Allahabad Court August 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.
Muzaffarnagar Bank Ltd. Vs. Fatta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All778
ORDER1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Munsif of Muzaffarnagar dated 12th September 1936 allowing an application under Sections 5 and 30, Agriculturists' Belief Act. The Court below has proceeded on the assumption that the applicant was an agriculturist as apparently the point does not appear to have been seriously contested before it. The Court has fixed 28 equal six-monthly instalments beginning from 15th March 1937 and has allowed future interest at the Court rate. The first point urged in revision is that the Court had no jurisdiction to spread the instalments over a period of 13 years from the date of the decree as under the first Proviso to Section 3 the Court should not have extended the period beyond four years. It is argued that the applicant is not a person as regards whom the limits prescribed for the payment of revenue and rent, etc. in Section 2, Sub-section (2), are to be omitted, It is then argued that he must come within the second category 'oth...
Mt. Waziran Vs. Mt. Rashidan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All783
1. This is an appeal from the final decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore in a suit for partition of moveable and immoveable property left by one Mohammad Yusuf. The plaintiffs are his mother, Mt. Waziran, and his children by his first wife, Mariam. The defendants to the action were Mt. Rashidan, the seoond wife of Mohammad Yusuf, and Tufail Ahmad, a Bon of Mohammad Yusuf by her. The present appeal is confined to two points only. The decree of the lower Court has been submitted to by the parties in all other respeots. A number of ornaments were detailed in list C annexed to the plaint, and it was alleged by the plaintiffs that these ornaments were the property of Mt. Mariam, the first wife of Mohammad Yusuf, and that they had been taken possession of by Mt. Rashidan. The plain, tiffs' case was that in making a division of the property in dispute the value of their share of these ornaments should be allotted to them. The weight and the value of each ornament was men...
Mahant Anant Gir Vs. Ram Nazar Choube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All14; 173Ind.Cas.50
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge of Ghazipur. The question at issue is whether court-fees should be paid ad valorem on an appeal under the provisions of Section 23, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. A mortgagor made an application under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act for the redemption of his mortgage on the payment of a sum of Rs. 375. An inquiry was made under the provisions of the Act by an Assistant Collector who decided that the amount payable was Rs. 1,101-9-7. He directed the deposit of the balance within a period of fifteen days. The mortgagor filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge in which he urged that he was entitled to redeem on payment of a sum of Rs. 375 only. He paid on his memorandum of appeal a court-fee of twelve annas, regarding it presumably as an appeal from an order. The learned District Judge is doubtful whether the Court-fee is sufficient or whether the amount payable should be calculated ad valorem on the differ...
B. Krishna Chandra Agarwal Vs. Firm Mohan Lal Bhikam Das and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All758
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor arising out of an execution proceeding. The decree had been obtained originally from the Bombay High Court against a firm Kishun Chand-Har Govind carrying on business at Cawnpore as well as some other persons. This decree was transferred for execution to the Fatehpur Court for the realization of the amount by attachment of certain shops. The Court allowed time to the decree-holder to state clearly whether he would proceed against the firm or against the personal properties of Kishun Chand-Har Govind. In the meantime, the decree. holder filed an application in the Bombay High Court, which had passed the original decree, and obtained an order directing that the decree-holder was at liberty to execute the decree against Kishun Chand and Har Govind also. Objection was then taken in the Fatehpur Court to which execution had been transferred that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and its order was ultra vires inasmuch as the d...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Banke Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All753
ORDERThom, J.1. This is an application in civil revision arising out of an application under Sections 5 and 30, Agriculturists' Relief Act. A decree was passed against the applicant on 31st August 1935 in a suit brought upon the footing of a mortgage deed. The decree was passed ex parte. Later the applicant applied under Sections 5 and 30, Agriculturists' Relief Act. Under Section 5 of the Act the Court has converted the decree into a decree for payment by instalments. No question arises in regard to the Court's order under this section. The lower Court refused however to reduce the rate of interest upon the amount due under the decree. The learned Munsif held that Section 11, Civil P.C., barred the application for the reduction of interest. Sub-section (2) of Section 30 is in the following terms:If a decree has already been passed on the basis of a loan and remains unsatisfied in whole or in part, the Court which passed the decree shall, on the application of the judgment-debtor, amen...
Seth Kedar Nath Vs. K. Arun Chandra Sinha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All742
Sulaiman, C.J.1. In this case the judgment-debtor respondent had owned several properties which were divided in a partition suit and two items described as Anupshahr Banjar No. 15 and Anupshahr Khadar No. 16 as well as a kothi with a garden and a kuohery house in the same town were allotted to his share. In 1925, along with other properties, he made two mortgages of the properties Anupshahr Banjar and Anupshahr Khadar (Nos. 15 and 16) without specifying whether they inoluded or exoludad the kothi and the kuohery, which were situated within the area of No. 15. In 1927 a suit was brought for sale on the basis of both these mortgage deeds and a decree was obtained which was made final and was then executed on 21st May 1932. Some of the other properties were sold at auction and purchased by the decree-holder with which we are not concerned in this appeal. On 30th July 1932 the properties Banjar No. 15 and Khadar No. 16 were sold at auction and purchased by the decree, holder; the sale was ...
Ram Nandan Rai and anr. Vs. Tileshar Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All764
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against concurrent decrees of the Courts below dismissing their claim for a declaration. The plaintiffs brought these proceedings claiming a declaration that they were the owners of certain property. A number of defences were raised by the-defendants, but it is only necessary to consider one of them and that is a plea that the suit was barred by time. It appears that the parties were concerned in certain partition proceedings and in those proceedings the present plaintiffs raised questions of proprietary title and on 1st September 1931 the Assistant Collector in whose Court the partition proceedings were taking place, passed an order directing the present plaintiffs to file a suit to establish their title to the property in question within three months. This he did under the provisions of Section 111, Land Revenue Act.2. The plaintiffs appealed against this order and on 27th November 1931, that is before the expiry of the period of three month...
Firm Shiva Dayal Mal Suraj Bhan Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All766
1. This execution first appeal is connected with Nos. 491 of 1935, 226 of 1935 and 401 of 1935. The appellant in this appeal and in No. 491 is the firm Shiva Dayal Mal Suraj Bhan. In the other two appeals the appellants are different parsons. It appears that all the appellants had decrees against the same party and that these decrees were transferred for execution to the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge of Meerut. While the decrees were in execution in that Court, there were compromises between the parties by which it was decided that a certain period would be allowed to the judgment-debtor for the payment of a certain sum and that if he paid that sum within the specified period, the decrees should be considered to have been satisfied. On the other hand, if he did not pay the sum, then the full amounts of the decrees which were considerably larger should be recovered by execution. Pro-parties had been attached in execution of all the decrees and it was arranged in the compromise t...
Ram Prasad Ghasi Ram Vs. Bal Krishen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All751
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendant. It appears that on 28th February 1935 the plaintiffs and the defendant referred certain matters which were in dispute between them to arbitration without the intervention of Court. The arbitrators made their award on 5th March 1935. The plaintiffs then applied to the Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the award that the award be filed in Court. The application was numbered and registered as a suit and notice was given to the defendant requiring him to show cause why the award should not be filed. The defendant appeared and, filed objections. The learned Munsif framed three issues:(1) Was any agreement to refer to arbitration entered into between the parties? (2) Is the award invalid on account of the misconduct of the arbitrator? (3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled2. He decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs, but upon a legal point raised by the defendant he was of the...
Chauthi Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All768
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. In view of the compromise no orders are necessary. I however note that the District Magistrate is perfectly right in holding that the Medical Officer was bound to reply to all relevant questions put to him. He did not probably realise that refusal to answer questions allowed by the Court is contempt of Court liable to be punished. In this case the Magistrate allowed himself to be weighed down by the Government notification on which the Medical Officer took his stand and did not apply his mind to the more important question, viz. whether the fact sought to be elicited in cross-examination was relevant. Medical Officers, like other persons, are bound to attend Court on receipt of summons and to give evidence if required by the Court. They cannot refuse to give evidence for reasons which they may consider to be sufficient, but they should represent to the Court as regards fees payable to them. Any dictation of terms on which they would give evidence is unnecessary a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›