Allahabad Court November 1939 Judgments
Panna Lal Vs. Collector of Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All188
Verma, J.1. The applicant, Panna Lal, had a decree for money against Hansa and Faqira. He executed that decree in the Court of Munsif of Meerut and prayed for attachment and sale of certain crops belonging to Hansa and Faqira. The attachment was made on 16th March 1937, and the sale took place on 8th April 1937. Panna Lal set off the sale price against the amount due under his decree and filed a receipt in Court stating that his decree had been discharged. On 28th May 1937, a letter was received by the learned Munsif from the Collector requesting that Panna Lal should be called upon to pay the amount for which he had purchased the crops of Hansa and Paqira to the Collector. It transpired that Hansa and Faqira were members of the Murlipur Co-operative Society, that the District Co-operative Bank of Meerut had advanced loans to the Murlipur Co-operative Society and had obtained an award against the Murlipur Co-operative Society in respect of those advances. The award provided that every ...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Singh Vs. Chhotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All193
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal from order brought by Rai Bahadur Ch. Sardar Singh against a decree of Mr. Hamilton passed on 30th March 1937. Objection has been taken that no appeal lies to this Court. The appellant before us was elected as a chairman of the District Board of Moradabad and the opposite party made an application against that election. Under Section 35-C, U.P. District Boards Act of 1922, the Local Government appointed Mr. Hamilton to decide the matter. The point taken is that Mr. Hamilton was a persona designata and not a Civil Court under the Civil Courts Act, and as he was not a Civil Court no appeal lies to the High Court. On the other hand, it is argued that Mr. Hamilton was a District Judge and that an appeal will lie from his decree because he was actually a District Judge. The wording of the Section 35-C, Sub-section (1) is as follows:When the question is raised by a petition preferred to the Local Government by an elector entitled to vote in any of the circ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ugrah Ojha and anr. Vs. Ganesh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All99
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is an appeal by the objectors and arises out of proceedings for preparation of the final decree under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P.C. On 21st November 1925, a mortgage was executed by Tribhuwan Ojha, since deceased, in favour of Ganesh Singh, respondent. A suit was brought on this mortgage on 12th August 1930, and a preliminary decree was passed on 16th December 1930, on 1st September 1931 Tribhuwan died. On 28th April 1932, an application was made by the plaintiff to bring on the record Ram Ugrah Ojha, appellant 1, a brother of Tribhuwan, and Bhola Nath Ojha, appellant 2, son of Ram Ugrah Ojha, in place of Tribhuwan Ojha and for preparation of the final decree. The final decree was passed ex parte on 11th June 1932. This decree was ultimately set aside on 1st June 1933 on an application of the appellants. The appellants objected to the preparation of the final decree on the grounds that (1) the mortgaged property belonged to the joint family of which they and the de...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Das Vs. Rafiuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All218
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant 1 Dwarka Das against concurring decrees of the two lower Courts in favour of the plaintiff. The facts as found are that there were five brothers, sons of Bandey Husain, a Mussalman, the plaintiff being a minor son. A decree was obtained by Dwarka Das, the appellant, against the four brothers who were of age, a simple money decree, in the Civil Court in original suit No. 221 of 1931. In execution of that decree the decree-holder attached 37 plots including those in dispute which stand recorded as occupancy tenancy of all the five brothers and a house and a well. Ex. 2 is a compromise which was filed in the execution Court on 25th May 1932 between the four brothers and the decree-holder. In this it was provided that until satisfaction of the decretal amount the plots in suit and the house and the well would remain attached. It was provided that instalments should be paid and in default of instalments that there should be sale of the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Chhadami Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All259
Collister, J.1. Chhadami has been convicted under S 457, Penal Code, on a charge of having stolen a pair of shoes from the verandah of a house. Having regard to his previous convictions and the fact that he was a registered member of the criminal tribes, under Section 10 B, Criminal Tribes Act, he has been sentenced to transportation for life. He appealed from jail to this Court and his appeal was admitted. The facts as alleged by the prosecution are as follows: On the night between 25th and 26th December 1938, one Sheo Singh was sleeping on a verandah or covered chabutra. He is the chaukidar of a man named Lala Badri Narain, a resident of Etawah, and this chabutra or verandah apparently forms part of his house. Sheo Singh says that he was roused from sleep by a slight noise and he jumped up in time to see a man running away with his shoes which had been under neath the charpoy. On his shouting that a thief was running off with his shoes, Bisal Singh and Gopi Nath came up. The three me...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Mansa Ram and Sons Vs. Hira Lal Sanon and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All209
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J. 1. The plaintiff firm Mansa Ram and Sons instituted a suit against Hira Lal Sanon and Daulat Ram Sanon in the Court of Small Causes at Dehra Dun to recover a sum of Rs. 931-8-0. The plaintiff firm carry on business as bankers, and it was alleged by them that according to the account between the parties the above mentioned sum was due to them from the defendants. The learned Judge of the Court below has held that the suit was not within limitation and has therefore dismissed it. The plaintiff firm has come up in revision to this Court. The plaintiff pleaded that the account between the parties was open, mutual and current and therefore the suit was governed by Article 85, Lim. Act. The defendants denied that the account between them and the plaintiff was open, mutual and current. The learned Judge of the Court below held that if it be found that the account between the parties was open, mutual and current then the suit would be within limitation. This is the prin...
Tag this Judgment!Bijai Singh Vs. Beopar Sahayak Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All200
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff is a mortgagee who rented a house mortgaged to him to the mortgagor. One of the conditions of the lease was that if the tenant failed to pay rent for a year he was liable to ejectment. The tenant defaulted in the payment of rent for one year and the plaintiff therefore filed the suit out of which this appeal arises. The defendant pleaded Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act. This plea was repelled by the Courts below. In second appeal learned Counsel contended that the suit was barred in virtue of the provisions of Section 7(b), Encumbered Estates Act. In support of this contention reliance was placed upon a Bench decision of this Court in Mukat Bihari Lal v. Manmohan Lal : AIR1938All165 . In that case the facts were that the defendant had defaulted in the payment of rent but bad presented an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, and prior to the institution of the suit for ejectmen...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Maharaji Kuar and ors. Vs. Mangai Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All199
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The suit was for a declaration that a compromise entered into on 28th March 1933, in a suit under Section 123, Agra Tenancy Act, in the Court of the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division, filed by Rambujh Dube and Mt. Surajpati against Mt. Maharaji, would not be binding on the plaintiff and would not affect his rights on the death of Mt. Maharaji, defendant 1, because Rambujh Dube and Mt. Surajpati Kunwar, defendants 3 and 4, are persons who have no right or interest in the tenancy in question. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, but on appeal by the plaintiff, Mangai Pande, the suit has been decreed by the lower Appellate Court. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the principal parties: RAMGHULAM PANDE ____________________|_________________ | |Bhagwan Pande Dhaneshar Pande | = Mt. Maharaji, deft. 1Mangai Pande, |plaintiff. Mt. Surajpati, deft. 4 | Rambujh Dube, deft, 3.2. The landholder, Syed Mehdi H...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Prasad Vs. U.P. Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All202
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. It appears that there were five brothers, of whom one was Brij Nandan Lal and another was Raghunandan Lal. Raghunandan Lal was adopted by a man named Kewal Rai, whose widow is Mt. Anchu Devi. Bhagwati Prasad, the plaintiff to the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, is the grandson of Mt. Ancho Devi, being a son of Raghunandan Lal; and she was appointed guardian of the plaintiff under a certificate of guardianship, the plaintiff being then a minor. One of the aforementioned five brothers, whose name was Gopal Prasad, was fined Rs. 200 under the Salt Act, and for the realization of that fine a flour-mill and some furniture were attached by Government. Mt. Ancho Devi objected in the Court of the Additional Judge at Aligarh, under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C, on behalf of the minor, but her objection was unsuccessful and the property was sold at auction on 11th August 1930. Thereafter Brijnandan Lal, on his own behalf and as next...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Chunni Lal Vs. Lakshmi Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All237
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Seth Chunni Lal who was the plaintiff in the Court below and who had brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2800 on the basis of a mortgage dated 28th April 1922. The defendants to the suit were Bharat Singh, Ranjit Singh and Ram Singh, defendants 1 to 3, who might loosely be described as the original mortgagors, and Lachhmi Chand, Hargu Lal and Rameshwar Das, defendants 4 to 6, who were impleaded as subsequent mortgagees under a mortgage of 19th January 1929. The mortgage was executed by Bharat Singh in his own right and as the guardian of Ranjit Singh and Ram Singh. The defence of Ranjit Singh and Ram Singh was that they were separate from Bharat Singh defendant 1 and the latter had no right to execute the mortgage on their behalf and the mortgaged property so far as their share was concerned was unaffected. Defendants 4 to 6 pleaded-and it is only with this plea that I am concerned-that they had priority to the extent of Rs. 3230 because un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »