Allahabad Court November 1934 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.
Nawal Kishore Vs. Azim Uddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All210
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The plaintiff brought, a suit on the basis of a bond in the Court of the Judge Small Causes at Khurja on 4th July 1933. The Court fixed 25th August 1933, for the hearing of the case. The parties appeared on that date; the defendant filed his written statement and the Court was of the opinion that on the pleas taken by the defendant, the case needed a close inquiry and therefore the case was adjourned for 13th September 1933. It appears that on 4th or 5th September 1933 the plaintiff applied that the date might be changed and the Court on 5th September 1933, ordered that the case should come up for hearing on 9th October 1933. It is clear that the date of hearing was changed from 13th September to 9th October 1933, at the instance of the plaintiff and time was granted to him to produce his evidence on the altered date. The Court could not put the case on 9th October 1933, on account of contested cases and it adjourned the case for the succeeding date. On that date the ...
Abdul Ahad Vs. Brij NaraIn Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All269; 153Ind.Cas.984
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal in an execution case. In order to understand the case it is necessary to keep in mind the following facts : Karam Ata and. Abdul Samad were brothers. Abdul Ahad, the mortgagor, is the son of Abdul Samad. Absanullah and Mt. Razia Bibi are the two children of Karam Ata. Sheikh Abdul Ahad executed three mortgage-deeds in favour of the respondents. They were executed in 1906, 1914 and 1922, respectively. On foot of these three mortgage deeds, three separate suits were instituted and mortgage decrees were obtained by the respondents against Abdul Ahad. Those decrees have been made final. The respondents decree-holders have applied for execution of their decrees against the appellant. The objection taken by the appellant in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge was that the decree-holders were not entitled to proceed against the entire shares mentioned in the application for execution, but only against portions thereof. In order to understand this p...
Shera Khan Vs. Bhura Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All273; 157Ind.Cas.202
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision brought, by one Shera Shah against an order of the learned District Judge of Meerut, dated 26th May 1933. Shera Shah made an application on 19th March 1931 to the District Judge setting out that there was a shrine or dargah of Mastan Shah in Muzaffanagar District and that this shrine was endowed and in 1906 a case No. 1 of 1906. Abdulla Shah and Ors. v. Bunda Shah, was decided in the District Court for the removal of Bunda Shah and for framing a scheme for the management of the shrine. Learned Counsel admits that this application was under Section 92, Civil P.C. The application proceeded that it was decided that Bunda Shah should remain as mutwalli and that the scheme of management should remain as was arranged in 1900, and that there should be a committee of three visitors, the Collector, the Tahsildar and a respectable person of the locality, to manage the shrine. Later the applicant, Shera Shah became the mutwalli. By an order of...
Mangal and anr. Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All470; 157Ind.Cas.33
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for refund of the amount deposited by the plain tiffs in Court as auction-purchasers of certain properties against the contesting defendants who had attached and taken the surplus of the decretal amount which remained to the credit of the judgment-debtors.2. It appears that a suit had been filed by Digambar and others against the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder on 3rd July 1924, for declaration that the property did not belong to the judgment-debtor and was not liable to be sold, and for recovery of possession. While that suit was pending, the decree-holder put up the property for sale, and it was sold on 4th September. 1924, and purchased by the present plaintiffs. Before the period of 30 days expired and the sale could be confirmed, the auction-purchasers applied to the Court praying that the payment of sale proceeds may be held over till the decision of the civil suit. They however made no application under Or...
Firm Nawab Boot House Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All156; 159Ind.Cas.40
ORDERKendall, J.1. The facts of the case from which this application in revision has arisen are given clearly in the judgment of the trial Court. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the issue of limitation holding that Article 31 Limitation Act applied to the case. It is contended by Mr. Chaturvedi in support of the present application that Article 31, Limitation Act, does not apply because the plaintiff's suit was not one 'for compensation for non-delivery of or delay in the delivery of the goods,' but was clearly one as set forth in para. 7 of the plaint for wrongful conversion' of the goods, to which Article 48 or Article 49, Limitation Act, could be applied so that the period of limitation would be three years and not one.2. The trial Court has relied on three decisions, but the two Allahabad cases are really by no means parallel to the present one. The case G.I.P. Ry. v. Radhakisan 1926 Nag. 57 is no doubt an authority for his decision...
Lachhmi NaraIn and ors. Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All391
1. These appeals arise out of two suits on foot, of two mortgage-deeds, both dated 3rd December 1917, executed by one Bakhat Bahadur, in which, the same properties, seven in number, were hypothecated. One of the deeds was for Rs. 36,000 and the other for Rs. 1,950. The deed for Rupees, 36,000 was in favour of four sets of mortgagees, while the other was in favour of only three out of those four. Most of the mortgage money was left with the mortgagees for payment to certain prior mortgagees, who had encumbrances on the mortgaged properties. A peculiar feature of the deeds is that the sum advanced by each of the mortgagees was specified in the deed, making up the entire sum advanced under them. The details are. as follows:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sum advanced Sum advancedNo. of Names of mortgagees, each set under the deed under the deed Totalsets for forRs. 36,000 Rs. 1,950---------------------------------------------------...
Secy. of State Vs. Raghuber Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All186; 153Ind.Cas.574
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council judgment-debtor. The facts are that the opposite party is a decree-holder in a suit which was brought for Rs. 7,000 damages on account of physical injury sustained by the opposite party when driving a motor lorry on a level crossing and colliding with an express train. The decree in question was passed by a Subordinate Judge. It was within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge to award damages for the injury, etc., which the plaintiff had suffered up to date and it was also within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to pass a decree for prospective damages, i.e., damages which would include probable and future injury which would result to the plaintiff from the wrong act of the defendant. It is laid down in Underbill's Law of Torts, 3rd (Indian) Edition, in Article 38, 'Prospective Damages,' p. 115, that more than one action will not lie on the same cause of action and therefore prospectiv...
Mehdi Hasan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All212; 157Ind.Cas.990
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The learned Munsif of Deoband after holding a preliminary enquiry under Section 476, Criminal P.C., directed that:a complaint shall belonged before the District Magistrate of Saharanpur under Section 195(1)(b) and (c) read with Section 476, Criminal P.C., against Mehdi Hasan to stand his trial under Section 193 read with Section 198 and Section 471, I.P.C.2. An appeal against this was filed by Mehdi Hasan under Section 476B, Criminal P.C., in the Court of the District Judge, Saharanpur. The Court of the Munsif is subordinate to the Court of the District Judge because appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees of the Munsif to the Court of a District Judge; and so far everything was regular. The learned District Judge transferred the appeal to the Court of the Subordinate Judge who with some modifications has confirmed the direction of the learned Munsif.3. Mehdi Hasan has applied in revision to this Court under Section 115, Civil P.C. His first contention is t...
Rup Singh Nayal Vs. Mrs. Arjun Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All276; 153Ind.Cas.686
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a defendant against a decree of the lower appellate Court. The facts found are that on 6th July 1932, there was an application by a mukhtar of the defendant stating that if the plaintiff took an oath by Buddha that she had advanced Rs. 100 to the defendant then the suit should be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff did not take this oath then the defendant would take an oath by God that the defendant did not take any money from the plaintiff, and the suit should be dismissed. Neither parties were present on this date. The plaintiff's counsel stated that his client agreed and 12th July 1932, was fixed for the oath or oaths to be taken. On 9th July the defendant appeared in person and made a written application to the Court stating that he did not desire the proceeding by oath as the plaintiff was a Buddhist and the defendant would be out cased if he agreed to the proceeding. The Court did not agree to that application. O...
Lal Ram Sarup Vs. Kunji Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All263; 159Ind.Cas.48
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money on a hypothecation bond dated 15th August 1927. The bond was a mortgage-deed in favour of no less than six mortgagees. The plaintiff who is one of the mortgagees brought a suit and originally did not even implead his co-mortgagees, abandoned his security and wanted to obtain a decree for what he considered to be his share of the mortgage debt. On some objection being taken as to the indivisibility of the mortgage transaction, he impleaded the other mortgagees without in any way amending his relief. The suit was brought within six years of the registered document, but that period is now well over. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to split up the single mortgage trasaction.2. In appeal it is argued before us that It is open to the plaintiff to recover Ms share of the debt particularly when the other co-mortgagees did not come forward to oppos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›