Allahabad Court November 1937 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.
Kr. Jagdish Pratap Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Udai Pratap Ba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All97; 173Ind.Cas.353
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer in regard to the court-fee payable on an appeal to this Court under Section 45, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, against a simple money decree of a Special Judge, first grade, for Rs. 1,85,950-15-9. The appellant made an application under Section of the Act to the Collector and on reference of the application to the Special Judge and after his inquiry under Section 14 this decree has been passed under Sub-section (7) which states:If the Special Judge finds that any amount is to the claimant he shall pass a simple money decree for such amount together with any costs which he may allow in respect of proceedings in his Court...together with pendente lite and future interest.... Such decree shall be deemed to a decree of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.2. The decree is executable under the Act, and is sent to the Collector by the Special 1938 A/13 & 11 Judge for execution. The question at issue in the lower Court was the amoun...
Ramjit and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All120; 173Ind.Cas.734
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a criminal revision by six persons against sentences under Sections 225-B, 332 and 147, I.P.C., which have been reduced by the lower Appellate Court to six months' R.I. in the case of some accused and in the case of accused Nos. 5 and 6, Mt. Ram Piari and Mt. Javitri, to the period already undergone-and fine. The case has been argued at very great length for over an hour and learned Counsel is unable to show that there was something irregular in the procedure of arrest. In this case, the validity of the warrant is not questioned and it is admitted that a perfectly valid warrant for the arrest of Mt. Javitri was issued by a Magistrate in the Punjab and was sent in a valid manner for execution in this Province. The arrest was for Mt. Javitri, as a witness in a case brought on the complaint of her husband under Section 498, I.P.C., and as in the case of all warrant for arrest of witnesses the warrant waft bailable. The finding of the lower Appellate Court is that...
Bishan Singh Alias Babu Singh and anr. Vs. Shiam Lal Sonasi Prasad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All131
ORDER1. This is an office report in a Privy Council case. Bishan Singh obtained leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decree of this Court in First Appeal No. 48 of 1932. Leave was granted on 7(;h May 1937. At the time of granting the certificate, the Court dispensed with the security in cash or in Government securities and permitted the appellant to furnish security of another kind. One Bukh Nandan Singh executed a hypothecation bond and became surety for the payment of Rs. 4000, the respondents' costs in the Privy Council appeal. He hypothecated immovable property which has since been declared to be of sufficient value. The bond was duly registered and was filed in this Court on 30th July 1937, which is well within the limitation allowed by Order 45, Rule 7 Civil P.C. The Court sent the bond to the lower Court for 'verification' and report. Notice was sent to Sukh Nandan Singh by the lower Court in response to which he appeared and stated that the appellant had agreed to...
Bisheshar Vs. Gaya Bux Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All134
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 113, Civil P.C., by a Munsif of Allahabad. A mortgage decree was passed against nine persons. The judgment-debtors subsequently applied under Section 6, U.P. Temporary Regulation of execution Act (Local Act 24 of 1934) for relief under Section 8 of the Act. According to the learned Munsif's statement of the ease, only two of the nine judgment-debtors are cultivators within the meaning of the Act. The Munsif has referred the following question to this Court:Where Borne, but not all, the judgment-debtors are cultivators within the meaning of the Act, can those judgment-debtors alone, who are cultivators, reap the benefit or all of them, and in the former case whether the benefit will be granted so far as their share of liability alone is concerned?2. The Munsif's own opinion is in the affirmative. Section 6 of Act 24 of 1934 reads as follows:Any person against whom a decree to which this Act applies has been passed or his successor or representat...
Thakur Govind Deoji Maharaj Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All110
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by himj against the defendant-respondent for a declaration that the notices issued by the defendant to the plaintiff are illegal and beyond the scope of Section 269, U.P. Municipalities Act (No. 2 of 1916) and for a perpetual injunction restraining defendant 1 from issuing such notices in future and from realizing the amount of the bill No. 82 of 10th May 1933 and other bills in pursuance of the said notices. The plaintiff who is an idol is a landlord in the town and village of Bindraban where he owns considerable land. There were depressions in some plots and defendant 1 issued notices to the plaintiff to fill them up under Section 269, U.P. Municipalities Act. On the plaintiff's failure to comply with the notices, the depressions were filled up by defendant 1 and defendant 1 served the plaintiff with notices in question for the payment of the costs of the filling up of the depressions. The plaintiff's case...
Shaikh Tufail Ahmad Vs. Mt. Umme Khatoon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All145
Niamatullah, Ag. C.J.1. This and the connected Appeal No. 973 of 1936, arise out of the same suit which was brought by Mt. Umme Khatoon and two of her I full sisters for recovery of their share of i the dower payable to their deceased half sister Mt. Ummatul Habib by the latter's, husband Tufail Ahmad, defendant. Mt. Ummatul Habib died in 1930. The plain, tiffs claim to have inherited from her the right to recover Rs. 3328-2-3 out of the dower of Rs. 5000 which was unpaid on her death. The suit was contested by the defendant. He denied that the dower stipulated at the time of the marriage was Rs. 5000. According to him it was no more than Rs. 500. He also pleaded that Mt. Ummatul Habib had relinquished her claim to dower a few days before her death, so that her heirs had nothing left to inherit. The Court of first instance, the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, found that Mt. Habib's dower stipulated at the time of her marriage to the defendant was Rs. 500, and not Rs. 5000 as claimed b...
Bishambhar Das Vs. Ram Chandra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All132; 173Ind.Cas.911
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the defendants-respondents for preemption of the property sold on 1st September 1932 by defendant 3 to defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff's ease was that though Rs. 1500 were entered in the sale deed as the sale consideration, the real consideration was only Rs. 800. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no preferential right and that the real sale consideration was Rs. 1500. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the patti in which the property has been sold. The defendants vendees set up a gift deed alleged to have been executed in their favour by the vendor on 30th August 1933. The trial Court found that this gift deed was fictitious and consequently the defendants vendees did not acquire any right under it. As regards the sale price, it found that it was Rs. 1500. It decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned Civil Judge found that the gift deed was valid a...
Babu Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. Mahpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All188
Niamatullah, Ag. C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree passed by the learned District Judge of Cawnpore on appeal from a decree of the Second Subordinate Judge of that district in a suit by the appellants for recovery of Rs. 2000 by sale of property specified at the foot of the plaint in enforcement of a mortgage deed dated 8th January 1884, executed by Nanhe, who is now represented by his heirs defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 3 and 4 have purchased half of the mortgaged property under a dead dated 25th May 1933. The property mortgaged consisted of 3 pies and odd share in thok Kalloo Singh, village Gajner, District Oawnpore, with sir and khudkasht. The principal sum advanced was Rs. 2000. The stipulation as regards interest was that the mortgagee would be given possession of the mortgaged property and ha would have the right to appropriate all the rents and profits in lieu of interest and that at the time of redemption the mortgagee would not have a right to claim any interest,...
Dharam Singh Vs. Thakur Tikam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All124
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises out of execution proceedings taken out against him by the decree-holder opposite party under the Tenancy Act. The respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant in execution of his decree for arrears of rent. The execution Court ordered the ejectment of the appellant, Thereafter the appellant applied for review of the order of ejectment and the learned Assistant Collector set aside the original order of ejectment. The respondent went up in appeal to the learned District Judge against the order of the learned Assistant Collector allowing review of the order of ejectment. A preliminary objection was taken before the learned District Judge that no appeal lay. The learned District Judge seems to be of the opinion that no appeal against the order of review lay under Order 47, Rule 7. But he treated the order as one setting aside ejectment under Section 47, Civil P.C., and as such appealable. He allowed the appeal and set aside...
Puttu Lal Vs. Bhagwan Dass and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All106
Bennet, J.1. This is a civil revision from an order of the learned District Judge of Cawnpore holding that an appeal filed in his Court was filed beyond time and dismissing it on that ground and also dismissing an application to apply Section 5, Lim. Act. The trial Court delivered judgment on 2nd June, the last working day before vacation, and the Courts re-opened on 4th July which was a Saturday after vacation. No application for copy was made on that date by the appellant and it was not until 7th July that he made an application for copies of the judgment and decree and these were received on 11th July and the appeal was filed on 18th July. The period of limitation is 30 days for an appeal to the District Court. Two points were urged before the lower Court and have been urged in revision. One point was that under the provisions of Section 12, Sub-section (2), Lim. Act, this appeal should be held to have been filed within time, and the second argument was that even if this be not so, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »