Allahabad Court October 1936 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.
Lala Ram Sarup Vs. Musammat Kaniz Ummehani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.653
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal that no Letters Patent Appeal lies. In a suit for a declaration that certain property was not liable to attachment and sale, an injunction was, granted by the Court below. As the valuation of the suit was more than Rs. 50,000, a first appeal from order was filed in this Court and a learned Judge of this Court has modified the order for injunction. A Letters Patent Appeal has been filed from this order. Two points are urged in the objection. The first is that this is a second appeal from an order passed by the trial Court, and that accordingly under Section 104(2) no such appeal lies; the second is that the order for injunction is not a judgment and no appeal lies under Clause 10, Letters Patent. As regards the first point, reliance is placed on Piare Lai v. Nand Lai 39 A 191 : 39 Ind. Cas. 460 : A.I.R. 1917 All. 325 : 15 A.L.J. 46 in which case it was certainly held that where an order had been passed by a Single Judge o...
Sunder and ors. Vs. Sheo Dat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All48
1. This is a judgment-debtors' appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. The property sought to be attached and sold is situated in Bundelkhand. It is an admitted fact that at the time when the mortgage decree was obtained the property was not saleable under the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act of 1903. When an application for execution was filed the judgment-debtors, on 11th February 1927, objected that the property was not saleable. The Court upon that objection passed the following order:The property is not saleable. In view of the ruling reported in Bishnath Singh v. Basdeo Singh A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 171, the decree for sale shall be modified. A receiver be appointed to realise the money out of the mortgaged property, subject to order about marshalling.2. Obviously the Court held that the relief asked for by the decree-holder for the sale of the property could not be granted inasmuch as the property was not saleable, but substituted therefor a new relief for the appointment of a re...
Norbert EdwIn Nugent Vs. Marjory Julia Nugent
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All129
Thom, J.1. The following question has been referred for decision : 'Is the pay of an Assistant Surgeon of the Indian Medical Department liable to attachment in execution of an order for maintenance and alimony passed by a civil Court?'2. The question has arisen in connexion with an application made by one Norbert Edwin Nugent, an Assistant Surgeon of the Indian Medical Department, who was the respondent in Matrimonial suit No. 3 of 1934. The petitioner in that suit was awarded the sum of Rs. 150 per mensem, and on 15th February 1985, this Court passed an ex parte order directing the Controller of Military Accounts, Northern Command, Rawalpindi, to deduct a sum of Rs. 150 per mensem from the pay of the respondent and to remit the same to this Court to be paid to the petitioner. The respondent thereupon presented an application to this Court praying that the order of 15th February attaching his salary be withdrawn. The learned Government Advocate, who appeared for the applicant, contende...
Firm Bhawani Sahai-salig Ram Vs. Chhajju Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All276
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, a firm styled Bhawani Sahai-Saling Ram, and is directed against the final decree passed by the First Civil Judge of Saharanpur on 9th November 1932. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of four railway receipts specified at the foot of the plaint and for an order directing the defendants to render a complete account in respect of certain purchases of goods made by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiffs, and for such other reliefs as might be necessary in the interest of justice. The allegations in the plaint were that the defendants as commission agents on behalf of the plaintiffs purchased large quantities of grain and went to the extent of loading the same in a railway train, but they refused to give the railway receipts to the plaintiffs' man who was present at the station. The claim, therefore, was for the declaration that the railway receipts really belonged to the plaintiffs and that the defendants were liab...
Beni Madho Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Ram Chandraji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All192
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal that no appeal under Clause 10, Letters Patent, lies at all. In a first appeal which was pending before a learned Judge of this Court one of the parties died and two sets of claimants filed applications to be brought on the record as his legal representatives. The learned Judge after going into the matter at considerable length came to the conclusion that the contesting respondent should be considered as the legal representative of the deceased and accordingly dismissed the application of the present appellants. The present appeal has been preferred from this order. The first question is whether the order appealed against was a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10, Letters Patent. When the old Code of Civil Procedure was in force there were observations made in a Full Bench case of this Court, Muhammad Nairn Ullah Khan v. Ihsan Ullah Khan (1892) 14 All. 226, which might suggest that judgments within the meaning of Cl...
Sohanpal Singh Vs. Special Manager Court of Wards of the Estate of Ami ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All113; 166Ind.Cas.889
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a defendant lambardar against a decree for profits which was increased by the lower appellate Court, the learned District Judge of Bulandshahr. The suit was brought for profits for certain years against the lambardar under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926. The first point which was argued was that the lower appellate Court was wrong in decreeing the suit for the profits arising from sir and khudkasht of other co-sharers. It was argued that under certain rulings of this Court such as Koka v. Chunni : AIR1927All623 a lambardar cannot sue as a lambardar one or more co-sharers for any sum due from them by reason of their holding as sir or khudkasht excess land. That decision followed a case in Bishambhar Nath v. Bhullo (1912) 34 All. 98 and dissented from a case in Ganga Singh v. Ram Sarup A.I.R. 1916 All. 155. It appears to me however that accepting the law as laid down in this ruling, Koka v. Chunni : AIR1927All623 , the present case is not go...
L. Janardan Sarup Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All12; 166Ind.Cas.376
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a learned Magistrate passed under the provisions of Section 133, Criminal P.C. The applicant, Lala Janardan Sarup has recently built a cinema on the edge of the Grand Trunk Road at Muzaffarnagar. In front of the cinema there was a piece of land upon which there have been sheds in existence for a considerable time. After the cinema was built, these sheds were removed and the applicant has built a wall enclosing the cinema. It is alleged on behalf of the Secretary of State through the Public Works Department that the land upon which this wall has been built is Government land, that is, that it is a part of the Grand Trunk Road.2. It appears that there are municipal drains on both sides of the Grand Trunk Road and this land is on the side of the drain remote from the road itself. Lala Janardan Sarup claimed the land as his property and it is admitted that it has been in his possession for a considerable time. It is a...
NaraIn Sahu Vs. Gopi Nath Naik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All63
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor which arises but of the execution proceedings under the following, circumstances:The appellant Narain Sahu had a decree No. 108 of 1924 against Musai from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Basti. Musai had a decree No. 84 of 1931 against Narain Sahu appellant from the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Basti. On 2nd March 1933 an application was-made by Narain Sahu for attachment of decree No. 84 of 1931. Attachment was made on 3rd March 1933. It my be mentioned here that both the decrees are decrees for payment of money. Notice of attachment was served on Musai on 17th of March 1933. On 16th March 1933 Musai transferred his decree No. 84 of 1931 to Gopi Nath Naik respondent 1. Thereafter Gopi Nath Naik made an application under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C., for substitution of his name in place of the name of Musai his assignor and for execution of the decree. An objection was filed by the appellant to the effect that ...
Bhondu Mal Vs. Thomas Skinner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All29; 166Ind.Cas.903
1. This is an appeal by the defendant Lala Bhondu Mal against whom the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the preliminary decrees in suits Nos. 74 and 75 of 1927 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, dated 21st April 1928, and the final decrees, dated 14th December 1929, Lala Bhondulal Mal v. Amir Mirza and Ors., are null and void and ineffectual as against the plaintiff, has been decreed by the trial Court. It appears that Lala Bhondu Mal brought two suits, Nos. 74 and 75 of 1927, against several persons on the basis of certain mortgage-deeds. The defendants to those suits-were the heirs of the original mortgagor, and Thomas Skinner, the plaintiff in the present suit, who was impleaded as a subsequent pre-emptor of a portion of the mortgaged property. The suits were decreed; preliminary decrees were passed on 21st April 1928 and final decrees were-passed on 14th December 1929.2. Thomas Skinner instituted the present, suit on 13th April 1931 with Mr. James-Skinner as hi...
Pt. Kalyan Das Vs. R.S. Chobey Sudershan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All20; 166Ind.Cas.807
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Agra, confirming a decree passed by an Assistant Collector of the first class dismissing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment of the defendant under Section 82, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit under that Act to eject the defendant alleging that the latter was his tenant who had, in contravention of the provisions of the Act, persistently sub-let his holding. The defendant denied that he was a tenant of the plaintiff and alleged that he was a proprietor of the land in dispute. He further pleaded that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 83, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. The learned Assistant Collector held that the defendant had been sub-letting the land persistently and consequently that he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 83 of the Act. He remitted the issue of proprietorship to the Munsif of the district for determination. The learned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »