Allahabad Court December 1937 Judgments
Abdul Rahman and ors. Vs. Girjesh Bahadur Pal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All235
Collister, J.1. This is an appeal by plaintiffs, which arises out of a suit concerning certain plots of land on the north side of the river Ganges. The Ghagra runs between the districts of Basti and Fyzabad, the former being on the north and the latter on the south. There is a village of She Basti district known as Kharakpur and adjoining it on the west is the village of Harbanspur. Harbanspur consists of three mahala. Mahal No. 2 is contiguous with Kharakpur, then comes mahal No. 1 in the middle and then mahal No. 3 on the west. Defendant 1, Girjesh Bahadur Pal, is the owner of Kharakpur. Mahal No. 1 and mahal No. 2 of Harbanspur are owned by the plaintiffs and their oosharers all residents of Harbanspur. Defendant 1 has a patti in mahal No. 3, the rest of which is owned by the plaintiffs and their cosharers. The dispute in this litigation is concerned with a parcel of land which according to the plaintiffs, appertains to mahal Nos. 1 and 2 of Harbanspur.2. It appears that the course ...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. Lala Shiam Sundar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All215
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by a defendant lambardar in a suit for profits filed in the Revenue Court under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act. The suit was with respect) to the profits of 1338 Fasli and was instituted so far book as on 31st July 1934. Though more then three years have elapsed since the date of the institution of the suit, it is not even now possible to finally settle the controversy between the parties and and this is due solely to the fact that the learned Assistant Collector, who tried the suit, displayed a remarkable ignorance of the elementary provisions of law as to the method of recording evidence and abdicated his functions by appointing a Commissioner to whom was delegated the duty of deciding one of the cardinal issues in the case. The plaintiff claimed profits on the basis of gross rental and further claimed a share in certain amounts that he alleged were realized by the defendant lambardar and were not dictated by him in the siaha prepared by the patwari...
Tag this Judgment!Latafat Ali Khan Vs. Kalyan Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All210
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by a judgment-debtor whose objection that the application for execution is barred by limitation has been dismissed by the two Courts below. The facts are that there was a decree passed on 28th. June 1919 in a mortgage suit and the final decree on 21st June 1920 for Rs. 1612.2-0. The first application for execution was made on 11th June 1921 and there was a compromise on 29th August 1921 by which it was agreed that the decretal amount should be paid by yearly instalment of Rs. 300 on each year beginning with lab September 1922 and ending on 1st September 1927. On 23rd September 1923 the second execution application was made and, was struck off. On 22nd August 1925 the judgment-debtor deposited Rs. 300 as an instalment and it was not until 16th July 1928 that the decree-holder applied to withdraw this sum. The present application for execution was made on 13th January 1931 for an amount of Rs. 676-4-0 stated to be due on the decree. Rs. 600...
Tag this Judgment!Pt. Kashi Nath Rao Joshi Vs. Mt. Murta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All198
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a decree-holder s appeal and arises out of an order passed by the learned District Judge, asking the Revenue Court to drop the execution proceeding which were going an against the insolvent opposite party. The appellant has a decree against the insolvent for, arrears of rent. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that ha (appellant) wants to eject the insolvent in execution of the decree. No provision in the Provincial Insolvency Act has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent which may support the order passed by the learned District Judge, Under Section 28(2), Provincial Insolvency Act:No creditor to whom the insolvent Is indebted in respect of any debt provable under this Act shall daring the pendency of the insolvency proceedings have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt, or commence any suit or other legal proceedings, except with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Ballu Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All209
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Bijnor recommending that the convictions under Section 13, Public Gambling Act should be set aside. The learned Judge is of opinion that the place where the accused were found gambling was not a public place within the meaning of the Act. He has quoted some authority but the cases to which he refers are those in which it was held on the facts that the place was not a public place. I have looked at the ruling in Sukhnandan Singh v. Emperor (1922) 9 A.I.R. All. 542. It is there stated:When the public have access to a place without their access being refused or interfered with, that place is a public place whether the public have a right to go there or not.2. In the present case the applicants were gambling on the edge of a grove a few paces away from a public pathway and there is nothing to show that the place where they were, was enclosed in any way or that the public were usually excluded from it. I think it must be...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Singh Vs. Girwar Dutt Joshi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All191
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a second appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff in a pre eruption suit. On 2nd January 1932, Kanhaiya Lal defendant executed a sale deed of the proportion in dispute in favour of Girwar Datt defendant. The sale deed recited the receipt of consideration by the vendor and was in due course registered. Girwar Datt was a stranger to the mahal in which the proparty conveyed by the sale deed was situated and the plaintiff, who was one of the co-sharers in the mahal, brought the suit for pre-emption giving rise to the pre-sent appeal. Both the vendor and the vendee contested the suit on a rather unusual allegation. They alleged that the sale dead in question was fictitious and was executed by the vendor in favour of the vendee, who was his nephew, simply with a view to protect the property conveyed by the sale deed from the claims of certain creditors. The defendant maintained that the ownership of the property was never intended to, and did not as a matter of fact, pas...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Parikshawala Vs. Samson Shalom
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All197
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application by the manager of a temple which learned Counsel states is a public temple, and the application purports to be under Section 301, Succession Act. The application asks for the removal of the opposite party Samson Shalom, a Jew, residing in Cawnpore on the ground that he has committed embezzlement and should be removed from the executorship of a will. The will is stated to be dated 12th October 1912 by one Mt. Parbati Bai by which she endowed the public temple with a sum of money. Learned Counsel states that shortly after 1912, Mt. Parbati Bai died and the executors, of whom there were three, purchased certain Government promissory notes and it is alleged that the embezzlement has been committed in regard to this by selling the Government promissory notes and misappropriating the proceeds. Learned Counsel also states that a criminal complaint has been filed.2. Now whatever the merits of the present petition may be, it is not a petition which in o...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Vs. Ganpat Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All199
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. The respondent, Ganpat Lal has a decree for Rs. 3786 against the firm Nand Ram Piare Lnl which was represented by Piare Lal, the father of the appellant Roshan Lal. The decree-holder attached soma property in execution of his decree. An objection was filed by Roshan Lal under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. He claimed the attached property as his. The objection was dismissed. Roshan Lal ton filed the suit under Order 21, Rule 53 for declaration of his right to the property. The suit was disposed of in accordance with a compromise which was entered into between the parties. It was agreed in that compromise that if Roshan Lal paid Rs. 2600 by four instalments, the entire decree would be deemed to be satisfied but that if default was made in payment of any one instalment, the whole of the decretal amount, namely Rs. 3786, would be recovered by the decree-holder. Under the terms of the...
Tag this Judgment!Arthur Albert Unger Vs. Mrs. Maud MartIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All201
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for the probate of a will that is alleged to have been executed in Agra on 25th January 1933 by one Mr. John Arthur Unger. The applicant in the ease was Arthur Albert hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, the petitioner was one of the sons of John Unger. The application was successfully opposed by Mrs. Martin, one of the daughters of John Unger, and was dismissed by the learned District Judge of Agra with the result that the petitioner has filed the present appeal. John Unger died in Agra on 24th May 1935, and the application for probate was filed on 7th July of the same year. John Unger was at the time of his death 87 years of age and was admittedly in indifferent state of health for some months before his death, He had four sons and two daughters living at the time of his death. His wife had predeceased him in the year 1931. The property of which John Unger was possessed of at the time of his death was worth Rs. 15,000. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All254
ORDERBennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a report by the Taxing Officer to me as Taxing Judge asking for a decision on the question of the deficiency of stamp duty on this first appeal which is brought by Ram Chandra and another, alleged garnishees. There was an application made for realization of a sum of money as a debt due from Ram Chandra, to the judgment-debtor in Original Suit No. 85 of 1926. Ram Chandra made an objection that this was not a debt due personally but was part of the purchase-money which might be charged on immovable property which was purchased on a sale deed by Ram Chandra from the judgment-debtor and therefore that Ram Chandra could not be made personally liable. The two issues framed by the Court below were:1. Whether the money left with Ram Chandra is such a debt to which garnishee proceedings cannot apply and 2. Whether there was a charge or not and whether this charge was such as to exclude the application of the garnishee rule?2. The finding was against Ram Chandra a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »