgaged property, he is on the same footing as the other co-mortgagors. He cannot be compelled to hand over possession of the shares which do not belong to the plaintiffs. I do not think that any of the cases referred to by my learned brother is an authority for the proposition that if the mortgagee submits to the redemption of the whole property on payment of the whole amount due, the taking over possession of the other co-mortgagors' shares is unlawful and the redeeming co-mortgagor enters into adverse possession of those shares immediate...
Emperor Vs. Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.768
Kendall, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the Crown for the cancellation of an order passed by me on December the 7th, 1931, granting bail to one Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim. The arguments on the application have given rise to the legal question of whether when the High Court has passed an order under Section 498, Criminal Procedure Code, granting bail, that order for bail may be cancelled without the accused person having done anything since the order to violate any condition on which bail was granted.2. When an application for bail on behalf of Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim was made before me the position was that Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim was being prosecuted for offences under Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code. The actual enquiry had not started, but both the enquiring Magistrate and me Sessions Judge had refused to release him on bail. I directed his release as appears from the order of 7th December, 1931, on grounds that might have been the basis of an order under Section 497, Sub...
Mt. Afzali Begam Vs. Lala Kanhaya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All511
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in a first appeal from a preliminary decree passed under Order 34, Rule 4, in a mortgage suit for sale. The memorandum of appeal was presented in this Court and was duly admitted, and the appeal was ordered to be put up for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, either for dismissal or issue of notice. On 8th December 1931 a Bench of this Court passed the following order:If the appellant brings into Court the sum of Rs. 5,478 and Rs. 500 for security for costs within four months from this date, the appeal is to be admitted, otherwise the appeal is to stand automatically rejected and no further time will be given under any circumstances.2. Before the expiry of the time allowed the appellant filed an application praying that the appeal should be unconditionally admitted and notice be issued to the respondent. There is no doubt that after the memorandum of appeal is admitted under Order 41, Rule 9 and even before the issue of notice to the respondent under ...
Narsingh NaraIn Vs. Ram Chandra Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All509
Mukerji, J.1. The point that has been referred to the Full Bench is as follows:Whether a person, who has purchased a share in a village, can maintain a suit for pre-emption against a stranger who has subsequently purchased another share, although 12 months from the date of the registration of the plaintifi'3 deed of purchase have not expired and he himself is still liable to be pre-empted by other cosharers.2. The only facts that are necessary to be stated for the decision of this point are as follows : One Mt. Atraji executed a sale deed to one Narsingh Narain on 23rd February 1926. It was by virtue of this purchase that Narsingh Narain became a cosharer in village Jiwa and by virtue of this purchase he claimed pre-emption of a subsequent transfer to be mentioned presently. On 1st May 1926 two persons Lakhpat and Mt. Kanika, sold, among other properties, a share in village Jiwa to one Ram Chander. Two suits for preemption were brought, one against Narsingh Narain by Ganpat which was i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »