Allahabad Court July 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.
Hirambho Nath Banerji Vs. Sarojini Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All655
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application for stay of execution in first appeal from an order confirming an auction sale. In execution of a simple money decree the house property belonging to the applicant was put for sale and purchased by a third party. An application was filed for setting aside the sale but, it was dismissed and the sale was confirmed. Thereupon the sale certificate was duly granted and then the auction-purchaser applied to the Court below for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95. In the meantime the judgment debtor has, applied from the order confirming the sale and has impleaded both the auction purchaser and the decree-holder.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any stay. It is contended that Order 41, Rule 5 is not applicable to this case because the application for delivery of possession is not a proceeding under the order confirming the sale but is a separate pr...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Mahadeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All683
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad recommending that an order of a Magistrate under Section 146, Criminal P.C. should be set aside. The order directs that certain landed property should be kept in attachment pending the decision of the civil Court and the order directs the parties to file a partition suit in the civil Court within three months. This order was first attacked on the ground that there was no finding by the Magistrate that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. Under Section 145(1) the Magistrate to whom a report is made by the police comes to a finding that he is satisfied of the likelihood of a breach of the peace and issues notices to the parties. There is such an order of the Magistrate in the notices which he issued of the parties in this case that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. It is not necessary for the Magistrate to again come to a finding on this point in his subsequent order.2. The next ground ...
Mt. Hamidan Bibi Vs. Nanhe Mai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All372
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance', was rightly ordered to pay a sum of Rupees 253 as compensation as a condition precedent to have a decree for avoidance of a sale-deed executed by her in favour of the respondents. It appears that the appellant and her mother sold a house to the respondents for a sum of Rs. 2,700. There was some trouble as regards possession, and the purchasers obtained a decree under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to obtain a cancellation of the' sale-deed so far as her interest was concerned. The prayer she asked for was in the following language:On establishment of the fact that the sale-deed dated 30th October 1919 is unlawful and void against the plaintiff's right, a decree may be passed by the Court declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of....2. The suit theref...
Sahu Ram Kishore Vs. Seth Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All68
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. All the necessary facts of this case could not be discovered when the appeal was before us on a former occasion, and we had to adjourn the arguments for summoning of records. The facts materially are briefly these. One Chiranji Lal, the respondent before us. had a mortgage decree against Keshab Deo and others, being Decree No. 424 of 1920, which was made final on 20th August 1921. To this suit one Gauri Shankar was a party. Gauri Shankar for some reason with which we are not concerned filed Suit No. 514 of 1922 and made an application for an injunction directing that the sale fixed for 18th January 1923 should not be held at the instance of the decree-holder. Chiranji Lai, pending the disposal of the suit. The Court ordered that if Gauri Shankar furnished security to the amount of Rs. 5,000, the sale should be stayed. An undertaking was given by the appellant before us, one Ram Kishore, by execution of a bond, dated 29th January 1923, that if the suit of Gauri Shank...
Bhola Umar and anr. Vs. Mt. Kausilla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All617
Sulaiman, C.J.1. There has undoubtedly been considerable controversy as to whether Act 15 of 1856 was applicable to all Hindu widows or not. The Allahabad High Court from the very beginning has laid down that the Act does not apply to such Hindu widows as were entitled under their custom to remarry and who were not bound to take advantage of the Act. Opinion in the other High Courts has considerably varied, and the Allahabad view has been openly dissented from. But it appears that with the lapse of time opinion in the other High Courts, particularly the Madras High Court, has come round towards the view of this Court, at least so far as the applicability of the Act is concerned. The Judges who have held that all widows are governed by the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, have based their view on the wide language of that section. It reads:All rights and interests which any widow may have in her deceased husband's property shall upon her remarriage cease an determine as if she had th...
Amraj Singh and ors. Vs. Shambhu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All632; 140Ind.Cas.509
Sulaiman, C.J.1. I concur in the conclusion that the mortgage deed in dispute not having been proved to have been for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family, cannot be held to be binding on the defendants.2. It seems to me that the answer to the question is not capable of being stated broadly. On the one hand, it cannot be said that money re mired by the manager of a joint Hindu family in order to pay the pre-emption money and costs for the acquisition of fresh property is in all cases without legal necessity or benefit to the family estate, and is therefore always outside the authority of the father. Nor can it be laid down, on the other hand, that every manager is entitled to borrow money in order to acquire fresh property by pre-emption. The answer to the question must depend on the special circumstances of each case. Where a pre-emption claim is in reality in the nature of a speculation or is not in the best interests of the family, the action of the manager would be with...
Karan Singh Vs. Sadho Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All192
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This Execution First Appeal (No. 330 of 1931) is connected with Execution First Appeal No. 450 of 1931. Both appeals are by a judgment-debtor and arise out of proceedings in execution of a final decree for sale. In order to appreciate the points in controversy between the parties, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. Sadho Ram, the decree-holder,, respondent obtained on the basis of a mortgage-deed a preliminary decree for sale on 27th August 1928, against Thakur Haran Singh, the appellant before us and his minor son Mahendra Singh who was impleaded as a defendant under the guardianship of his mother Mt. Hastun. A final decree for sale was passed in favour of the decree-holder against the said judgment-debtor on 4th May 1929. On 11th June 1929, the decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree.2. The application was accompanied by a statement containing the particulars mentioned in Order 21, Rule 66(3), Civil P.C. It was stated in that s...
Ram Nath Vs. Nanak Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All686
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of two 3hops, the plaintiff claiming a three-fourths share in one and half in the other. He claims title from Mangu Lal, defendant 3 under a sale deed dated 15th December 1919, executed by the latter. The deed purports to transfer to the vendee all rights which the vendor had. Mangu Lal himself did not contest the plaintiff's suit but one of his half-brothers, the present respondent 1, resisted it on grounds which will presently appear. The plaintiff also claimed a subsidiary relief of damages amounting to Rs. 500 on the allegation that defendant 1 completely demolished a portion of one of the shops and appropriated the materials thereof. The Munsif, before whom the suit had been instituted, decreed the plaintiff's claim for partition and to damages amounting to Rs. 120 to be paid by defendant 1. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suit in its entirety on an appeal preferred' by defendant 1. In the present second appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›