Allahabad Court May 1939 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohammad Ali and ors. Vs. Mt. Bhari DulhIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All648
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by the creditors in a case decided under the Encumbered Estates Act. A preliminary objection was taken by learned Counsel for the opposite party that the revision application was incompetent. Mt. Bhari Dulhin and Mt. Maharani Dulhin made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act. In due course, the matter came up before the Special Judge. After an enquiry, he passed an order under Section 14 of the Act determining the amount which has to be paid by the judgment-debtors and the method of its payment. Under Section 45, Encumbered Estates Act, the creditors had a right to prefer an appeal against the decision of the Special Judge but it is admitted that no such appeal was preferred.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party that having regard to the provisions of Section 46 of the Act no revision can be entertained. In my opinion the contention is correct. The revision application is described as being...
Bhairo Kumar Vs. Markande Gir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All679
Bajpai, J.1. This is a reference by the District Judge of Ghazipur under Section 267(2), Agra Tenancy Act. The reference has been made in connexion with an appeal pending in his Court. The suit had been dismissed by a Revenue Court and the appeal had been first filed by the plaintiff in the Commissioner's Court. The defendant there raised a preliminary objection and said that the appeal ought to be returned for presentation to the Civil Court, and the Commissioner upheld the preliminary objection and said that 'the proper forum of the appeal was the District Judge's Court.' The appeal thus came to the District Judge and curiously enough the defendant again raised a preliminary objection and said that the appeal lay to the Commissioner. This is an inconsistent attitude adopted by the defendant but this has very little bearing on the reference except perhaps on a question of costs, and we have to decide the reference as made by the learned District Judge.2. The facts may now be stated. T...
T.H. Chandler Vs. Mrs. A. Chandler
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All696
Collister, J.1. These are two cross-petitions. One is by Annie Chandler praying that the alimony which was allowed to her by this Court be increased from Rs. 12.8-0 per mensem to Rs. 20 per mensem, and the other is by Thomas Henry Chandler praying that the order of alimony be discharged or modified on the ground of unchastity on the part of Annie Chandler. Annie Chandler petitioned for dissolution of her marriage or, in the alternative, for judicial separation, in the Court of the District Judge of Cawnpore. The District Judge, on 27th March 1926, dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage, but granted a decree for judicial separation and directed the respondent to pay his wife Rupees 10 per mensem as maintenance. There was an appeal by the petitioner, i.e. Annie Chandler, to this Court, and on 11th April 1927 the appeal was allowed and a decree nisi was granted. In the course of their order the learned Judges said:By Section 36 our powers of granting alimony are limited, until...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›