Allahabad Court January 1935 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.
Dorothy Emma Stuart Vs. Vernon Reginald Stuart
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All488; 163Ind.Cas.802
ORDERThom, J.1. This is an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C., by one Mrs. Mary Ivy Surdivall of the E.I. Railway Control Quarters, Forsyth Road, Lucknow. The applicant prays that this Court should direct that she be made a party to the Matrimonial Suit No. 7 of 1934, in which Mrs. D.E. Stuart is the petitioner and Mr. Y.E. Stuart, the respondent.2. In her petition Mrs. Stuart has made allegations of adultery against the applicant Mrs. Surdivall and in these circumstances counsel has argued that, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Divorce Act, this Court should grant the prayer of the petitioner and direct that Mrs. Surdivall be made a party to the divorce proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first instance opposed this application. He contended that under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Divorce Act this Court had no jurisdiction to permit the intervention of a person who had been named by a petitioning wife i...
(Firm) Mithan Lal Inder NaraIn Vs. (Firm) Hem Chand Kashmiri Lal and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All441; 157Ind.Cas.983
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision against a decree passed by the-learned Judge. Small Cause Court, Dehra Dun, allowing the plaintiff's, claim to a certain sum of money against the defendant, the applicant in this Court. One Parbhu Lal, who was indebted to a number of persons, died sometime before December 1930. Two of the creditors were the parties to this case. What should be considered to be composition deed was executed by the creditors and the heirs, of the deceased debtor, which provided that the deceased had left a cloth shop and a house which should be sold and rateable distribution of the proceeds of sale should be made among the creditors and that a creditor should be deemed to have been, satisfied in full on receipt of his rateable share in the aforesaid sale proceeds. Those representing the debtors signed the agreement aid so did the creditors, except the plaintiff. Sometime afterwards the defendant applicant had the house referred to in the agreemen...
Abdul Hamid Vs. Firm Shyam Lal Chiman Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All502; 157Ind.Cas.426
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision of an Order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Agra. It seems to me that the applicant and the lower Court have acted raider a misapprehension as regards the law applicable to the circumstances of the case. The applicant was the judgment-debtor in certain execution proceedings in the lower Court taken at the instance of one Nawal Kishore. The original decree-holder had died and Nawal Kishore applied for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor objected on the ground that Nawal Kishore was not competent to apply for execution of the decree. The case was fixed for 7th April 1934, when the applicant was absent. The Court did not dispose of his objection on the merits and did not decide whether Nawal Kishore was competent to apply for execution of the decree or not, but passed an order 'striking off the objection for default.' A few days later, the judgment-debtor made an application purporting to be one un...
Benares Bank Ltd. Vs. Rajnath Kunzru and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All374
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. There were two cross-appeals filed in this Court which were connected and disposed of by one judgment, but separate decrees were prepared in the two cases. Leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council has already been granted an 'the defendant's appeal which was allowed and the decree of the Court below was reversed and the claim with regard to the subject-matter in dispute in that appeal disallowed. The decree in the plaintiff's appeal was one of dismissal of the appeal, and in that sense an affirmance of that part of the decree of the first Court which had dismissed the plaintiff's claim in part. But the operative order of the High Court was that the defendant's appeal should be allowed and the decree of the Court below modified and the suit dismissed in toto.2. The question which arose in the plaintiff's appeal was to a large extent one of fact. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff concedes that no substantial q...
In Re: Lal Madho Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All449
1. Lala Manmohan Das applied for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the assets of his deceased father Lala Madho Prasad who held some shares of the Imperial Bank which are in deposit in the Imperial Bank at Calcutta. On 25th October 1934 his application was granted and Letters of Administration were ordered to be issued to him. The office naturally demanded the payment of court-fee before furnishing the Letters of Administration. To this the applicant objects.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant relies on a Full Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in Keshavlal Punjalal Sheth v. Collector of Ahmedabad 1924 Bom. 228. No doubt this ruling supports the applicant to a great extent, but the learned Judges over-ruled a previous decision of their own Court in Kashi Nath Pareshram v. Gourabai 1915 Bom. 18. The view expressed by Beaman and Hayward, JJ., in the last mentioned case was that if an applicant who is a member of a joint Hindu family applies for probate of a will of...
Niader Singh Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All511
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit brought by them against the defendants-respondents for a declaration that the lease executed by Harbans Singh, defendant 3, in favour of Ram Chandar and Ram Das, defendants 1 and 2 and Bakhtawar, brother of defendants 1 and 2, on 5th September 1917, in respect of the plots in mouza Kharkhanda described in the plaint was ineffectual and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hairbans Singh, defendant 3, bad executed a mortgage of the property in village Kharkhanda and other property in other villages in favour of Kanhaiya Lal on 5th September 1902, Harbans Singh executed subsequently another mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs on 26th February 1913. After the two mortgages Harbans Singh executed a permanent lease of 7 bighas and 18 biswas of land in village Kharkhanda in favour of Ram Chander and Ram Das, defendants 1 and 2. The heirs of Kanhaiya Lal who is dead brought a suit and obtained decree on the basis of their mortg...
Mt. Humela Vs. Ori Sahoo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All688; 155Ind.Cas.550
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This revision has arisen from a Small Cause Court suit, brought by the plaintiff-respondent against Ram Raj, defendant 1, and Mt. Humela Kunwar, defendant 2, for recovery of Rs. 546-14-0 principal and interest. The lower Court decreed it against defendant 2, who has applied in revision. Defendant 1 owed Rs. 1,473 to the plaintiff. On 4th July 1930, he satisfied his liability by handing over some cattle delivering some grain and by executing a mortgage deed for Rs. 977. There remained a balance of Rs. 350, for which he executed a bond in favour of 'defendant 2, leaving the entire amount with the latter for payment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is that defendant 2 did not make any payment.2. The suit was not contested by defendant 1. The defendant 2 however filed a written statement in which it was pleaded that there was no privity of contract between her and the plaintiff and a suit for enforcement of the bond, executed in favour of defendant 1, could not...
Hafiz UddIn Vs. (Firm) Parshadi Lal Monohar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All757
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. The only question involved in this case is one of limitation. The applicant obtained a decree from the Small Cause Court, Delhi, on 2nd October 1929. He made an application to the Court passing the decree on 11th January 1930, asking for a Certificate of transfer to a Court in Meerut, where the decree-holder desired to execute his decree. The Court ordered on 17th February 1930, that a certificate be prepared. On 5th March 1930, the decree-holder deposited, the requisite court-fee for preparation or transmission (it is not clear which) of the certificate. On 8th March 1930, the certificate was prepared and handed over to the decree-holder and the case was consigned to the record room. No satisfaction of the decree was obtained on that occasion, and the decree-holder did not make any application till 27th February 1933, when the present application for execution was made at Meerut. The judgment-debtor resisted it and pleaded limitation. The lower Court upheld the ...
Benares Bank Ltd. Vs. Pandit Rajnath Kunzru and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.487
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was for recovery of a large sum of money alleged to be due on hundis and as money advanced against certain goods which were shipped. The Court of first instance decreed the claim so far as the amount due on the hundis was concerned, and as regards the other claim confined the decree to a sum of 579 and dismissed the rest of the claim amounting to about Rs. 20,000. Two separate cross-appeals were filed in the High Court. One on behalf of the plaintiff against the dismissal of his claim and the other by the defendants in respect of that part of the claim which was decreed. These two appeals were separately numbered, but were connected and heard together and disposed of by one judgment. Two separate decrees were prepared in the two cases. The value of the subject-matter in dispute in the defendants' appeal has been found to be in excess of Rs. 10,000 and leave has accordingly b...
Ramdeo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All516
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The applicant Ramdeo was convicted by a Tahsildar Magistrate of an offence under Section 353, Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200. His appeal was dismissed by the District Magistrate and in revision the learned Sessions Judge refused to submit the case to the High Court with a recommendation for the setting aside of the conviction and the sentence. He has therefore come up to this Court in revision and his main contention is that Wakalat Husain, the Constable against whom criminal force is said to have been used was not a public servant discharging his duty at that particular time.2. The facts are that the police authorities at Mirzapur were informed that gambling was going on near the house of Ramdeo Underneath an Imli tree which was a public thoroughfare and three constables, Bindeshri Rai, Amir Bahadur Singh and Ram Narain Singh, were sent to effect the arrest of the gamblers. On 5th November 1933, the said three constables were going towards the house o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »