Allahabad Court October 1934 Judgments
Bharat Lal Vs. Jiwan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All141
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is an application by the defendant under Section 115, Civil P.C. The facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit upon the basis of a promissory note for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 82-8-0. The suit was filed in the Court of the Small Cause Judge, Benares, on 2nd January 1932. A note was made on the order sheet as follfows:Transferred to the Honorary Munsif's Court under the order of the District Judgo of Benares dated 24th June 1931.2. The Honorary Munsif's Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff went in appeal and the Additional Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Benares decreed the plaintiff's suit. In revision it is argued before me that no appeal lay to the learned Subordinate Judge. The argument is that the case must be deemed to be transferred from the Court of the Small Cause Court Judge to the Court of the Honorary Munsif under Section 24, Civil P.C., and under Clause (4) the Honorary Munsif, trying the suit so transferred, should, for the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Ullah Khan and anr. Vs. Ahsan Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All147; 159Ind.Cas.64
1. This is an appeal by certain objectors to an application originally filed under Section 7 of Act 14 of 1920. The applicant alleged that Mt. Haji Begam had dedicated certain property and prescribed a certain line of mutwallis and the applicant was the mutwalli of the trust property, lie asked for numerous directions to be given to him by the Court in his administration of the trust property. His main point was that the income of the trust property had been reduced considerably and that there should be proportionate reduction under all heads, lie also wanted a declaration in favour of his sons that they were equally entitled to certain allowances.2. The application was opposed by certain beneficiaries under the deed of trust who denied the pedigree set up by the applicant, denied the fact that the applicant was a trustee, denied that the income had been in any way reduced, denied that the applicant's sons were entitled to any allowances and also denied the jurisdiction of the District...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Das and anr. Vs. Kashi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All264; 153Ind.Cas.763
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in Civil Revision against an order of a Small Cause Court returning a plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The lower Court held that the plaint should be heard on the regular side. The plaint set out that the defendant 'without right and without consent by deceit unlawfully reaped the crop' of the plaintiff. The lower Court is not correct in saying that the word 'forcibly' was used, but that does not appear to affect the matter. The lower Court held that these allegations would constitute an offence under Chap. 17, Penal Code, and therefore the suit was excluded from Small Cause Court jurisdiction by Article 35(2), Small Cause Courts Act. Learned Counsel argued on the strength of two rulings : Bandhu Pandey v. Gauri Datt Pandey (1930) I.C. 481 and Bhan Dutt v. Moti Lal 1932 All 472, that the words in the plaint would not constitute an offence under Chap. 17,. Penal Code, and that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction. T...
Tag this Judgment!Noola Vs. L. Chimman Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All148; 159Ind.Cas.70
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against a decree passed against him by a Judge of the Small Cause Court at Agra. The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 45 against the defendant on the allegation that the said sum was due for arrears of rent for seven months; the rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 10 a month for two months and Rs. 5 a month for five months. It was said that the plaintiff was the owner of two shops which the defendant had taken on rent, but about the end of March 1933 one of the shops was sold at an auction and purchased by a third party and thus the defendant was liable to pay the rent of only one of the shops after the auction-sale. The defence was that only one month's rent was due and the defendant thus admitted the liability to the extent of Rs. 10. He went on to say that for the last six months the shops were in the ownership of a third person who had purchased them at an auction-sale and the rent had been reg...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoore Singh and ors. Vs. Karan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All142
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of a sum, of money on the basis of a promote, said to have been executed by Bhurey Singh, and Rup Ram. Rup Ram is dead and his two sons, Beni Ram and Charan Singh, were arrayed as defendants legal representatives of Rup Ram, the deceased-executant. Bhurey Simgli is also one of the sons of Rup Ram. The pronote purported to bear the thumb impressions of Bhurey Singh and Rup Ram. Bhurey Singh denied the thumb impressions on the promissory note to be his or of his father, Ram Ram. The other two sons of Rup Ram also denied the thumb impression of Rup Ram and said that no money had been taken by Rup Ram. The promissory note along with certain other documents, containing the admitted signatures of Bhurey Ram and Rup Ram were sent to the thumb impressions expert in the office of the Deputy-Inspector-Ceneral of Police, C.I.D., U.P., and his report was that the promissory note did bear the thumb impression of Bhurey Singh, defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Karan Shukla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All179; 153Ind.Cas.422
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by a decree-holder whose application for execution has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court which sustained the objection of the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder had a simple money decree against the judgment-debtor dated 10th May 1927 which had been upheld in appeal, the appellate order of this Court in second appeal being dated 12th February 1931. An application was made under Order 21, Rule 11. for execution of the decree. The method in which execution was desired in column 10 of the form states:The decree-holders say that Rs. 1,693-11-6 may be caused to be realized by attachment and sale of the property given in the inventory attached hereto.2. This was the ordinary application for execution of a simple money decree by attachment and sale of the property under Order 21, Rule 30. No objection was taken to this application as such but on 10th April 1933, the judgment-debtor filed an objection stating that the judgment-debtor ha...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. L. Himman Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All259; 157Ind.Cas.1052
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by a judgment-debtor under the following circumstances:There was a compromise decree for instalments passed on 11th May 1928, between the parties by which it was agreed that the total amount due was Rs. 1,100, that Rs. 300 would be paid within a month of the compromise decree and that the balance of Rs. 800 was to be paid by instalments of Rs. 25 on 1st November and 1st May, the first instalment being payable on 1st November 1928. The compromise further provided that in case of failure to pay two instalments, all the money will be paid at once and in case the Rs. 300 is not paid all the money will be paid at once with 1 per cent, interest per mensem. It will be noted that it was not provided that all the money is to be paid at once in case the Rs. 300 is not paid within a month; that is, the words 'within a month' are not repeated but I interpret the decree to mean that the default would arise if the Rs. 300 were not paid in a month. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Hardeo Ram Vs. (Firm) Girdhar Lal Kanhayia Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All280; 153Ind.Cas.510
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a defendant against a Small Cause Court decree. The suit was on account books for a debt. The claim was for Rs. 100 principal and Rs. 36 interest up to the date of the suit at 2 per cent, per mensem. The first point taken is that Section 69, Partnership Act, applied to the plaintiff firm and the suit was not maintainable. This section makes it necessary for a firm to be registered before it can sue. Section 5 of the Act states that the relation of partnership arises, from a contract; and not from status and in particular the members of a Hindu undivided family carrying on a family business as such are not partners in such business. The plaintiffs are father and son forming a joint Hindu family and therefore they do not come under Section 69, Partnership Act. Learned Counsel desired to take a further point not in his memorandum of revision to the effect that under Order 30, Rule 1(2) the plaint on behalf of the firm could not be verified by ...
Tag this Judgment!Habibul Razzaq Vs. Shiam Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All292; 153Ind.Cas.511
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a judgment-debtor who claims exemption of the house in which lie resided from attachment and sale in execution of a simple money decree. The exemption is claimed on the ground that he is an agriculturist under Section 60(1)(c). I understand that an agriculturist refers to an occupation and that a man is an agriculturist who engages in the cultivation of land, that is, who ploughs land, sows the crop and attends to it. The appellant admittedly does not cultivate land himself by his own efforts. His occupation is that of a mukhtax-i-am. As part of his pay he receives from his master some land free of rent in a village which is 16 or 17 kos from his residential house in the town of Budaun. This land is cultivated by labourers hired by the appellant. I do not consider that the cultivation of land by hired labourers by a person who has a different occupation constitutes that person an agriculturist. Accordingly I dismiss this second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo and ors. Vs. Rameshsar Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All150; 157Ind.Cas.364
ORDERBajpai, J.1. Plaintiffs' suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 200, due on a promissory note executed on 26th April 1929 has been dismissed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Allahabad. The plaintiffs' allegation was that the defendant had executed a promissory note in 'their favour for Rs. 300, that the interest on the promissory note had been regularly paid 'by reason of a contemporaneous transaction having been carried into effect and that Rs. 100 towards principal had been paid and therefore the sum due to the plaintiffs was Rs. 300. It is necessary to mention this contemporaneous transaction. It was a lease by the defendant of certain muafi plots of three bighas for a period of three years. The rent reserved was Rs. 24 per bigha per year or Rs. 72 for the entire land leased. The interest on the bond was at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent per mensem and thus the interest also comes to Rs. 72 a year. The defendant covenanted that the plaintiffs would remain in possession of the three...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »