Allahabad Court October 1936 Judgments
Mewa Ram and ors. Vs. Ablak Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All122
1. This is an appeal against an order passed in execution proceedings. The respondents had obtained a decree for the pre-emption of certain property and made an application for execution of the decree, that is, they asked to be put into possession. The appellants raised an objection that the decree could not be enforced because the amount which the respondents had been ordered to pay in order to obtain the decree for preemption had not been paid within the specified period. That period was on 20th October 1934. One of the respondents Ablak Singh made a tender to the Court or that date in which he asked for permission to pay in the money which was a sum of about Rs. 4,000. It has been proved by the evidence of Sardar Singh and other witnesses that the tender was returned by the Court after 1 p.m. The 20th October, was a Saturday and the treasury would have been closed at the time when the tender was returned. It was necessary for Ablak Singh to get the signature of the treasury officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Deo Rai Vs. Brahmdeo Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All235; 168Ind.Cas.142
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose claim has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. Without going into the merits of the decision of the Court below it appears to me that the claim of the plaintiff must be dismissed on another ground. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are that the plaintiff had purchased the property in suit which is zamindari shares in two villages, in execution of a decree against defendant 1, Bramhdeo Rai. Bramhdeo Rai filed a suit against the plaintiff in respect of this property alleging that it had been purchased with the money of Bramhdeo Rai for Bramhdeo Rai in execution of the decree. In the suit a compromise was made between the parties on 8th May 1930 which is filed. The compromise has not been quite accurately described by the lower appellate Court. It has two main clauses. No. 1 provides that Bramhdeo Rai is to hold the property for his life and has no right to transfer it except for necessity (zarurat) and if his other p...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Vs. Mt. Janki and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All97
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by Badri Prasad, defendant 1, against a decree of the lower appellate Court granting a declaration that the plaintiff-respondent Mt. Janki is the owner of a house which appellant Badri Prasad had got sold in auction sale to respondent 2. Badri Prasad obtained a simple mortgage decree in Suit No. 397 of 1930 against one Debi Dayal and the property mortgaged was sold and the sale proceeds were insufficient. Debi Dayal died at this stage and under Order 34, Rule 6, as the lower appellate Court finds, Badri Prasad obtained a decree against Mt. Janki, plaintiff, who is the step-mother of Debi Dayal. The decree was against the assets of Debi Dayal in the hands of Mt. Janki. The assets in question comprised the house in suit. Mt. Janki made an objection that the house belonged to her personally of the had purchased it from Debi Dayal by a sale deed dated 9th April 1930. Her objection was disallowed by the execution Court and the execution Court treated the...
Tag this Judgment!Manjia Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All195
1. This is a criminal appeal from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, convicting the accused under Section 452, I.P.C., in pursuance of the jury's verdict of guilty. The accused were charged of several offences which were triable with the aid of assessors and only the offence under Section 455, I.P.C., was triable by a jury. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the accused should have been given the benefit of doubt as regards the other offences and he acquitted them. As to the offence under Section 455 he came to the conclusion that the facts constituted an offence under Section 452, I.P.C., and upholding the verdict of the jury convicted them under that section. But what happened was that the learned Judge in his own mind was not satisfied that the complaint was false; nor was he satisfied that the accused were innocent. He felt some doubt in his mind and, if the accused had been triable with the aid of assessors, he would most probably have given the bene...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal and ors. Vs. Zorawar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All219
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, whose suit for the recovery of Bs. 15,500 on the basis of a hypothecation bond, dated 14th June 1921, has been dismissed by the Court below. The plain-tiffs prayed for a decree under Order 34, Rule 4; Civil P.O., for sale of the hypothecated property, and in the alternative they prayed that if the debt claimed in suit be deemed to have been taken not for the benefit and legal necessity of the defendants' family then the amount claimed may be treated as a prior charge on the property which was by means of pre-emption acquired by the defendants. The mortgage was executed by Zorawar Singh, Amar Singh, Pirthi Singh, Puran Singh, and Lekhraj Singh in favour of Pat Earn and Sohan Lal. The plaintiffs to the suit were Sohan Lal and the sons of Pat Ram (Pat Earn being dead) namely Bansidhar and Chheda Lal. The pedigree of the mortgagors might be given at this stage: BALDEO SINGH. | _________________________________________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarju Bai Vs. Chairman, Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All188
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for possession of a certain plot No. 332/677, as being within her zamindari in mauza Civil Jhansi, was decreed by the Court of first instance but dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The defendants are the Municipal Board of Jhansi and the Secretary of State. The defence was firstly one of title claiming that the plot was nazul land, which has been held by both the lower Courts to fail. The second line of defence was title by adverse possession. An issue was framed on this point, issue No. 3, and decided in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court and in favour of the defendant by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff set up a pedigree which has been accepted by the Courts below, and is as follows:Bijai Ram|Har Lal=Mt. Radha Bai|------------------------------| | Raghubir Sahai Srimati Sarju Bai(died 1800 (plaintiff)last male holder)=Kesar Bai (died shortly after him)2. The estate which is a large zamindari estate ...
Tag this Judgment!Alakh NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Thakur Dayal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All197
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. The plaintiff's right to redeem was questioned on the ground that he was not the heir of the original mortgagor who has since died. The plaintiff claimed to be the nearest heir of the mortgagor according to a pedigree propounded by him. The defendants who claimed to be nearer than the plaintiff also propounded a pedigree. Both the Courts below have rejected the plea put forward by the defendants and held that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he is the nearest heir of the mortgagor. The plaintiff's case depended solely upon the question whether one Bhairon Dayal was the son of Nanku Singh. Bhairon Dayal died a very long time ago and the lower appellate Court has rightly pointed out that trustworthy oral evidence cannot be had. In the shape of documentary evidence also, there was nothing definite one way or the other. The lower appellate Court was, however, able to arrive at a definite conclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Sipahi Lal Vs. Pandit Suraj Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1936
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.125
ORDERHarries, J.1. These are applications in revision by Sipahi Lal and Ram Narain praying that an order passed by the learned District Judge of Moradabad dated February 27, 1936, directing that a complaint be made against them to the District Magistrate for their prosecution under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, be set aside.2. The opposite party has taken a preliminary objection and has contended that no revision lies from such an order. The matter arose in this way:Proceedings were first taken before a learned Munsif under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. A. preliminary enquiry was held but the learned Munsif was of opinion that the facts did not disclose any ground for ordering a complaint to be made against Sipahi Lal and Ram Narain. The present opposite party being dissatisfied with that decision appealed as he was entitled to do under Section 476 B, Criminal Procedure Code, to the learned District Judge. The learned Judge considered the whole of the evidence which had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Bateshwari Prasad Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All158
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council for Rs. 114-8-0 and a declaration that certain articles belong to the plaintiff has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. The suit arose as follows : The wife and sister-in-law of the plaintiff picketed the local Government Intermediate College during non-co-operation days and were prosecuted for trespass under Section 447, I.P.C, and fined Rs. 25 each by a criminal Court, the S.D.M. of Etawah. As the fine was not paid the criminal Court issued warrants to the Station Officer of Etawah Kotwali for recovery of the fines by attachment and sale of the moveable property belonging to the two accused, and certain property was attached, and an objection was made by the plaintiff that the articles belonged to him and not to the accused. The criminal Court disposed of this objection under Section 386, Criminal P.C., and held that the articles did belong to the accused and dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhry Bindraban and ors. Vs. Chotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All194
ORDERThom, J.1. This is an application in Civil Revision under Section 25, Small Cause Court Act. The judgment-debtor is an agriculturist. The decree-holder moved the-Court to create a charge on the immoveable property of the judgment-debtor in virtue of the terms of Section 3, Sub-section (2), U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act of 1934. The learned Judge of the Small Cause-Court refused the applicant's prayer holding, that a charge cannot be created on immoveable property in a Small Cause Court case. Sub-section (2), Section 3, U.P. Agriculturists Belief Act, is in the following terms:The Court may, at the time of passing an. instalment decree against an agriculturist either attack his immoveable property, if any, or declare a charge on such property within, the meaning, of Section 100, T.P. Act of 1882 to the extent of the amount decreed.2. By Section 7, Civil P.C., the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to execute decrees against immoveable property. The creation, of a. charge upon ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »