Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1938All606
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference by the Small Cause Court Judge of Saharanpur of the following point for the decision of this Court:Whether an endorsement; of payment made at the back of a pro-note more than three years after its execution but during the close holidays of the Civil Courts which had begun prior to the completion of three years period gives a fresh start of limitation under Section 20 read with Section 4, Limitation Act?2. The reference was laid before a Bench of two Judges and those Judges decided on 9th August 1937 that there were conflicting rulings on the point:Accordingly we direct that this case be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice with the request that he be pleased to constitute such a Bench (a larger Bench) for the decision of the question involved in the reference.3. Under the High Court Rules Ch. 1, Rule 3-A, a Bench was constituted of three Judges by order of 6th September 1937. Before that Bench assembled, a similar point of limitation had been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1938All542
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a second appeal by a defendant against a decree of the lower Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff, Mt. Sundar Kuer. The circumstances are that one Mt. Tulsa Kuer who was not a party to this litigation brought Suit No. 129 of 1926 for her maintenance and obtained a decree on 26th October 1926 for arrears of maintenance and Rs. 8 P.M. as future maintenance which was made a charge on the shares of the branches of Bindeshri Prasad and Kali Prasad. On 11th July 1928, Bindeshri Prasad executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 550 in favour of Bachan Lal. Mt. Tulsa Kuer in execution of her maintenance decree applied for sale of two annas share of a house and there was an auction sale and the property was purchased by Mt. Sundar Kuer. On 21st December 1932 Bachan Lal and his representatives brought a suit, No. 741 of 1932, for sale on his mortgage of 11th July 1928. Mt. Sundar Kuer was made a party to that suit. She did not defend the suit and an ex parte decree was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1938All609
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a first appeal by Major A.U. John and others, defendants, against a decree of the Civil Judge of Agra. A suit was brought by the plaintiff, Seth Suraj Bhan against defendant 1, the Agra United Mills, Limited, and defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 members of the John family, and also two members of the family as trustees for the debenture, holders. This suit has resulted in a simple money decree for Rs. 31,000 and interest and a declaration that the amount is recoverable in priority over the debentures or other charges upon the property of the mills. The appeal is directed only against the declaration for priority, and it is not denied that the plaintiff has a claim for the amount decreed. The appellants are interested in the debentures and their claim is that the loan given by the plaintiff creates a debt which has not got priority to the debentures and therefore the debenture, holders are not concerned with that claim. As a matter of fact, the debenture-holders had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1938All586
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Naini Tal refusing to dismiss a suit pending in his Court as against the applicant. The applicant here is one of three defendants in the suit pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge at Naini Tal. It appears that he has made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, and the Collector has issued an order under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector's order is dated 29th October 1936, while the suit pending in the lower Court, which is sought to be dismissed as against the applicant, was instituted in June 1937. In these circumstances, the applicant moved the lower Court Under Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act, to dismiss the suit as against him. His prayer has been rejected and he has come up in revision from that order. In rejecting the applicant's prayer for the dismissal of the suit as against him, the learned Civil Judge has relie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1938All539
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by Babu Ram, son of Jhau Lal, decree-holder, in a suit. The suit was one for dissolution of partnership brought by Gopal Sahai, the respondent before us, and one Sham Lal against Jhau Lal, the father of the appellant before us, and others. On 12th December 1927 Jhau Lal was given a final decree for Rs. 353-4-0 to be paid by Gopal Sahai alone on condition that the necessary court-fees were deposited. Gopal Sahai had a decree for Eupees 185-7-0 against Jhau Lal and others. In 1931 Gopal Sahai executed his decree against Jhau Lal alone. Jhau Lal objected that his decree against Gopal Sahai was for a larger amount and that there should be a set-off. Gopal Sahai replied that as Jhau Lal had not paid the court-fee he was not entitled to execute his decree. Thereupon Jhau Lal tendered the court-fee on his decree on 2nd April 1932 and the Court accepted it. Gopal Sahai then pleaded that Jhau Lal's decree was barred by time. The execution Court...
Tag this Judgment!