Allahabad Court November 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.
Rang Lal Vs. Gajraj Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All202
Collister, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by a decree-holder. The appellant instituted a suit against Ajodhia Singh and Mt. Neksi Kuar, the widow of Hakim Singh. Ajodhia Singh was subsequently exempted, and the appellant obtained a decree against the assets of Hakim Singh, in the hands of his widow Mt. Neksi Kuar. He attached certain property, but the attachment and sale were objected to by Gajraj Singh, who claimed that the property was his, having previously belonged to his father Ajodhia Singh. In order to understand the position it is necessary to give a short pedigree. Ajodhia Singh and Kanjal Singh were brothers. Ajodhia Singh had a son, Gajraj Singh, who is the objector-respondent. Kanjal Singh had a son Khub Singh, and Khub Singh had two sons, Bachchu Singh and Hakim Singh. Hakim Singh was the appellant's debtor. The Courts below have allowed the objection of Gajraj Singh on the ground that a judgment in a suit between Mt. Neksi Kuar and Ajodhia Singh operated as res j...
Lakhmi Chand and ors. Vs. Bibi Kalsumannisa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All82
Thom, C.J.1. This is a judgment-debtors' appeal from the order of a learned single Judge of this Court. The decree-holder obtained a decree dated 13th February 1926 in a suit against Daya Nand and others for possession of a house in village Danpur, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants in that suit from, installing an idol in the said house and from blowing conches and doing all such acts as were calculated to occasion a breach of the peace in the village. On 28th April 1933, the decree-holder made an application, for execution. The judgment-debtors objected that the application was time barred. This objection was repelled by the Court of first instance. The order of that Court was upheld in appeal by the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court's order has been sustained by the learned single-Judge before whom the matter came in second appeal. Prima facie the application for execution of the decree dated 13th February 1926 preferred on 28th April 1933 was b...
iqan HusaIn and anr. Vs. Sahu Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All88
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal from order by certain applicants under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act of 1934 who applied for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, prior to the Act, for Rupees 10,000, dated 5th July 1927, executed by the applicants and their father in favour of opposite party 1, Sahu Babu Ram. The mortgage in question was for a term of ten years from 1335 Fasli to 1344 Fasli ending on 30th Juno 1937. Under its terms, the mortgagee was to appropriate all the profits for ton years in full satisfaction of the entire mortgage money, principal and interest, and at the end of the year 1334 Fasli, that is on 30th June 1937, the mortgaged property was to be returned to the mortgagors free of any incumbrance or charge under the mortgage. The mortgagees had failed to deliver possession on this date and therefore the application was made for redemption on 24th July 1937. No deposit was made because the entire mortgage money had been fully paid up. The learned Ad...
Chhedi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All116
ORDERBajpai, J.1. A conditional order under Section 133, Criminal P.C. for the removal of an encroachment on a public way was passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 9th May 1933. Chhedi Lal who was served with a notice of this order appeared before the Magistrate under Section 139-A, Criminal P.C. and said that he had not committed any encroachment on the public way and produced a copy of the remarks of the medical officer of health dated 3rd February 1938. The remarks are as follows:I have seen the site. As I doubted about encroachment I had the old foundation dug. Recommended.2. It is obvious from this note that the medical officer of health was of the opinion that there was no encroachment. It has been pointed out in a number of cases by this Court that a Magistrate under Ch. 10, Criminal P.C. makes only a summary enquiry into the matter in dispute and does not determine any question of title and indeed such a determination is to be deprecated. All that he has got to see under Sec...
ishri Prasad Kishun Tewari Vs. Chandrabhan Prasad Kishun Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All177
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The suit was for recovery of Rupees 4096-9-9 on the foot of a promissory note dated 29th December 1930 which, was alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff who is his brother in renewal of an earlier promissory note dated 27th December 1929. The defendant admitted execution but pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action Inasmuch as the money had been advanced not by the plaintiff, but by the mother of the parties Mt. Chhabraji in the plaintiff's name and that 21/2 years before the suit Mt. Chhabraji had remitted the debt and had handed over the promissory note and the receipt to the defendant, but it had somehow or other fallen into the possession of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the real owner of the promissory note in suit and that there was no remission of the debt as alleged by the defendant. The plea o...
Anjuman Islamia of Bareilly Vs. Radhey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All194
Bennet, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants, The Anjuman Islamia of Bareilly, against the decree in, first appeal No. 146 of 1931 of the learned District Judge in Bareilly in which he allowed part of the appeal of the plaintiff, one Pt. Radhe Lal. The suit of the plaintiff asked for a declaration that the plaintiff was owner of a staircase along with its walls and that the staircase had no concern, with the mosque and that the defendants be absolutely restrained from passing to the mosque through the staircase. This relief was granted by the lower Court and also the third relief that the defendants should roof the staircase of the plaintiff. Some further question has been raised in this appeal in regard to the decree of the lower Court about electric fittings and costs of First Appeal No. 145 of the defendants in, the Court below but no second appeal has been taken against that decree and there-fore we cannot deal with that matter as its is not before us.2. The his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›