Allahabad Court May 1937 Judgments
Hira Singh and ors. Vs. Jai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All588
ORDERThom and Allsop, JJ.1. Two questions only are raised in this appeal. A prior mortgage was redeemed partly by the mortgagor and partly by vendees, who after the execution of the puisne mortgage, purchased the mortgaged property. In terms of the sale deeds in their favour payments were made by the vendees to the prior mortgagees in part redemption of the prior mortgage. The vendees claim in the present suit by the puisne mortgagees the right of subrogation under Section 92, T.P. Act. The plaintiffs maintain that the vendees are not entitled to the right of subrogation In respect that (1) The part redemption in terms of covenants in the sale deeds, and (2) the prior mortgage was not fully redeemed by any one of the persons mentioned in argument that Clause 3 of Section 91. There are conflicting decisions on the questions raised. In the circumstances, we consider it expedient the point should be referred to a Pull Bench. Let the record be laid before the Hon'ble, C.J. for the constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj NaraIn Chaube Vs. Beni Madho Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All701
ORDER1. This is an application in revision by one out of four plaintiffs. The suit was for partition of joint family properties. There were five defendants and all except defendant 2 contested the suit. The main ground of defence was that a partition had already taken place and that the suit was therefore not maintainable. A number of issues were framed, but the only two with which we are concerned are Issues 7 and 12. These were as follows : Issue 7 : Has there been already a partition of the properties in Ballia district; if so, how will it affect the suit? Issue 12 : Did the parties separate before the institution of the suit; if not, how will it affect this suit?2. On 23rd September 1935 the parties and their counsel made a, statement before the Court in which they agreed that the Government Pleader, a gentleman named B. Brij Behari Lal, be appointed as referee (the word used was 'Munhasir-aleh') and that the first portion of Issue 12 should be decided in accordance with whatever s...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdul Qaiyum Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All158
Thom, J.1. By the suit giving rise to the present appeal the plaintiff-appellant assailed the validity of the action of the revenue authorities in granting remissions of rent payable by agricultural tenants to the plaintiff in the years 1339 and 1340 Fasli. It is a matter of admission that under a general scheme formulated by the local Government, the Collectors of various districts in the United Provinces issued slips to the tenants in 1339 and 1340 Fasli declaring remissions in rent payable by them and that the tenants had the benefit of the remissions so granted. The plaintiff, appellant, who owns zamindari property in certain villages in the districts of Bareilly and Pilibhit, brought the suit at which this appeal arises against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that the defendant was not legally authorized to issue remission slips to the tenants of the plaintiff or in any way to interfere, by means of 'arbitrary executive orders', with the rates of rent...
Tag this Judgment!Ajudhia Prasad and anr. Vs. Chandan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All610
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 15th October 1925 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that they were minors at the time of the mortgage deed, a certificated guardian having been appointed for them, and also pleaded that there was no necessity for contracting the debt. In the rejoinder the plaintiffs denied that the defendants were minors and also asserted that the defendants were liable to pay the amount under Section 68, Contract Act. The issues framed by the trial Court related to the minority of the defendants, the object of the debt and its proper attestation and consideration. The trial Court found that the defendants were more than 18 years of age but under 21 years, and that there was no evidence of representation either by the defendants or their father Sital Prasad. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not recover the amount under Section 68, Contract Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Kesari Ram Vs. Musafir Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All711
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a decree of the lower Appellate Court reversing the Court of first instance which decreed the plaintiff's claim in part. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 1,236 on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 2nd August 1928 which had been executed by one Jai Ram Tewari, deceased, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 799-15.0. The defendants were the personal representatives of the deceased executant Jai Ram Tewari. The mortgage was a possessory mortgage and the suit was brought to recover the said sum of Rs. 1,236 on the ground that the mortgagor had failed to put the plaintiff in possession of the mortgaged property.2. The defendants raised a number of defences, but it is only necessary in this appeal to consider one of them. They alleged that the mortgage was invalid by reason of the fact that it was registered in the Ballia district, whereas in fact the property was situate ent...
Tag this Judgment!Stamp Reference in Haji Mohammad Ibrahim and ors. Vs. M. Khan Chand an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All657
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a Stamp Reference by the Taxing Officer of the following question:Are remissions of revenue granted by the Government in any particular year to be considered in calculating the value under Section 7(v), Court-fees Act?2. The section in question, Section 7(v)(b), states:Where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded as aforesaid, and such revenue is settled but not permanently - five times the revenue so payable.3. The five times has been altered by local legislation to six times. Now the words to be interpreted are 'the revenue so payable'. Grammatically the words 'so payable' must refer to something which has gone before and the references to revenue are firstly 'paying annual revenue' and secondly 'such revenue is settled'. The latter mention of revenue is closest to the expression under consideration, and by another rule of grammar it is the word whi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdul Naseer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All664
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application by Abdul Naseer for the transfer of Criminal Case No. 575 of 1936 - K.E. v. Ghulam and Anr. - which is pending in the Court of Mr. P.C. Misra, Magistrate, First Class, Cawnpore, to any other Court. The chief ground on which the transfer is sought is that the learned Magistrate did not allow the Prosecuting Inspector to put certain questions in re-examination to the complainant who was examined as one of the witnesses for the prosecution. The learned Magistrate has given reasons in detail for disallowing the questions. The chief reason was that the question which the Prosecuting Inspector wished to put to the witness had not arisen from any ambiguity in any answer in the cross-examination. The witness it appears had made-some damaging admissions which the Prosecuting Inspector wished to get over and consequently he wished to put certain questions which did not arise from the cross-examination. The learned Magistrate was quite justified in dis...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Rai Vs. Shibba Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All674
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and settlement of accounts. The partnership was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants-respondents on 1st May 1932. The suit was contested by the defendants and one of the pleas urged in defence was that in view of the provisions of Section 69, Partnership Act (Act 9 of 1932), the claim for settlement of accounts was not maintainable. I am not concerned in the present appeal with the other points raised in defence by the defendants. The trial Court overruled the contention of the defendants based on Section 69, Partnership Act, and passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts. But on appeal by the defendants, the lower appellate Court held that the contention of the defendants noted above was well founded and accordingly modified the decree of the trial Court by granting to the plaintiff a decree only for the dissolution ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Khincha Mal-hari Kishan Das and anr. Vs. Firm Khub Ram-munna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All669
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendants against the decree of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Cawnpore. The suit was brought for recovery of Rs. 562-5-9 for the price of articles purchased by the defendants. The defendants contended that they were agriculturists and as such were entitled to instalments. The learned Judge has found against the defendants. It has been urged on behalf of the applicants that the suit was for a loan and that the defendants being agriculturists were entitled to relief under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The question is whether the price for the articles purchased by the agriculturist comes under the definition of the word 'loan'. 'Loan' as defined in Clause 10(a) of Section 2, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, means an advance to an agriculturist whether of money or in kind. The price due for the articles purchased by an agriculturist cannot be regarded as an advance to him in kind. The suit was therefore not for rec...
Tag this Judgment!Bohrey Shankar Lal Vs. Bansi Dhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All686
ORDERCollister, J.1. The point taken in this revision is that the District Judge of Agra in his judgment dated 26th February 1936 has erred in dismissing an appeal against an order of annulment in an insolvency proceeding. On 10th July 1931 Bohrey Shankar Lal - who is the applicant before, me - and Ganga Earn applied for an order of adjudication in insolvency against Bansidhar, opposite party 1. On 4th March 1932 Bansidhar was adjudged insolvent and he was directed to apply for discharge within one year. It appears that certain alienations had been made by the insolvent which it was sought to set aside under Section 53 or Section 54 of the Act. On 12th October 1932 notice was sent at the request of the Official Receiver to the two petitioning creditors to pay necessary expenses for proceedings under Section 53 or Section 54. On 26th October 1932 the Official Receiver reported to the insolvency Judge that the creditors had given no proof in support of their application to have the alien...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »