Allahabad Court December 1936 Judgments
Namdar Khan and ors. Vs. Naimul Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All289
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur. The trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. The lower appellate Court has taken a different view and has held that the present suit is not so barred. Accordingly it remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal on the merits. The only plea taken in second appeal is that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by res judicata, as held by the trial Court. The plaintiffs are some of the cultivators of village Banjaripur in the district of Jaunpur. The defendants are some of the residents of village Murki in the same district. The two villages are co-terminus. The plaintiffs claim a right to irrigate their fields from certain tanks situate in village Murki, to which objection is taken by the defendants. Accordingly the plaintiffs claim the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with t...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Kishore and anr. Vs. Parshotam Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All303
ORDER1. This is a civil revision by two creditors under the following circumstances : On 13th August 1935 these applicants made an application against six persons that they should be adjudged insolvents. On 15th August 1935 an application was made for appointment of an interim receiver for the estate of these insolvents. On 16th August 1935 the debtors made an application to the Collector under the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, and on the same date the Collector passed an order under Section 6 of that Act. The question therefore arose in the insolvency Court whether an interim receiver should be appointed or whether the further proceedings in the insolvency Court should be stayed under the amended Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act. The insolvency Court held that a stay of these proceedings should be ordered and that order of stay has been upheld by the District Judge in appeal. No order of adjudication had been passed by the insolvency Court. The creditors in revision conten...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Vs. Ram Chander
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All333
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The applicant sued the defendant opposite party for recovery of Rs. 376 on foot of a promissory note dated 6th August 1929 in the Court of Small Causes at Meerut. The suit when brought was within limitation if the allegations contained in the plaint were true. An objection was taken by the defendant that the suit should have been instituted in the Muzaffarnagar District. Under the ordinary law the suit would have been cognizable by the Meerut Court within whose jurisdiction the loan transaction had taken place but the defendant is an agriculturist residing in the Muzaffarnagar District and under Section 7-A, Agriculturists' Belief Act, no other Court but the one in whose jurisdiction the defendant resides has jurisdiction. This defence prevailed and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court. When the plaint was presented in the Court of Small Causes at Muzaffarnagar th...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Mohammad Mosa Khan Vs. Sri Thakur Gopiji Mahraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All344
1. This is a first appeal by a judgment-debtor under the following circumstances : The judgment-debtor applied under the U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act for fixation of instalments and reduction of interest under Sections 4 and 30 of the Act. Section 30 is in Ch. 4. Accordingly therefore the first proviso in Section 2(2) applies and the limit of land revenue does not apply in Sub-section (1). The appellant claims that he is a person paying land revenue in a district not permanently settled. The Court below has held that he does pay land revenue to the extent of Rs. 9,000 but that it is not for himself and that he is not the owner of the property. The circumstances are that there was a mortgage executed on 9th September 1920 by the judgment-debtor and decree was obtained by the opposite party on 22nd September 1933 to the extent of over a lakh on that hypothecation bond.2. After the mortgage of 1920 the judgment-debtor executed a wakf alal aulad of his property and in his capacity of mu...
Tag this Judgment!Tilak Singh Vs. Pradyumna Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All347
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for which 2nd May 1934 had been fixed for the framing of issues. After the framing of issues, the Court fixed 24th September 1934 which was later changed to 5th September 1934 for hearing, That was not an adjourned hearing but the first date fixed for the final hearing of the case. On that date the defendant applied through a lawyer for an adjournment on the ground that he was not well, but did not send any medical certificate. The Court dismissed the application upon which the defendant's lawyer withdrew from the case on the ground that he had no further instructions to proceed. The Court heard the case in the absence of the defendant and decided it and expressly stated that the decree was passed ex parte against the defendant. Later the defendant applied for setting aside the ex parte decree and for the restoration of the case.2. The lower Court has not considered the application on its merits and has not g...
Tag this Judgment!Ziladar Singh Vs. Brij Lal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All513
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder arising out of an execution proceeding. In a suit for sale on a mortgage deed executed by the last male owner the final decree for sale was passed on 1st November 1924 against his widow, who died later. On 1st November 1927, the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree by sale of the property against one Ratan Singh, alleging him to be the reversionary heir of the widow's husband, who was in possession of the entire property. While the execution proceedings were pending, Ratan Singh executed a usufructuary mortgage deed of the mortgaged property in favour of the decree-holder. He accordingly did not proceed to any execution sale, bat got the execution casestruck off on his own statement on 30th October 1928. Subsequently three other reversioners brought a suit for possession of their half share in the property against the decree-holder and also impleaded the defendant, Ratan Singh. This suit was ultimately decreed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn and anr. Vs. Mohan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All343
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and in the alternative, for possession of certain zamindari property originally belonging to a Jat named Mohar Singh, who died leaving a widow, Mt. Diali. The latter contracted a second marriage in the Karao form. The plaintiffs' case is that, at the time when she remarried, their ancestor was the nearest reversioner. Mt. Diali died recently, and it is not disputed by the plaintiffs that at the time of her death they were not the nearest reversioners. Their suit is based on the allegation that Mt. Diali forfeited her husband's estate on remarriage and that their ancestor succeeded to it as the nearest collateral of her first husband, Mohar Singh. The defendant denies that Mt. Diali forfeited her husband's estate and claims to be entitled to Mohar Singh's estate on the death of Mt. Diali, when admittedly he was the nearest reversioner. One of the issues framed by the trial Court was, whether the share o...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Chand Vs. Bhagwat Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All345
ORDER1. This is an application in revision by a decree-holder arising out of a proceeding under Sections 3 and 5, U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act. The decree-holder had obtained in 1934 a decree for money, directing payment by instalments under Order 20, Rule 11, Civil P.C. After coming into force of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, the judgment-debtor applied under Section 5 for the decree being converted into a fresh decree for payment by instalments in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The Court below has held that it must proceed under the Act. In revision it is argued before us that inasmuch as there had already been a decree directing payment by instalments, Section 5 would not apply as it must apply to a case where there is no decree for payment by instalments at all. This contention does not appear to be sound. Section 5 lays down that:Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court shall, unless for reasons to be rec...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Govind Pandey Vs. Brij Ratan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All424
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The question in this case is particularly one of the interpretation to be put on the statement made by defendant 1 through his counsel that the sum of Rs. 1,000, which stood to his credit in the criminal Court, should be sent for and paid to the plaintiff in satisfaction of his decree. The order passed by the Court was that the sum of Rs. 451, which represented the decretal amount, should be requisitioned from the Court of the Magistrate. If the proper intention is that the judgment-debtor had assigned this sum of money to the decree-holder, then it would at once become the decree-holder's property and would not be capable of being attached by any other creditor. There are two difficulties which must be stated. The first is that if it were an assignment of that amount, then the Court should have at once ordered that the decree was adjusted and was paid up in full, and should have struck off the execution case in full satisfaction, because an assignment of a debt ought ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Nayak Vs. Babau and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All439
ORDER1. This is a civil revision on behalf of a plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by a Small Cause Court Judge. The plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note dated 5th June 1932 for recovery of Rs. 592-8-0 olaiming the rate of interest at Rs. 1-8-0 per cent, per mensem. The plaint sets out that the defendants borrowed to the extent of Rs. 592-8-0 on the date of execution of the promissory note and that the promissory nvSe was taken by way of further security. The written statement admitted that some ten years ago the defendants had borrowed Rs. 250 and had been making payments from time to time, that the promissory note in question was executed by the defendants but that payment was not received on the date of execution, that the rate of interest was annas eight per cent, per mensem and not Rs. 1-8-0 per cent, per mensem and that the rate of interest had been altered by the plaintiff after the promissory note in question had been executed by the defendants. A receipt was also exec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »