Allahabad Court November 1933 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.
Bhudat Singh Vs. Mangat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All296; 147Ind.Cas.1168
Mukerji, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. Two points were raised in the memorandum of appeal, one being of limitation which has not been pressed, and the second being that the lower appellate Court erred in law in remanding the case and in directing that the succession certificate be taken in evidence by the lower Court.2. The facts involved are very simple. The defendant executed a promissory-note in favour of one Kanhaiya Lal whose legal representatives transferred it to the plaintiff-respondent, Mangat Rai. Mangat Rai brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of the money due on the promissory note.3. The defendant-appellant was absent as also the other defendants who were only formal parties, being representatives of Kanhaiya Lal. An ex parte decree was made against all the defendants. Defendant 1, Bhuddat Singh, filed an appeal before the District Judge and among the other points taken by him one was that the production of a succession certificate was nec...
B. Prag Nath Vs. Mt. Indra Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All456
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order directing attachment of certain properties before judgment. The order purported to have been passed under Order 38, Rule 6 and an appeal from an order passed under that Rule is allowed by Order 41, Rule 1(q).2. The defendants did not raise the objections in the Court below which is raised before us, viz., that the notice issued by the Court below ordering the attachment was not in compliance with Order 38, Rule 5. Under that order, when the Court is satisfied that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree, is about to dispose of...his property, or is about to remove the...property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, it may direct the defendant either (1) to furnish security to produce the property or the value thereof, or (2) to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security. Under Rule 6, when the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security o...
Firm Ghanshyam Das Hanuman Prasad Vs. B. JainaraIn Verman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All444
Young, J.1. This is an execution first appeal from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad. The matter came before the learned Subordinate Judge on an application of an Interim Receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act. A judgment-debtor became insolvent. He filed his petition. Previous to this however the decree-holder had a decree against the judgment-debtor and subsequent to the decree a compromise was effected whereby the judgment-debtor agreed to pay a certain sum of money by instalments. He further purported as security for payment to give a charge on certain property. It is to be noted that the words used in the petition of compromise amount to a mortgage upon the property. The Interim Receiver applied to the Court under Section 52, Provincial Insolvency Act, for the property to be delivered to him. The decree-holder objected that be was a secured creditor and therefore the Provincial Insolvency Act did not apply to his execution proceedings. He ha...
Kamta Prasad Misir and anr. Vs. Chait NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All531
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption which was tried with another suit for the same purpose in the following circumstances : Bans Gopal sold to Chet Narain, the respondent No. 1 in this Court, certain amount of property on 24th of August 1928. Thereupon, two suits were filed to pre-empt the said property. Kamta Prasad and his son Chandi Prasad filed suit No. 435 of 1929 and Beni Madho, whose legal representative is one of the respondents in this appeal, filed suit No. 436 of 1929 also for pre-emption. The suits were heard together. The learned Munsif held that the total consideration was Rs. 1,500 and that the plaintiffs in both the suits were of equal status and were entitled to pre-empt, as against Chet Narain. On the question whether Kamta Prasad and Chandi Prasad were entitled to be treated as two pre-emptors or as only one pre-emptor for the purpose of division of property among the pre-emptors, the counsel for the plaintiffs in suit No. 435 stated thatas...
Bala Prasad, Secy. Municipal Board Vs. Muzammil Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All190
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a criminal reference made by the District Judge of Jalaun, recommending that the order passed by a Magistrate, Third Class, of that district, acquitting Muzammil Hussain of an offence under Section 185, U.P. Municipalities Act, be set aside. It appears that Muzammil Hussain, who is a wood contractor, erected what is described by the trying Magistrate as 'a temporary shed' and by the District Magistrate as a 'chappar,' without the permission of the Municipal Board of Oral. It is not disputed that the site, on which the shed or chappar stands, is within the limits of Oral Municipality. The accused was prosecuted by the Municipal Board, but was acquitted by this Tahsildar Magistrate of Oral on two grounds namely, (1) that the shed did not abut or was not adjacent to a public street, or place or property vested in His Majesty or in the Municipal Board, and (2) that the shed in question cannot be considered to be a building within the meaning of that word, as ...
Lal Behari Prasad Pandey and anr. Vs. Bindesari Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All249
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by objectors in execution proceedings. The respondent, Bindesari Misra, obtained a simple money decree against the appellants, who are the sons of Sheo Saran, who was liable to pay the sum to which the decree related. The suit having been brought after the death of Sheo Saran, a decree was passed against the assets of the deceased which, having regard to Section 53, Civil P.C., includes property in the hands of his sons and which may be liable to pay bis debt. It appears that, not long before the death of Sheo Saran, a partition had taken place amongst the members of his joint family, which consisted of a father, two sons and the wife of the father. Each of them obtained a i share in the family property. Subsequently the mother died, and later on the father also died. The debt, to which the decree related, had been contracted before the partition. It is not disputed that, in spite of the partition to which reference has been made, the entire joint fa...
L. Laiq Ram Vs. Har Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All253; 147Ind.Cas.1201
Rachpal Singh, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, rejecting his prayer that a decree which is being executed against him should be transferred for execution to the Collector. The respondents-decree holders obtained a mortgage decree against the judgment-debtors on 15th August 1931 which was made final on 12th March 1932. On 17th June 1932 the decree-holders applied for execution and asked for the sale of the mortgaged properties. The judgment-debtor made an application, asking that as the sale of agricultural land was asked, the decree should be transferred to the Collector for execution. This contention was not accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge who held that as the land sought to be sold was not under the cultivation of the judgment-debtor it was not therefore agricultural land and so the decree could not be sent to the Collector for execution. The present appeal has been preferred by the judgment-debtor against th...
Mt. Parbati Devi Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All311
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit for profits, instituted on 29th July 1927, that is nearly a month after the last day of the agricultural year, 1333 Fasli. The claim was for profits for the years 1331-1333 Fasli. The plaintiff-respondents also instituted a separate suit for the year 1334 F. The defendant had collected Rs. 800 five days before the institution of the present suit (for 1331-1333). It is not disputed that this sum represented part of the rental payable for the year 1333 F. The actual collection was, however, made after the expiry of the year 1333 F. The plaintiffs could have included this sum in their claim for 1334 F., for which a separate suit was instituted by him. Both the suits were decreed for certain amounts.2. One of the questions argued in appeal before me relates to the plaintiffs' right to a decree for profits in respect of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 800. The learned advocate for the defendant-appellant has contended th...
Rajju Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All325
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi in a case under Ch. 10, Criminal P.C. One Phul Chand made a complaint under Section 133, Criminal P.C., alleging that certain 'sandas' and cesspool, belonging to the opposite-party, Kajju Lal, amounted to public nuisance and should be ordered to be removed. The Magistrate made a conditional order requiring Rajju Lal to remove the nuisance or to appear and move the Magistrate to have the order set aside. Rajju did not remove the nuisance but appeared and moved the Court to set a side the order. He filed a written statement showing cause why the order served upon him should not be made absolute. He did not ask for a jury to be appointed under Section 135. The Magistrate passed no orders as regards the 'sandas' which had been constructed without the permission of the Municipal Board, and left the matter to be dealt with by the Board. As regards the cesspool, he found that it was a public nuisance and should...
Emperor Vs. Rajjoo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.615
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi in a case under Chapter X, Criminal Procedure Code. One Phul Chand made a complaint under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that a certain 'sandas' and cesspool, belonging to the opposite party, Rajju Lal, amounted to public nuisance and should be ordered to be removed. The Magistrate male a conditional order requiring Rajju Lal to remove the nuisance or to appear and move the Magistrate to have the order set aside. Rajju Lal did not remove the nuisance but appeared and moved the Court to set aside the order. He filed a written statement showing cause why the order served upon him should not be made absolute. He did not ask for a jury to be appointed under Section 135. The Magistrate passed no orders as regards the 'sandas' which had been constructed without the permission of the Municipal Board, and left the matter to be dealt with by the Board. As regards the cesspool, he found that it was a pu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »