Allahabad Court December 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.
Hafiz Abdul Noor Vs. Sahu Brij Mohan Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All153
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by a judgment-debtor. The facts which have given rise to this application briefly put are these: Sahu Brijmohan Saran obtained a decree against Hafiz Abdul Noor for a large sum of money on the foot of a mortgage deed on 24th September 1937. The judgment-debtor made an application under Sections 30, 4 and 5 of Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1934. He alleged that he was an agriculturist. It was pleaded by him that the rate of interest agreed upon under the terms of the deed was excessive and should therefore be reduced. He also asked that the decree should be amended and converted into a decree under which he should be permitted to pay the amount due in instalments. The decree-holder opposed the application. It was pleaded that before a preliminary decree had been passed, the judgment-debtor raised objections about the interest being excessive; but that he did not appear in the Court later and therefore an ex parte decree was passed. The...
Ram Badan Lal and ors. Vs. Kunwar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All229
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent for pre-emption of the property sold by defendants 4 and 5 to defendants 1 to 3 under a sale deed dated 12th June 1933. Re. 7000 was entered as the sale consideration in the deed. The plaintiff's case was that only Rs. 4000 were paid to the vendors and the price had been inflated in the sale deed to defeat the right of pre-emption. The vendees contended that subsequent to the purchase of the property, they became cosharers in the mahal by reason of the deed of exchange dated 8th July 1933 and that the real sale consideration was Rupees 7000. They also contended that the deed under which they purchased the property in dispute was not a sale deed but was a deed of exchange and consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to preemption. The learned Civil Judge has found that the real sale consideration is Rs. 7000, that the vendees have not acquired an indefeasible right ...
Thomas Skinner Vs. Ram Rachpal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All141
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's first appeal arising out of an order passed in execution proceedings. The facts which have given rise to the appeal before us can very briefly be stated as follows: One Mt. Kishan Dei instituted a suit against Thomas Skinner alias Sultan Mirza to recover possession over some property and mesne profits. On 28th August 1926 the first Court passed a decree in favour of Mt. Kishan Dei for possession and also awarded to her a sum of Rupees 3004.13-6 on account of profits with proportionate costs. Thomas Skinner preferred an appeal to this Court against the decree which had been obtained by Mt. Kishan Dei. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears that Mt. Kishan Dei obtained possession over the property in suit in that case and also made an application for realising the sum for which she bad obtained a money decree and prayed for attachment of three decrees which Thomas Skinner held against one Benarsi Das. This prayer of hers was granted...
In Re: Jagannath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All193
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application by one Jagannath Prasad under Section 183(5), Companies Act, and the prayer contained in the application is that the applicant's name be removed from the list of contributories prepared by the official liquidators. It is common ground that the applicant applied for the purchase of one deferred share of the Company on 15th November 1923, and paid a sum of Rs. 5 on account of the application money on 26th November 1923. Bach deferred share was of the face value of Rs. 100. A further sum of Rs. 20 was paid by the applicant on account of the share purchased by him on the allotment of that share on 11th March 1924. A Bum of Rs. 75 on account of the share remained due and the first call with respect to a portion of that amount was made on 25th May 1927. The applicant how-ever did not pay the first call or any calls that may have been subsequently made and Rs. 75 remained due from the applicant to the Company on account of the share.2. By an order...
L. Mukat Bihari Lal Vs. B. Manmohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All165
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 and arises out of a suit which was brought by the plaintiff-respondent on 22nd August 1935 for the ejectment of the appellant and his brother Ram Swarup, respondent 2, from two houses and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 115 as arrears of rent for four months 18 days, i.e. from 4th April 1935 to 22nd August 1935. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased the houses from the defendants by a sale deed dated 4th April 1935 and that the defendants took the houses on rent from him by a 'rent agreement' executed by them on the same day, i.e., 4th April 1935, that the defendants promised by that agreement to pay him Rs. 25 per month as rent and that they had paid nothing on account of rent up to the date on which the suit was brought. The plaintiff further alleged that a term of six months had been fixed in the agreement for the tenancy of the defendant but that there was a stipulation in the deed that if the defendants did not pay the rent r...
Rai Girendra NaraIn Vs. B. Ganga Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All167
Verma, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two different suits, but as the point which ultimately emerges for consideration is the same in both, they have been connected and have been heard to. gether. One Abdullah Shah is the muafidar of certain plots of land, the total area of which is stated to be '99 of an acre, in Qasba Ganjdundwara in the district of Etah. On 29th March 1927, Abdullah Shah executed a perpetual lease in respect of these plots of land in favour of one Ganga Narain. The rent reserved was Rs. 400 per annum, and the lessee was expressly stated to have the power to transfer his lessee rights. On 28th March 1928, the lessee, Ganga Narain, sold his lessee rights to one Narain Das by means of a sale deed executed on that day and registered on 31st March 1928. It was laid down in this deed of sale that the vendee should comply with the conditions laid down in the lease and that the lease would be as much binding on him as it was on the vendor, the original lessee. O...
Rai Girendra NaraIn Vs. Babu Ganga Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.245
Verma, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two different suits, but as the point which ultimately emerges for consideration is the same in both, they have been connected and hive been heard together. One Abdullah Shah is the muafidar of certain plots of land, the total area of which is stated to be 99 of an acre, in qasba Ganjdundwara in the district of Etah. On March 29, 1927, Abdullah Shah executed a perpetual lease in respect of these plots of land in favour of one Ganga Narain. The rent reserved was Rs. 400 per annum, and the lease was expressly stated to have the power to transfer his lessee rights. On March 28, 1928, the lessee, Ganga Narain, sold his lessee rights to one Narain Das by means of a sale deed executed on that day and registered on March 31, 1928. It was laid down in this deed of sale that the vendee should comply with the conditions laid down in the lease and that the lease would be as much binding on him as it was on the vendor, the original lessee. On July ...
Panguwa Vs. Ratan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All129
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him and the other defendant by the plaintiff, respondent for possession of a house situated in plot No. 40 in pattighair mustadai in mauza Bindki Kohna. The plaintiff's case was that he was the zamindar of the patti and that the house was in occupation of Angana as a riaya. After his death his widow was in possession who also died about one and half years before the suit. The defendants have no right to occupy the house and are mere trespassers. Defendant 1 contended that he was occupying the house as tenant of defendant 2. Defendant 2 contended that he was the adopted son of Angana. It was also contended on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff was not the owner of the site. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the site and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower Court found that the plaintiff was the owner of the land as zamindar and defendant 2 was not the adopted s...
Radhe Kishun Vs. H.H. Sri Maharaja Aditya NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All151
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by a defendant, purchaser of a house in Benares, against the part of a decree awarding the plaintiff, H.H. Maharaja of Benares interest on zar-i.chharum of Rupees 3287-65-0 at 6 per cent, per annum from the date of sale on 18th January 1928. The appeal is taken only on the ground that the Court below should not have allowed interest. Now the facts are that this sale deed was duly registered in 1928 and it was open to the agents of the plaintiff to ascertain that fact from the office of the sub-registrar. It was not until 1931 that a notice of demand for the zar.i-chharum was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The date of delivery of that notice is shown on p. 13 to be 7th July 1931. That notice might have included a demand for interest, and if it had, the provisions of the Interest Act (32 of 1839) would have applied and from that date the plaintiff would have been entitled to interest. The notice on p. 12 shows that there was no demand for inte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›