Allahabad Court September 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.
(Firm) Puran Lal-ram Lal Vs. (Firm) Damodar Das-parmanand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All23; 166Ind.Cas.533
Collister, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken by learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent that no second appeal lies inasmuch as the suit was of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes and the value of the subject-matter did not exceed Rs. 500. The plea rests upon Section 102, Civil P.C. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, on the other hand, contends that it was a suit for an account within the meaning of Article 31, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff-firm alleged that at the request of the defendant-firm, expressed in a letter dated 15th November 1930, it sent on 17th November 1936, 56 maunds and 171/4 seers of gur, the price of which was Rs. 311-6-9, from Tilhar in the Shahjahanpur District to the defendant-firm at Lalitpur. In spite of demands the defendant-firm did not pay the price of the gur, and accordingly the plaintiff-firm claimed a sum of Rs. 347-8-0 being the price of the gur purchased by it, plus interest plus a sum of Rs. ...
Mt. Kulsum Bibi Vs. Bashir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All25; 166Ind.Cas.439
1. The facts of this case are on all fours with those of Kulsum Bibi v. Shiam Sunder Lal reported in : AIR1936All600 , which has been already disposed of by this Bench. It appears that, the property in dispute was attached by a creditor, named Mussaddi Lal, respondent in that appeal, and also by Bashir, respondent of the present appeal. The appellant, Mt. Kulsum Bibi, the widow of the-judgment-debtor Habib Baksh, objected; on the ground that the property had been, given to her by her husband in lieu of her dower amounting to Rs. 21,000 and that it did not form part of the assets of the deceased. The decree-holders in two separate cases pleaded that Habib Baksh. had not, in fact, made any gift in favour of his wife and that, in any case, the gift, being in fraud of his creditors was void. The objections were dismissed. Mt. Kulsum Bibi came to this Court in appeal, and the case was remanded with a direction that the following two issues be determined and the cases disposed of in accordan...
Hargovind Singh Vs. Collector of Etah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All377
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of 52 villages known as the Rajaur Raj. Ten of these villages have been acquired in recent times, but the parent estate is admittedly very ancient; in fact it is alleged in the plaint that it goes back to the time of Maharaja Prithvi Raj, the last Hindu King of Delhi. Whether this be so or not there can be no doubt that it is a very old estate, its origin being lost in antiquity. There is a pedigree at p. 132 of our paper book, and there is no dispute in this Court as regards its accuracy. It will be seen that one of the holders of the estate was Raja Umrao Singh, who had four sons, Dat Singh, Tej Singh, Mohan Singh and Stub Singh. Dat Singh admittedly succeeded to the gaddi on the death of his father and became the Baja. Raja Dat Singh entered into an engagement under Regulation No. 25 of 1803 for payment of revenue at the rate of Rs. 9,160 per annum. In 1815 Raja Dat Singh defaulted in a sum of Rs. 5,000 and the estate was sold. Appa...
Mohammad Taqi Khan Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All820; 166Ind.Cas.106
1. The following two questions have been referred to this Full Bench for answers:(1) Whether an order passed in the following terms without notice to the parties, namely, 'execution struck off for partial satisfaction of the decree; costs on the judgment-debtors', is to be construed only as a provisional order suspending the application for execution, or as a 'final order passed on an application made' as referred to in Clause (5), Article 182, Lim. Act; and(2) Whether an acknowledgment of liability by some only of the heirs of a mortgagor against whom a decree for sale on the basis of a mortgage has been passed operates to save limitation as against the other heirs of the mortgagor, as well as against the makers of the acknowledgement.2. In this case a mortgage decree for sale was put in execution in 1928 against several judgment-debtors who were the heirs of the original mortgagor. The property was non-ancestral, but was assessed to Government revenue; and so the executing Court dire...
Mt. Ram Dulari and anr. Vs. Deo NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All875; 166Ind.Cas.225
Collister, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit No. 680 of 1930, which was instituted by Deo Narain under the guardianship of his father, Raja Ram. The suit was for a declaration that Mt. Ram Dulari was the plaintiff's wife. He impleaded as defendants Mt. Ram Dulari herself and also one Ram Narain under the guardianship of his father Bisheshar, Bisheshar himself, Mt. Ram Dulari's grand mother, Mt. Sona and two other persons, by name Mahabir and Ram Khilawan. Another suit, suit No. 557 of 1930, had been instituted by Ram Narain under the guardianship of his father. The record of that suit and of the subsequent appeal is not before me, but I am informed that it was a suit for a declaration that Mt. Ram Dulari was the wife of Ram Narain and for an injunction against other defendants in the suit-who, I am told, were Mt. Sona, Deo Narain, Deo Narain's father Raja Ram, and Mahabir-to restrain them from interfering with Ram Narain's right to have restitution of his conjugal rights. The Munsif ...
Lakhpat Pathak Vs. Ghiran Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All55; 167Ind.Cas.46; MANU/UP/0025/1936
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff from an order of remand by the lower appellate Court. The order is:I remand the case to the lower Court for decision after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to prove the document (bahi) as allowed by Section 145, Evidence Act, and Order 7, Rule 18, Clause 2.2. The facts are that the plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 496 and interest thereon. The plaint alleged that the plaintiffs were usufructuary mortgagees under a mortgage deed dated 1st June 1927, for a consideration of Rs. 2,200, out of which Rs. 409 had been paid to the defendant for execution a deed and the balance of Rupees 1,713 was left for payment of debts. As the defendant failed to give the plaintiff possession, the present suit was brought for recovery of Rs. 490 and interest. The defence was that the Rs. 490 had not been received. Now the written statement admitted in para. 7 of the additional pleas that the defendant had made an acknowledgement before the Sub-Reg...
Hakim Kamla Datt Vs. Ram Man Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All114
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by one Hakim Kamla Datt who was a plaintiff decree-holder against an order passed under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 by the Court which passed the decree in a mortgage suit of the applicant. The points which have been taken for the decree-holder are that the Court below ignored that the applicant was entitled to compound interest on the entire amount in suit during the pendency of the mortgage suit. This was the only point argued. The question turned on the interpretation of Section 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934. In its order the Court below directed that interest at the rate in Schedule 3 should be given on the principal amounts of loan for the period when the mortgage suit was pendente lite. The contention for the applicant is that it is in accordance with Order 34, Rule 11 that a decree in a mortgage suit should contain pendente lite interest not only on the principal amount alone but also on the interest which is d...
Salag Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All171
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a criminal case that is pending, in the Court of Mr. Crofts, Assistant Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun. The hearing of the case commenced in the Court of the learned Judge on the 12th August and continued till 31st August 1936. During this interval 82 witnesses for the prosecution were examined. I am informed that about 70 of these witnesses were formal witnesses. On the 31st August the present application for transfer was filed before me and I ordered notice of the-application to be issued and directed that;, the proceedings be stayed meanwhile. The record was also summoned. The application is supported by an affidavit that contains no less than 47 paragraphs. The learned Judge has submitted his explanation as regards the allegations contained in the affidavit. The application has been argued at length by Mr. Ram Mohan Lal, the learned Counsel for the applicant, and by Mr. Kedar Nath who represents the Crown. There are 11 a...
Suraj Prasad and anr. Vs. Mt. Gulab Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All197a
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against whom the plaintiff's suit for possession of certain zamindari and house properties, together with Rs. 2,000 as mesne profits, has been decreed by the Court below. Apart from the general plea that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief, it is contended that in no event is she entitled to item 3, Schedule C of the plaint, because that property cannot be said to be an accretion to the estate claimed by the plaintiff. The facts are that one Hazari Lal was the owner of considerable zamindari and house properties; he died on 30th April 1911 leaving behind him a widow, Mt. Janki Kuer, and two daughters, Mt. Gulab Dei (the plaintiff in the present suit) and Mt. Rajrani. Mt. Janki also died on 10th August 1913 and Mt. Rajrani died on 13th August 1929. Suraj Prasad, defendant 1, aged about three years, at 4he time of the (institution of the suit is the son of Mt. Rajrani and Lachmi Chand, defendant 2, was the husband of Mt. Rajrani. He too died duri...
Ramman Lal Vs. Hakim Kamla Dat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All864; 166Ind.Cas.816
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a Civil Revision by a judgment-debtor Ramman Lal against an order passed under Section 30(2) and other sections of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1934. The applicant in revision applied to the Court which passed the decree to reduce the decree. The decree was one passed on a simple mortgage and the amount of the mortgage bond was Rs. 7,000; the date of the mortgage was 20th August 1924; the suit was brought on 15th August 1932; the preliminary decree was dated 30th July 1934, and the period expired on 30th January 1935, and the final decree for sale was passed on 20th February 1935. The first point which is taken is against the finding (b) of the lower Court that interest was allowed at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with yearly rests on the total amount due on 31st December 1929 till the date of the suit, 15th August 1932. The objection taken is that the Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction given to it by Section 30(1) and (2). Under these ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »