Allahabad Court October 1938 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.
Piarey Lal and ors. Vs. Dina Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All190
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the representatives of the plaintiff against a decree of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The facts which give rise to this case are as follows : Phul Singh owned certain zamindari property and made three mortgages as follows : (1) to Dina Nath, defendant 1 for Rs. 200 on 22nd December 1909, simple mortgage; (2) simple mortgage to Sukhdeo for Rupees 1025 on 13th August 1910. Of this Rs. 74 cash alone was paid and the balance which was for debts was not paid; and (3) usufructuary mortgage to Dina Nath, defendant 1, on 2nd August 1912, for Rs. 525. Out of this Dina Nath was to pay Rs. 93 to Sukhdeo to redeem the second mortgage which was the amount then outstanding on it.2. The plaintiff had a simple money decree against Phul Singh and he caused the property of Phul Singh to be put up to auction salo and he purchased his equity of redemption. Subsequent to this defendants 2 to 8, second party, the successors of Sukhde...
Mt. Hazari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All124
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application by three girls of the Naik community invoking the revisional powers of this Court under Section 439, Criminal P.C., against an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate of Naini Tal under Section 4, Naik Girls' Protection Act (2 of 1929). It appears that one of the applicants, Lalta by name, is not affected by the order in question, and the application has consequently been pressed on behalf of the other two named Hazari and Chanda. An application in revision was also made to the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun, but he rejected it on the ground that the order sought to be set aside was not a judicial order by an inferior Criminal Court within the meaning of Section 435, Criminal P.C. and was consequently not liable to interference in revision. the correctness of this proposition is challenged by the applicants, who have consequently come up to this Court for relief.2. The circumstances in which the order in question was passed may brief...
M. Mahammad Abdul Rahman Vs. L. Baldeo Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All86
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for contribution. It appears that on 24th March 1923 Inayat Ilahi, defendant 1, executed a simple mortgage of four properties for Rs. 1400 in favour of the plaintiff. One of the villages so mortgaged was Chaturbhojpur. In July 1926 Inayat Ilahi again mortgaged the same properties together with the village Inampur in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 400. The mortgagee brought a suit on foot of the subsequent mortgage of 1926 and obtained a decree. The properties mortgaged were ultimately put to auction and all, with the exception of Chaturbhojpur, were purchased by the plaintiff himself and Chaturbhojpur was purchased by one Mt. Bashiram who sold it to the defendant. It was specifically provided in the proclamation of sale that the properties were subject to the earlier mortgage of 1923. The plaintiff brought the present suit for contribution for the recovery of Rs. 437-2-0 and interest at 1...
Firm Chand Mal Rup Chand Through L. Rupchand Vs. L. Gurdial Prasad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All159
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant first party against a decree of the lower Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is. entitled to rateable distribution. The facts-are that the plaintiff and defendant 1 and 1 defendant 2 all had separate decrees against defendant 3. The decree of the plaintiff, No. 155 of 1929, was granted on 22nd August 1929 and the plaintiff applied for execution on 27th August 1929 and got attachment of certain house property from the Munsif of Hathras on 15th November 1929. Defendant 1, appellant before us, obtained a decree No. 441 of 1930 from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh and he applied, for execution on 26th August 1930 and on 20th January 1931 the same property which had been attached by the plaintiff was put up for sale and sold for Rs. 5000. The plaintiff made an application for ratable distribution to the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh on 31st January 1931 and his application was dismissed on ...
Ram Niwas Vs. Ram Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All174
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Court below rejecting an application filed by Ram Niwas appellant, which application purported to be an application under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The facts that led to the application just mentioned are as follows : A suit for sale on a mortgage was filed by one Bindeshwari Prasad against three persons named Ram Niwas (who is the appellant before us), Ramsarup and Ram Prakash. One Ram Dayal was also impleaded as a pro forma defendant in the suit. The suit was registered as Suit No. 4 of 1931. The prayer contained in the plaint was that a decree for a sale with respect to the mortgaged property be passed jointly in favour of Bindeshwari Prasad and Ram Dayal. The amount claimed in the suit was a sum of Rs. 8250. On 20th August 1931 a preliminary decree for sale with respect to a sum of Rs. 5188 was passed by the Court in favour of Bindeshwari Prasad and Ram Dayal. Two of the defendants to the suit, viz. Ram Sa...
Abdul Rahman Mohammad Isa Vs. Salamat Ullah Abdul Alim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All163
Verma, J.1. The appellant before us was the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Mohammadabad at Azamgarh and prayed for two reliefs which are as follows:(a) An order may be passed by the Court directing the defendant that he should render the account within a time to be fixed by the Court and pay whatever amount might be found due to the plaintiff on rendition of account. This relief is laid at Rs. 10. The remaining court-fee will be paid after rendition of account.(b) It may be declared by the Court that the decree passed on 10th June 1932 in Suit No. 1289 of 1932, Firm Haji Salamatullah v. Haji Abdurrahman by the Small Cause Court at Cawnpore, is null and void and that the said decree has no effect at all nor is it binding upon the plaintiff. This relief is laid at Rs. 128-15-0.2. The material facts are that the plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Muhammadabad in the District of Azamgarh and deals in leather. The defendant is another firm c...
Haji Ishtiaq Ahmad and ors. Vs. Abdul Samad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All273
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for accounts. It appears that three brothers named Abdul Karim, Abdus Samad and Muhammad Taqi were partners in business which was dissolved some time about the end of 1926. Muhammad Taqi went out of business and the remaining two partners, Abdul Karim and Abdus Samad, continued to carry on the business as partners. The plaintiffs' case is that the new partnership terminated at the end of 1929 but, as the defendant failed to render accounts, the plaintiff prayed that the Court may direct him to do so. The suit was contested on various grounds, but a preliminary decree was passed on 1st September 1920, and the final decree followed it on 24th July 1934. The trial Court decreed the suit against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 7652-13.11. The learned District Judge modified the decree of the Court of first instance and reduced the amount to Rs. 3586.1-6. The plaintiffs now come to this Court in appeal. It may be mentio...
Mahange Lal Vs. Firm Suraj Prasad Chandu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All114
Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act. The appellant here is the insolvent named Mahange Lal. He made a petition for insolvency on 20th May 1933 and was adjudicated an insolvent on 26th February 1934. It appears that at the date of the insolvency petition a simple money decree, which had been obtained against him by the respondent Firm, was being executed and certain groves belonging to him had been attached and 22nd May 1933 had been fixed by the execution Court for the sale. In order to stop that sale, the appellant made an application to the Insolvency Court along with his insolvency petition. The Court passed an order upon that application on 22nd May staying the sale; but before the order could be communicated to the Civil Court Amin, the sale had taken place. At that sale the groves were purchased by the respondent decree-holder. The sale was confirmed in due course, and sometime after its confirmation the respondent applied for mutation in his...
Jagdish Rai and anr. Vs. Suraj Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All113
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant-vendees' appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. The sale deed sought to he pre-empted was executed and registered on 28th February 1935. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was however not filed within one year of the date of registration of the deed and accordingly the vendees contested the suit inter alia on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed the benefit of the provisions of Section 18, Limitation Act, land contended that he was kept from the knowledge of the right to institute the suit by fraud practised by the vendees and that he came to know of the sale within one year of the date of the suit. The Courts below accepted the allegations of the plaintiff on the point and overruled the plea of limitation raised by the vendees. In the present appeal the finding of the lower Appellate Court on the question of limitation is assailed. The property sold was some arazidari property in village...
Maula Bux and ors. Vs. Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All205
Bajpai, J.1. This is a reference under Section 61(1), Stamp Act, by the Inspector of Stamps who, under a Government Notification, has been invested with the powers of a Collector. It appears that the Inspector of Stamps, while inspecting the records in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge of Ballia, came across a document (Paper No. 8) in Suit No. 32 of 1935 and he was of the opinion that the said document was ii, bend. Ho therefore recommended that the document be impounded and the deficiency in duty be realized before admitting the evidence. The learned Additional Civil Judge was however of the opinion that the document was only an agreement and the stamp paid on it was sufficient. Thereupon the Inspector of Stamps acting as a Collector has applied to us under Section 61(1) and we propose to consider whether the instrument in question is a bend as contended by the revenue authorities or an agreement as hold by the Additional Civil Judge. The document is in the form of an agreement...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »