Allahabad Court April 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.
Mt. Sahodra Vs. Ram Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All655
1. The question of law that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the words 'sister's son' in Section 2, Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (Act 2 of 1929), include the -son of a half-sister. Section 2 of the said Act runs as follows:A son's daughter, daughter's daughter, Sister and sister's son shall, in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the order of succession next after a father's father and before a father's brother.Provided that a sister's son shall not include a son adopted after the sister's death.2. There is no dispute about the facts which would be clear by a reference to the following pedigree:RAM BAKSH|____________|__________| |Tika Ram Bhikari Das| |Ganga Devi=Gur Dayal=Shiama Ram Babu| | (Plff. Respdt.)| |Sahodra Krishna Murari(Deft. Applt.)|Dhanpat3. Gur Dayal was at one time owner of the property in dispute in the present litigation. Ganga Devi, his first wife, pre-deceased him leaving a daughter Sahodra. Gur Dayal died in the year ...
Emperor Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All735
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference tinder Section 438, Criminal P.C., made by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly, and arises out of an application for revision, filed by Sita Ram in the Court of the Sessions Judge, against his conviction and the sentence of fine of Rs. 15 under Section 63, U.P. Excise Act.2. The house of Sita Ram was searched by the Excise Inspector on 4th February 1936. An earthen pitcher of fermented wash, weighing about 15 seers, was recovered from the room of the accused. A bottle containing a quarter chitank of liquid, which was alleged to be illicit liquor, was also found. This has not how-ever been subjected to chemical test, and it is impossible to say that it was liquor. This fact should therefore be left out of account. The wash was found, on examination, to contain 12.8% of proof spirit. Sita Ram was prosecuted and convicted by a Magistrate for an offence under Section 63, Excise Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 15, The plea of the accused that the...
Fasahat Ali Khan Vs. Ashfaq Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All620
Sulaiman, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of two different suits which were decided by two different Munsifs, but were disposed of together by the lower appellate Court, which has caused soma confusion. Suit No. 561 of 1932 was a pre-emption suit filed on 25th October 1932. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the transfer was without his knowledge and against the custom of the village and against the conditions laid down in the wajib-ul-arz. There was no mention of the Pre-emption Act in the plaint. Issues were framed on 13th February 1933,and one of the issues was issue 3 'Does a custom of pre-emption prevail in the village? Is the suit barred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1, Agra Preemption Act?' The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that because the property was within the Municipal limits of Ferozabad, there was no question of pre-emption at all. This view was obviously wrong.2. Suit No. 35 of 1933 was instituted by the same plaintiff on 23rd January 1933, against the s...
Phaggumal and ors. Vs. Baru Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All636
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plain-tiff for recovery of Rs. 1,000 principal and Rs. 1,440 interest by way of damages on account of the non-payment by the defendants of Rs. 1,000 to Umrao Singh at the proper time. The plaintiff had executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants on 2nd February 1921, leaving a large sum of money in the hands of the defendants for payment to certain creditors, including a payment of Rs. 4,000 to Umrao Singh on account of two items. The second item was not paid. It was said on behalf of the defendants that Rs. 166-14-0 was paid on account of the first item. The balance on account of the second item was Rs. 833-2-0. Ex. D is a receipt bearing the signature of the plaintiff and purporting to have been executed on 5th April 1922. It is for a sum of Rs. 833-2-0. If the extra sum of Rs. 166.14-0 left by the defendants to have been paid by Umrao Singh in excess on aooount of the first item were to be added to it, the amo...
Nannoo Mal and ors. Vs. Hoti Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All645
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision against an order passed by the Civil Judge of Muttra under Section 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. A preliminary decree for sale, on foot of a mortgage deed, was passed on the 12th January 1932. It was followed by a final decree on the 26th August 1932. The interest stipulated in the deed was 12 per cent, per annum, compound able every six months. The interest at that rate was decreed by the Court passing the decree. It also allowed future interest which was to run from 8th May 1935 at the rate of 6 per cent, simple. The U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act came into force in 1935. Thereafter the mortgagor (judgment-debtor) applied under Section 30 for the decree being amended as regards interest. The lower Court remarked that a small sum of Rs. 300 swelled to Rs. 1,200 on the date of the suit. It reduced the rate of interest to 6 per cent, per annum simple from the date of the mortgage deed. As regards future interest, it was ...
Kadhey Mal Vs. Murtaza Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All550
ORDER1. This is an application for revision by an auction purchaser against an order passed by the Civil Judge of Bareilly refusing to deliver possession to him of the property which he purchased at an auction sale held in execution of a decree. The decree in the execution of which the applicant was declared to be the auction, purchaser was a decree for sale. On an application for execution being made by the mortgagee the Court which had passed it sent it to the Collector for execution, the property sought to be sold being such as could be sold only by the Collector under Section 68, Civil P.C. The auction sale was held by the Assistant Collector to whom the Collector had delegated his power of sale. The applicant was declared to be the purchaser on 21st September 1935. Before the sale could be confirmed by the Collector, who alone could do it, the judgment-debtor made an application to the Court which had passed the decree for action being taken under Section 5, Agriculturists' Relief...
Chandan and anr. Vs. Ghissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All580
Niamatullah, J.1. This purports to be an appeal from an order of remand. As a matter of fact, the order is one under Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P.C. remitting two issues to the trial Court for findings. The lower appellate Court has retained seisin of the appeal, which is to be disposed of on receipt of the findings on the aforesaid issues. Order 43, Rule 1(a), allows an appeal from every order of 'remand', whether it be under Order 41, Rule 23, Section 107 or Section 151, Civil P.C., but the order must be one of remand, which implies that the case, so far as the appellate Court is concerned, is finally disposed of and it is sent back to the trial Court for final disposal. Where the Court retains seisin of the case and remits issues to the trial Court, whose findings on such issues are awaited, the order is in no sense an order of 'remand'. The word 'remand' does not occur in Order 41, Rule 25 Civil P.C. The lower appellate Court has not used the word 'remand', though even if it had used...
Basore Singh Vs. Sant Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All699
1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor under the following circumstances : The opposite party then represented by Seth Chandra Bhan had a simple money decree against the appellant Basore Singh and an application was made in 1933 to the Court of the Munsif of Lalitpur in Jhansi District in Bundelkhand setting out that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist and a Thakur by caste and therefore the shares indicated above could not be sold in execution of the decree and the application was for the shares to be leased to the decree-holder for a reasonable time. No objection was taken that the Court could not lease the shares or anything of that nature, but the objection taken was that the judgment-debtor had been declared an insolvent on 23rd March 1934 and that the property therefore had passed to the receiver and that execution could not be taken out against it. On 14th April 1934 the Munsif passed an order setting out that in view of the provisions of the Bundelkhand Land Ali...
Mohammad Bakhsh Vs. Bohra Ram Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All581
1. This is a vendee's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The vendee was originally a co-sharer in the mahal, but executed a deed of waqf alalaulad under Act 6 of 1913 appointing himself mutawalli in his life time and making provision for the maintenance of himself and his family. Thereupon he acquired the present share which has been sought to be pre-empted. The defence was that being the mutawalli during his life time, he is still a cosharer and not a stranger to the mahal and accordingly the sale deed taken by him cannot be pre-empted. The Court below has rightly rejected this defence. The Pre-emption Act defines co-sharer as any person other than a petty proprietor entitled as proprietor to any share or part in a mahal or village, whether his name is or is not entered in the register of proprietors. Therefore it is quite clear that the person claiming to be a co-sharer must show that he is entitled as a proprietor to a share or part of a mahal. The mere fact that he is in...
Sheo Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Khelawan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All653
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against concurrent decrees of the lower Courts passed in favour of the plaintiffs in a suit for a declaration. The plaintiffs brought this suit for a declaration that they were entitled to redeem a certain mortgage dated 3rd September 1907, which had been executed by one Mt. Manki in favour of defendants 1 and 2 or their predecessors.2. According to the plaintiffs, the last male holder of the property was one Harnandan who died and was succeeded by his widow Mt. Manki who took a Hindu widow's estate in the property. On 3rd September 1907 she executed the mortgage to which I have referred which was a usufructuary mortgage which could be redeemed at any time within a period of 60 years. On 14th September 1929 Mt. Manki died and according to the plaintiffs they were entitled to the estate of Harnandan as being the next reversioners. The defend, ants who were the mortgagees denied that the plaintiffs were the next reversioners of the estate of Har...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »