Allahabad Court July 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.
Har Bilas Vs. Dalla and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All829
Bajpai, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court. It appears that the plaintiff as the zamindar of Nagla Patram Mahal Netram khewat No. 1 brought a suit for possession of the land mentioned in the plaint alleging that that land had been encroached upon by the defendants, who had dug certain holes for planting trees and had planted certain trees in other places in the said land. The plots in dispute as given in the plaint are numbered as 1308, 1311 and 1323. The defendants are admittedly ex-proprietary tenants in that mahal but their ex-proprietary tenancy is over a plot other than the three plots mentioned above. These three plots lie very near the ex-proprietary tenancy of the defendants. The defendants pleaded that the trees in dispute lie on the ridges of their ex-proprietary holding and they further pleaded that even if the trees and plants did not stand on the ridges of the ex-proprietary holding then they have from of old an...
Sansar Chand Vs. Mt. Durga Dasi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All93
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen from a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the decree passed in suit No. 12 of 1923 in favour of defendant 2 against defendant I for sale of certain property is void as against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Pt. Sansar Chand is a male collateral in the male line of Hakim Suraj Singh, who had three wives, Sardha Devi, Mathuri and Durga Dasi, whose names have been mentioned above in the order of seniority. Suraj Singh made a gift in favour of Mt. Sardha Devi in respect of, his entire moveable and immoveable property on 12th November 1877. It is common ground that the gift was given effect to and Mt. Sardha Devi remained in possession of the property gifted to her till her death. Suraj Singh died sometime before 1883.2. The exact date of his death is not material. By a will dated 16th March 1883, Mt. Sardha Devi made certain dispositions in favour of her two co-widows (Mathuri and Durga Dasi) and the plaintiff (Sansar Chan...
Baldeo Singh and anr. Vs. Chuni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All664
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for stay of sale of a house and grove belonging to the appellants. The respondents obtained a decree for sale on foot of a mortgage, and the mortgaged property was sold. The sale proceeds did not prove sufficient for satisfaction of the entire mortgage money and the mortgagees obtained a decree over under Order 34, Rule 6, and proceeded to attach, other property belonging to the judgment-debtors whose house and grove were attached. They objected to the sale of the house on the ground that they were agriculturists and therefore their residential house could not be sold in execution of a decree. Their objection has been disallowed by the lower Court. Hence this appeal. By this application they apply for an order directing stay of sale pending their appeal.2. There is no doubt that, unless the stay prayed for is granted, the appeal to this Court will be wholly in-fructuous. The learned advocate for the respondents contends that, as the appella...
Mt. Hasina Begum and ors. Vs. Abdul Hafiz
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All100
Niamatullah, J.1. This purports to be a first appeal from order. We, however, think that it is an appeal from a 'decree' as defined in Section 3(14), Agra Tenancy Act, according to which 'decree' means 'any order which, so far as the revenue Court is concerned finally disposes of a suit.' It will be observed that this definition gives a considerably enlarged meaning to 'decree' as compared with 'decree' defined in Section 2(2), Civil P.C., according to which that expression means:the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in suit....2. The essential difference between the two appears to be that, according to the definition contained in the Agra Tenancy Act, an order may amount to a decree, though it does not adjudicate upon the rights of the parties but disposes of the suit on the preliminary ground, provided the decision finally disp...
Musammat Hasina Begam and ors. Vs. Munshi Abdul Hafiz
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.81
1. This purports to be a first appeal from order. We, however, think that it is an appeal from a 'decree' as defined in Section 3 (14) of the Agra Tenancy Act, according to which 'decree' means 'any order which, so far as the Revenue Court is concerned, finally disposes of a suit.' It will be observed that this definition gives a considerably enlarged meaning to 'decree' as compared with 'decree' defined in Section 2 (2), Civil Procedure Code, according to which that expression meansthe formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in suit....The essential difference between the two appears to be that, according co the definition contained in the Agra Tenancy Act, an order may amount to a decree, though it does not adjudicate upon the rights of tue parties but disposes of the suit on a preliminary ground, provided the decision finally dispos...
Kalu Ram-ganpat Ram Vs. Ram Saran Ram-ram NaraIn Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All662; 145Ind.Cas.701
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Munsif of Ballia, in the Judgeship of Ghazipur, in the following circumstances : A suit of a small value of Rs. 13-14-6 was instituted on the Small Cause Court side of the Court of the Munsif of Ballia. As there was no Honorary Munsif or a Bench of Honorary Munsifs the case was transferred from the Court of Small Causes (Munsif of Ballia) to the Court of the Honorary Munsif. The Honorary Munsif made a decree and there was an appeal. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, set aside the decree and placed the record before the District Judge with a request that the case might betransferred to the Munsif of Ballia.2. The Munsif of Ballia now wants to know whether he should try the case on the regular side or on the Small Cause Court side of his Court. Notices were issued to the parties, but nobody has appeared before us. A suit instituted in a Court of Small Causes retains its character even if it is transferred to another Cou...
Ram Katori and anr. Vs. M. Shafiq Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All732; 147Ind.Cas.178
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the decree-holders against an order of the execution Court dismissing the application for execution by sale of mortgaged property. The facts are that there was a preliminary decree for sale on a mortgage-deed and a first appeal has been taken against that preliminary decree. Subsequently a final decree had been prepared for sale and the decree-holders applied for execution of this final decree. The order in question is that as an appeal was pending from the preliminary decree and further property in addition to the mortgaged property had been attached by the decree-holders, the sale should not be allowed, and the execution application for sale was dismissed with costs. A preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay. As the order definitely states that the execution application is dismissed, we consider that it is an order under Section 47, Civil P.C., and an appeal does lie. The proper procedure for the execution Court would be to...
Jamna Bhagat and ors. Vs. Oudh Behari Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All733
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. During the pendency of the appeal the defendants-vendees, who were seven in number, acquired properties by means of several exchanges and pleaded that they had become co-sharers on the same footing as the plaintiffs. The first Court held that the properties acquired under these exchanges did not confer sufficient right on the defendants to enable them to resist the claim. It accordingly decreed the suit and passed a joint decree for pre-emption against all the defendants on payment of one sum.2. The defendants appealed to the District Judge and during the pendency of the appeal one of the appellants died and his heirs were not brought on the record within the time allowed by law. The learned Judge overruled the objection that the whole appeal had abated and then came to the conclusion that the properties acquired under these exchanges conferred an indefeasible interest on the vendees and they were enti...
Kharaiti Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All665
ORDERKendall, J.1. The applicant, Kharaiti, has been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Moradabad of an offence under Section 366, Penal Code, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. The present application is made on the ground that both Courts have convicted the present applicant --who was put on his trial with several others--on the strength of a statement made by Mt. Naziran to the Sub-Inspector of the police station in Delhi, whereas it is argued that the statement was inadmissible under Section 162, Criminal P.C. No objection appears to have been taken to the admission of the statement in the trial Court. It was preferred in evidence by the prosecution and it was also used on behalf of the defence in order to shake the testimony of the witness by showing that there were discrepancies between her statement made in Court and the statement made to the police. 2. It appears that the cas...
Sheo Balak Chaudhari and anr. Vs. Ram Saran Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All788
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. On 29th August 1927, a sale-deed was executed by one Jaisiri in favour of Sheo Balak and Ram Sunder. On 1st September 1928, a suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondents, plaintiffs 1 and 2 as well as by plaintiff 3, Hari Shankar, on the ground that they were co-sharers in the mahal; whereas the vendees were perfect strangers. At that stage there was no necessity for them to allege that there was any preferential right in the first two plaintiffs on account of relationship. During the pendency of the suit, namely, on 11th September 1928, the: vendees obtained some share in the mahal under an exchange which put them on the same footing as co-sharers with the plaintiffs. On this Ha ri Shankar applied to withdraw from the suit, and the other plaintiffs applied for the amendment of the plaint so as to base their claim on their preferential right, as they alleged them selves to be descended from the commo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »