Allahabad Court October 1939 Judgments
Pheku Ram Mali Vs. Ganga Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All98
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 2 against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court. It arises out of a suit brought against him and Hathi Prasad, defendant-respondent 2, by Ganga Prasad, plaintiff-respondent, for declaration that the money in deposit with the Government belonged to him and for recovery of Rs. 1333, which the Government had realized out of it on account of certain dues payable by defendant 1. Defendant 2 contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action against him and he was not liable for any money. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit against both the defendants. The decree of the lower Courts was confirmed by the learned Single Judge. A license for a liquor shop was obtained by the plaintiff benami in the name of defendant 1. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 1636 as security with the Government. The plaintiff severed his connexion with the shop in 1928. The money was however allowed to remain in deposit with the Government at the requ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Prem Dulare Vs. NaraIn Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All308
ORDER1. This is an application for the confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the learned District Judge of Agra under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act (3 of 1872) read with the Divorce Act. The question which arises at the inception of the discussion is whether the applicant has proved the marriage which she wishes to have dissolved. We are unable to hold that the marriage has been proved. It was solemnized by Pandit Tara Dutt, who has been appointed, as far as we can discover, a Registrar, for the solemnization of marriages under Section 3, Special Marriage Act, but only when such marriages are between persons who are Aryasamajists. It has been admitted by learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant that neither of the parties to this alleged marriage was an Aryasamajist. The man was a Radhaswami and the woman a member of the Sanatan Dharma. It has been suggested that the Local Government was not entitled to limit the powers of Pandit Tara Dutt to the...
Tag this Judgment!Daljit Singh Vs. Harkishan Lal Sah and Brothers and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All116
Verma, J.1. The appellant Daljit Singh was defendant 4 in the suit which was for the enforcement of a simple mortgage dated 27th October 1922 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in lieu of an advance of Rs. 922-8-0 in favour of the plaintiff firm. The mortgagors, defendants 1 to 3, did not contest the suit. The appellant contested it on various grounds. The Courts below have decreed it and have provided in the decree that it shall be executed against the mortgagors and the mortgaged property in the first instance and that if the whole of the amount due to the plaintiff firm is not realized by sale of the mortgaged property,whatever amount remains due after the sale of the mortgaged property shall be recovered from the property of Daljit Singh, defendant, to the extent of Rs. 922-8-0.2. As stated above, the mortgage deed in suit was executed on 27th October 1922. On the same day Tilok Singh, father of the appellant, executed a deed in favour of the mortgagee in these terms:I, Tilok Singh...ex...
Tag this Judgment!Wazira Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All113
Ismail, J.1. Wazira appeals from his conviction and sentence under Section 307, I.P.C. The prosecution version is that on the night between 21st and 22nd June 1938, Jagdish Chander, Manager of Rai Sahib Prem Nath's dairy, his wife and brother were sleeping in the verandah of their house when a number of persons came armed with lathis and attacked Jagdish Chander. Mt. Shanti Devi was awakened by the noise but was given a blow on the legs by one of the culprits. She raised an alarm which roused her brother-in-law who got up but was attacked. The neighbours hearing the noise rushed to the spot but could not capture any of the assailants as before their arrival the assailants had decamped. Only Wazira, the appellant, could be identified by Mt. Shanti Devi and her brother-in-law. Gentleman Cadet Mahanti happened to be staying in a house adjoining that of Jagdish Chander. He also reached the place of occurrence soon after the departure of Wazira's party. He found Jagdish Chander bleeding pro...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Mohammad Obaid-ullah Khan Vs. Pandit Ramji Lal Major and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All189
Bennet, J.1. This is a matter which has been brought to the notice of this Bench by the Stamp Reporter. The appeal is by the defendant and the plaintiff is respondent. The report states that the plaintiff-respondent paid on his plaint in the Court below a ten rupee declaratory court-fee stamp whereas the court-fee should have been ad valorem on Rs. 17,000 amounting to a court-fee of Rs. 685. The plaint was one under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and stated that the plaintiff had borrowed Rs. 27,000 from the defendant on 21st September 1929 and had made certain repayments on different dates amounting to Rs. 15,795 and the relief asked for was:(a) It may be declared as to what amount is due by the plaintiffs under the document dated 20th September 1929, registered on 21st September 1929, for Rs. 27,000 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants.2. Now this is clearly a suit for accounts. It is provided in the, Court-fees Act (Act 7 of 1870) Section 7(iv)(f) that The amo...
Tag this Judgment!Baru and ors. Vs. Amir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All78
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The appellants sought to recover the property which had been sold to the defendant at an auction sale held in execution of a decree in his favour. It is averred by the plaintiffs-appellants that more property was sold than had been mortgaged and therefore covered by the decree obtained on the footing of the mortgage and executed by the defendant. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court reversed the decision of the learned Munsif and dismissed the suit. He has held that the plaintiffs having failed to challenge the sale under the provisions of Sec. 47, Civil P.C., or Order 21, they are not now entitled to maintain a suit for possession. The plaintiffs were parties to the execution proceedings. They could have challenged the sale upon the ground that the sale certificate included more property than the decree directed should be sold. 'When a sale of immovable proper...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Rangili and anr. Vs. Pearey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All101
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against an order of remand. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of the Court below and need not be repeated. The plaintiffs brought this suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 23rd May 1872 executed by Parmai, Likkha and Pemi in favour of Khub Chand and Lakshmi Das. The plaintiffs are the representatives of the mortgagors while the defendants are the representatives of the mortgagees. The suit was contested on various grounds. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were not liable to pay anything under the mortgage as on accounting it was found that the plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 1095-8-9. The defendants appealed from the decree of the trial Court. Before the Appellate Court the defendants relied upon a tacking bond dated 16th July 1872 under which the same property was mortgaged by the same mortgagors in favour of the same mortgagees. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were not entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Har Prasad Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All141
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The contest in the present appeal is between a subsequent mortgagee who in execution of a decree for sale obtained on the basis of the subsequent mortgage purchased the mortgaged property and a transferee pendente lite who redeemed certain prior mortgages and held the same up as a shield against the claim of the subsequent mortgagee auction-purchaser in a suit for possession of the mortgaged property The transferee pendente lite succeeded in the trial Court, but the lower Appellate Court passed an unconditional decree for possession in favour of the sub-sequent mortgagee auction-purchaser In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to briefly state the facts. One Girdhari Lal was the owner of the property in dispute. On 25th May 1916 he (Girdhari Lal) executed a simple mortgage with respect to the property in dispute in favour of one Banarsi Das. Again, on 11th June 1917, he executed a simple mortgage in favour of Har Prasad defen...
Tag this Judgment!Asafuddaula Beg and anr. Vs. Ram Ratan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All74
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain property which is described in the plaint. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court however has granted decree for joint possession. Two of the defendants have challenged this order and the plaintiff has preferred a cross-objection. Shortly put, the plaintiff's case is that the property in suit was purchased in 1887 from one Mujtaba Beg and his sons and daughter and the mother of his wife Mumtaz Begam. The property is described in the sale-deed as property inherited by the executants of the deed from Mujtaba Beg's wife Mumtaz Begam.2. In appeal in this Court the main argument advanced by the appellants was that the sale deed of 1887, which is the title deed of the plaintiff, was not proved. The original was not produced. A certified copy of the deed however was filed. Learned counsel for the appellants maintained that this was not sufficient. He argued that the produc...
Tag this Judgment!B. Krishna Kumar Vs. Thakur Man Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All86
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question that arises for decision in the present appeal is whether the dismissal of a suit for pre-emption brought by the manager of a joint Hindu family bars a subsequent suit for pre-emption by the junior members of that family with respect to the very property which formed the subject of the earlier pre-emption suit. The decision of the question is dependent to a great extent on the answer to the question whether the refusal by the manager of a joint Hindu family to purchase the property sought to be pre-empted is or is not binding on the other members of the family. The question arises under the following circumstances:2. On 21st June 1935 defendant 3 sold certain zamindari share in village Umarpur to defendants 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as the vendees. It is common ground that the vendees were complete strangers to the village. Har Sahai, the elder brother of Krishna Kumar, who is the plaintiff-appellant in the present appeal, filed a suit for pre-empti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »