Allahabad Court December 1939 Judgments
Bhan Datta Upadhia and anr. Vs. Mt. Tulsa Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All151
ORDERThom, C.J. and Ganga Nath, J.1. This is an execution second appeal which raises an important point of law. A mortgage decree was passed on 5th January 1928. A final decree under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P.C., was passed in favour of the mortgagees on 9th August 1928. The decree-holders applied for execution of their decree on 19th December 1930. An objection was preferred to the execution application by the judgment-debtors under Section 47, Civil P.C. This objection was dismissed on 15th August 1931. Thereafter the execution application was transferred to the Court of the Collector. On 6th November 1931, one Mt. Tulsa, one of the judgment-debtors, filed a regular suit in which she sought to recover a sum of Rs. 550 on the basis of a receipt, upon which the aforesaid objection to the execution of the mortgage decree under Section 47, Civil P.C., had been preferred. She obtained an order from the Court staying the execution of the mortgage decree pending the result of her suit. Unde...
Tag this Judgment!Nathi Lal Vs. Sri Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All230
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against the decree of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Agra, dismissing a suit. The applicant brought a suit against the defendants for contribution of the loss sustained by the parties in a single transaction of purchase of 25 tons of linseed. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, has dismissed the suit as barred by Section 69, Partnership Act, on the ground that there was no registered partnership. It is contended for the applicant that a single transaction does not amount to 'business.' The 'partnership' is defined in the Partnership Act as:Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.2. A single transaction or venture does not amount to 'business.' In Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devi Chand (1930) 17 AIR PC 300, their Lordships observed:No doubt a single venture, where a single article or a number of article...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Das and ors. Vs. Bishwanath Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All251
Verma, J.1. This is a somewhat peculiar case. The applicants for revision are defendants in a suit in which certain persons have been allowed to sue as paupers. The order against which the present application in revision is filed is dated 21st March 1938 and runs thus:The plaintiffs were allowed to be treated as paupers on condition of paying a certain amount of costs by 21st March 1938. The plaintiffs are unable to pay the same at present. So I order that plaintiff be treated as paupers at present without being made to pay costs which should be paid when they can afford to do so. For this purpose a formal order should be made in favour of the vakil to whom the costs are due. Register the case.2. That this is an extraordinary order, to put it mildly, cannot be denied. But the party that can legitimately have a grievance against this order is the plaintiff. To put it in simple language what has happened is this. The Court below granted permission to the plaintiffs to sue as paupers and ...
Tag this Judgment!Pirthi Nath and anr. Vs. Niranjan Lal Bhargava and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All250
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an appeal by the objectors, Pirthi Nath and Shambhu Nath, against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Benares, appointing a receiver under Order 21, Rule 49(2). The opposite party 1, who would be called hereafter as decree-holder, had a decree against the opposite party 2, who will be described as judgment-debtor. The decree-holder applied for execution of the decree against his judgment-debtor. The application was made under Order 21, Rule 49 and 131. Objections were taken by the appellants that the judgment-debtor was not a partner of theirs and that no money was due to him from them. The appellants were ordered to file their account books. A commissioner was appointed by the learned Civil Judge to examine the account-books. The learned Counsel for the opposite party has not been able to show any order of the learned Civil Judge by which he might have determined as to whether the judgment-debtor was a partner of the appellants and whether any money was ...
Tag this Judgment!Thakra Singh Vs. Sheo Nath Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All227
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Thakra Singh who was the plaintiff in the suit. Mr. S.N. Katju on his behalf has argued the case with great ability and thoroughness and has said all that could be said in the matter, but we have come to the conclusion that the view taken by the Courts below in this case is correct. The plaintiff brought the present suit for a declaration that the property detailed in the plaint was attachable and saleable in execution of the decree in Suit No. 319 of 1927, Thakra Singh, decree-holder v. Attar Singh, judgment-debtor, of the Court of the Munsif of Bijnor. It was stated in the plaint that after obtaining his decree against Attar Singh the plaintiff took out execution of the said decree and wanted to get the property mentioned in the plaint attached and sold by auction, but a fictitious and fraudulent Sale deed was executed on 19th November 1928 by Attar Singh in favour of Sheo Nath Singh and objections were taken to the execution on the ground that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey Lal Vs. Sri Thakur Gopalji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All252
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The dispute in the suit out of which the present appeal arises was about the right to the mutwalliship of a temple in the city of Muttra and about the possession of the property appertaining there to and the decision of the dispute depends mainly on the interpretation of a deed of endowment dated 12th January 1888, executed by two brothers named Suraj Mal alias Chhajju Babu and Murli Manohar. There were three plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiff 1 was Sri Thakur Gopalji Maharaj, an idol installed in the said temple and the remaining two plaintiffs were Kanhaiya Lal and Sohan Devi. The relationship of these two plaintiffs with Suraj Mal and Murli Manohar would appear from the following pedigree: [see next page]2. The original defendants to the suit were Jagan Chaube and one of his sons named Chhote Lal. Jagan Chaube died during the pendency of the suit in the Court below and then his elder son Bidur was substituted as his legal representative. The plaintiff's case was tha...
Tag this Judgment!Satruhan Singh and ors. Vs. Collector of Gorakhpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All205
Bajpai, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before us. They are the sons of Ganesh Pratap Narain Singh who was defendant 13 in the suit out of which this appeal arises. The plaintiffs alleged that their father had executed one mortgage on 24th May 1927 in favour of Pirthi Pal Tiwari, defendant 12, hypothecating some property at Basti and that the said mortgage was invalid inasmuch as it was a mortgage of ancestral property without legal necessity. They then alleged that their father had executed another mortgage on 1st June 1933 in favour of defendant 11 Rikh Prasad Dube again hypothecating some Basti property which mortgage was also invalid inasmuch as the property mortgaged was ancestral property and the mortgage was without any legal necessity. They attacked another transaction, namely the mortgage of 4th October 1910. This mortgage was in favour of Mahadeo Prasad and some Gorakhpur property was mortgaged thereunder. The property was alleged to be ancestral property and the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!O.M. Chiene, Official Receiver of Estate of Dina Nath and Badri Prasad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All310
Verma, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order, dated 24th February 1938, made by the learned Civil Judge of Agra, that the appeal be dismissed as the appellant did not appear on that day which was the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal. It is not denied that the appellant was absent and that his counsel had no instructions. Instead of making an application to the lower Appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 19, the applicant has thought it fit to file this revision. In our opinion the revision cannot be entertained. The learned Civil Judge in our opinion had jurisdiction to make the order complained of and he has not acted in the exercise of that jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is not suggested that the learned Judge failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law. It is, however, urged that in view of the observations made by a learned single Judge of this Court in Mohammadi Husain v. Mt. Chandro : AIR1937All284 , it was the duty of the...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Singh Vs. Manna Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All217
Verma, J.1. These are two applications for revision filed by the plaintiff. The essential facts are these. The suit, which had been instituted in March 1936, came up before the Court below on 1st December 1936, On that date an application was made on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 praying for adjournment on the ground that defendant Misri Singh was ill with smallpox. The adjournment was granted subject to the payment of Rs. 90 as costs of the plaintiff and 25th February 1937 was fixed for final hearing. The sum of Rs. 90 was paid. When the case came up on 25th February 1937 a joint application was made on behalf of the plaintiff and Misri Singh, defendant, stating that negotiations for a compromise between the parties were proceeding and asking for another date. The Court fixed 19th March 1937 for the filing of the deed of compromise. On 19th March 1937, both the parties appeared before the Court and stated that the negotiations for a compromise had fallen through and requested the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Bichchha Ram Babu Ram Vs. Firm Baldeo Sahai Suraj Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All241
Verma, J.1. This is an application for revision by the defendant, Firm Bichchha Ram Babu Ram, which carries on business at Shahabad in the district of Karnal in the Punjab. The plaintiff, Firm Baldeo Sahai Surajmal, carries on business as pucca arhatia at Hapur in the district of Meerut in these Provinces. The defendant entered into certain transactions with the plaintiff, which were in the nature of forward contracts in respect of grain. The suit is for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. It appears that the defendant also has filed a suit in respect of the same transactions in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ambala. That suit was filed earlier than the suit filed by the present plaintiff in the Court at Meerut. The defendant applied to the Court below that the suit be stayed under Section 10, Civil P.C. The Court below, for certain reasons which it is not necessary to mention for the purposes of this revision, has held that th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »