Allahabad Court January 1939 Judgments
Mt. Lilawati Vs. B. Moti Ram, Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All431
Mulla, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order of remand passed by the learned District Judge of Saharanpur in an insolvency case. It arises in the following circumstances : The dispute in this case relates to a house which was originally owned by two brothers Moti Ram and Atma Ram. Moti Ram was adjudged an insolvent on 1st May 1936. It appears that he had executed a promissory note in favour of one Lala Rup Chand on 4th April 1930. Lala Rup Chand brought a suit on the basis of that promissory note and obtained a decree which was put into execution in due course with the result that the half share of Moti Ram in the house in dispute was put to sale and purchased by Lala Rup Chand himself on 4th November 1932. On 28th November 1932, Lala Rup Chand transferred all his rights and interests which he had thus acquired to the present appellant Mt. Lilawati. It appears that the present appellant started another litigation against the insolvent Moti Ram and his brother Atma Ram which ended ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Prasad and anr. Vs. Shambhu Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All515
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit brought by them against the defendant-respondent for specific performance of a contract of sale and to recover Rs. 1000 as damages. The plaintiffs' case was that on 27th June 1936 the defendant entered into an agreement with them to sell a piece of land and received Rs. 500 as earnest money for which he gave a receipt. A draft agreement of sale was also written and signed by both the parties. The defendant subsequently ,wanted to resile from his contract and to soil the land to some body else, so the present suit was brought. The defendant contended that certain terms and conditions ware left over to be settled which had not been settled and that he was always ready to sell the property after settling certain necessary conditions. He further contended that specific performance should not be allowed as the plaintiffs had obtained the agreement on misrepresentation. Several issues were framed by the learned Civil Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. Munshi Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All660
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought for the enforcement of a mortgage dated 29th November 1930 executed by Bhartu in favour of the plaintiff. Munshi Singh was impleaded in the suit as a defendant as on 20th May 1932 ho had purchased the mortgaged property in execution of a simple money decree No. 726 of 1930. The suit was resisted mainly by Munshi Singh who pleaded inter alia that the mortgaged property could not be sold without his mortgages being paid first. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal the learned Civil Judge modified the decree of the Court of first instance and directed that the plaintiff shall not be entitled to sell the mortgaged property in suit unless and until he pays the money due to Munshi Singh under the prior mortgages standing in favour of Munshi Singh. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal from the decree of the Court below. It is contended that the view of law taken by the Court below is erroneous and that the...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj DIn Vs. Firm NaraIn Rao Permeshwari Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All463
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order dismissing his objections to the application for execution of the decree. The material facts as stated by learned Counsel are these. Two persons, Bhajan Lal and Hira Lal, had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant, Surajdin, in respect of certain property belonging to them. The respondent before us was one of the creditors of the vendors and had brought a suit for a declaration that this sale was void and ineffectual because it had been executed with the intent to defeat and delay the creditors of the vendors. Surajdin was the principal defendant to that suit. The suit was decreed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff. Surajdin filed an appeal in this Court against that decree. During the pendency of the appeal the applied for the stay of the execution of the decree for costs. That application was granted subject to his furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 2000. Thereupon two persons, Hazari and Mata P...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Mohd. Shibli Khan Vs. Ish Datt Dikshit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All398
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. It nrises in the following circumstances : The opposite party Ish Dutt purchased a half share in a motor lorry from the plaintiff-applicant for Rs. 500, but being unable to pay the price at once, executed a mortgage deed for the satisfaction of the plaintiff-applicant. Under this deed he mortgaged certain plots and also the share in the lorry purchased by him in lieu of the unpaid price. It may be mentioned here that in the mortgage deed no interest was charged on the principal amount mentioned therein which was nothing but the unpaid price of the share in the motor lorry purchased by the opposite party. It was further provided that the amount will be paid in ten equal monthly instalments of Rs. 50 each. In case of default it was further provided that the opposite party will be liable to pay interest at 2 per cent, per mensem. The instalments not being paid by the opposite party as provided by ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj NaraIn Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All461
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from a decree of the learned civil Judge of Fatehpur which affirmed a decree of the learned Munsif of that district. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 1100 as damages for defamation. It appears that the defendant, who is a Tahsildar, attached certain property of the tenants of the plaintiff's master. The plaintiff who is an agent of a leading zamindar of Patehpur presented an application to the Collector of the district praying that the defendant be ordered to have the rent due to the zamindar paid out of the attached property and that the Government revenue be adjusted by taking into account the rents payable by the tenants whose property was attached. It is alleged that the defendant was very much enraged by the conduct of the plaintiff; that on 10th May 1935 when the plaintiff was present outside the Khajua tahsil Court room the defendant called him and said:That you have presented an application to the Collector to h...
Tag this Judgment!Mahant NaraIn Das Vs. Madan Mohan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All524
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court below under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil P.C. The suit was for possession of a temple, called the temple of Sri Gopalji Maharaj, situated in Brindaban, together, with the properties appertaining thereto and for the declaration that the plaintiff, was duly appointed mahant of the temple and that defendant 1 was not entitled to the office of mahant. The defendant, Madan Mohan, denied that there was any gaddi or that there was any mahant. He pleaded that one Salig Ram had dedicated his personal properties to an idol installed in that temple and that the only office connected with the temple was that of shebait or pujari. The plaintiff claimed by succession to one Gokul Das who died, according to para. 12 of the plaint, in the year 1926. The suit was filed on 2nd December 1935, more than 9 years after the accrual of the alleged right of the plaintiff. The case came up on 11th January 1937 and on an applica...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Vs. Shyam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All502
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the appellate decision of the Additional Civil Judge of Farrukhabad in a case under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The facts are not in dispute and are as follows : Shyam Lal, respondent, obtained a preliminary decree for sale against Ram Nath, appellant, on 14th April 1932. A final decree for sale was passed in favour of Shyam Lal on 9th August 1932 for a sum of Rs. 2778-1-0. A portion of the mortgaged property was put to sale and purchased by Shyam Lal for Rs. 1305 on 3rd January 1934 and this sale was confirmed on 10th September 1936. During the period intervening between the date of the sale and of the confirmation of the same, viz. on 5th July 1936, Ram Nath, judgment-debtor, made an application under Sections 5 and 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, praying that instalments be granted with respect to the entire decree and the rate of interest be reduced. Both the Courts below fixed interest at a certain rate and revised th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sheo Sewak Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All457
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is an appeal preferred on behalf of the Local Government against an order of an acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Thakur Sheo Sewak Singh, the respondent, was tried in the Court below for an offence contrary to the provisions of Section 323, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate who tried the case held that the case against the accused was not established. Bhola Nath, the complainant in this case, is a young lad of about 14 years of age and is a resident of Allahabad. The respondent was the city kotwal attached to the police station in Mirzapur Town.2. On 21st April 1937, the complainant along with his father and some other relations went to Bindhiachal which place, we are informed, is at a distance of about six miles from Mirzapur Town. The party had gone there for the purpose of 'darshan'. It is alleged that on the evening of 22nd April the complainant and others went to Mirzapur Town in order to visit their relation Jagannath, At about 7-30 or 8 P.M...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Badrunnissa and ors. Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All510
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by two daughters and two sons of defendant 1, Nizam-ud-din. The daughters are both married and were defendants 5 and 6. The suit was brought by the Municipal Board of Agra against Nizam-ud-din alone in the first instance and was a suit for recovery of Rs. 288 comprising Rs. 108 house-tax and Rs. 180 water-tax for the period 1st October 1922 to 30th September 1934, the date of suit. Nizam-ud-din did not defend the suit. The sons and daughters made some claim that they were also owners of the house and an application for their names to be added was made on 12th August 1935 by the plaintiff on the ground that they were also owners and their names were added. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 238. The defendants appealed and the Municipal Board made a cross-objection claiming the full amount Rs. 288 which has been decreed by the lower Court which granted a preliminary decree under Order 34, Rule 4 against the house in question. The liability of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »