Allahabad Court October 1940 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.
Mirza Inayat Beg Vs. Mirza Abdul Rahman Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All39
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by Mirza Inayat Beg against an order of a civil Judge refusing to stay further proceedings in execution of a decree for sale. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: One Umrao Beg, the ancestor of the contesting respondent brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 17,000 odd by sale of mortgaged property against Fayazi Begum, Hakim Beg and certain other persons. Hakim Beg was minor on the date of the institution of the suit. Umrao Beg obtained a preliminary decree for sale in 1922 and that decree was made final in 1923. By the begining of the year 1926 Hakim Beg attained majority, and he sold a portion of his property covered by the decree for sale to Inayat Beg appellant. Thereafter both Hakim Beg and Inayat Beg filed a suit for a declaration that the decree for sale obtained by Umrao Beg was not binding on Hakim Beg and was not enforceable against his properties, as Hakim Beg was not represented by a duly appointed guardian in the suit filed b...
Municipal Board Vs. Rai Kamlapat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All78
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction. The plaintiff is one of the owners of a jheel near Gorakhpur known as the Ramgarh tal. Defendant 1 is the Municipal Board of Gorakhpur and defendants 2 and 3 are co-owners of the said jheel. The plaintiff seeks an order injunction in the following terms:That a permanent injunction be issued against the Municipal Board, Gorakhpur, for bidding it from constructing the drain and from accumulating or allowing to accumulate, and from flowing or discharging any rain, surplus, artificial or dirty and foul water or other material by any artificial means or operations or through the newly dug drain into or near or about the said Ramgarh tal or on the plaintiff's land.2. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. Ramgarh jheel lies on a level lower than that of Gorakhpur. The jheel in the rains is about five miles long by three miles broad, in the dry season two miles long by one-and-a-half mile broad. The...
Brahmdeo Prasad Tewari Vs. Makhan Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All94
Verma, J.1. Respondents 4 to 11 applied to the Collector under Section 4 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, and the application was in due course forwarded to the Special Judge under the provisions of Section 6. The landlord-applicants filed their written statement under Section 8, and in the schedule of debts they mentioned a mortgage decree, No. 299 of 1925 (civil Judge's Court, Gorakhpur), Makhan Tewari and Ors. v. Binda Prasad Tewari and Ors. The appellant, Brahmdeo Prasad Tewari, is also a judgment-debtor under that decree. Some time later, the appellant filed an application in the Court of the special Judge admitting that he was liable to the extent of half under the decree mentioned above and prayed that the amount of the debt payable by him be determined by the Court under the provisions of Section 9(5)(a) of the Act, The amount due under the decree in question at the time of the filing of the written statement under Section 8 was Rs. 34,594-10-11. The learned special Judge ha...
Baboo Raj NaraIn Vs. Ahmadi Jan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All81
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by a creditor against an order passed by a special Judge, first grade, exercising jurisdiction under the Encumbered Estates Act (25 of 1934) and arises under the following circumstances. Ahpaadi Jan, who is respondent in the present appeal, filed an application under Section 4 of the Act on 17th October 1936. Her application was, in due course, transmitted by the Collector to the special Judge and, thereafter, Ahmadi Jan filed a written statement in accordance with Section 8 of the Act. One of the debts shown in the written statement was the debt due on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 22nd November 1928, executed by Ahmadi Jan in favour of Mt. Morni, the wife of Raj Narain, appellant. The allegation contained in the written statement with respect to this debt was that the debt was, as a matter of fact, advanced by one Ram Ghulam and that Mt. Morni was a mere benamidar for him (Ram Ghulan). It was also alleged that, Ram Ghulan having died, his lega...
Bhoop Ram Vs. Emperor Through Parthi Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All100
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Bhoop Ram against whom a complaint has been made by the learned Munsif of Tilhar charging him with an offence under Section 186, Penal Code. It appears that the applicant was judgment-debtor in the case before the learned Munsif. A warrant for the attachment of his crop was issued by the learned Munsif in execution of a decree and when the Amin who was charged with the execution of that warrant proceeded to the spot and tried to execute it the applicant resisted and obstructed him. The Amin made a report to the learned Munsif and upon that report a notice under Section 476, Criminal P.C., was issued by the learned Munsif to the applicant to show cause why a complaint should not be made against him. It may be noted that an offence under Section 186 does fall within the purview of Section 195, Clause (1)(a), Criminal P.C. The learned Munsif was not therefore entitled to make an inquiry or to issue a notice under Section 476, Crim...
Ramman Lal Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All50
ORDERMulla, J.1. These are two connected applications in revision which arise out of a suit for partition. The applicant Lala Ramman Lal is the defendant in the suit. The opposite party Lala Babu Ram who is the plaintiff in the suit prayed for the apportionment of certain family debts along with the partition of joint family property. The present applicant resisted this part of the claim on the ground that the plaintiff alone was responsible for discharging all the debts. This plea was allowed to prevail by the trial Court and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 10th July 1936. The plaintiff appealed from that decree on 7th August 1936 and while that appeal was pending the present applicant Lala Ramman Lal instituted a proceeding under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, on 20th October 1936 and on the same date the Collector passed an order under Section 6 of that Act. The plaintiff's appeal was decreed by the learned District Judge on 5th March 1937, with the result that ...
Ramjatan Pandey Vs. Someshwari Prasad Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All68
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by a creditor against an order of special Judge, first grade, exercising jurisdiction under the Encumbered Estates Act (25 of 1934), dismissing the claim preferred by the appellant. The case furnishes a remarkable instance of the anomalies which arise by a literal interpretation of the various provisions contained in the Act and points to the desirability of the Legislature stepping in and making suitable amendments in the Act.2. The question that arises for decision is whether claims preferred by creditors who advanced debts to landlord-applicants after the passing of the order under Section 6 of the Act, can or cannot be adjudicated upon by a special Judge in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The question arises under the following circumstances : The landlord-applicants, who are the respondents in the present appeal, filed an application before the Collector under Section 4 of the Act on 15th April 1936. The Collector, on 4t...
Banwari Ram and anr. Vs. Muhammad Yar Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All49
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The suit was filed by Mohammad Yar Khan. He made a waqf alalaulad of his entire property. He sued however first of all in his private capacity. During the course of the proceedings in the trial Court he filed an application for the amendment of plaint. This application was allowed and by his amendment the plaintiff described himself as mutwalli. Both the Courts below have granted decree for pre-emption.2. In appeal it was urged for the appellants that inasmuch as the plaintiff was not a co-sharer within the meaning of Section 4, Agra Pre-emption Act, he was not entitled to maintain a suit for pre-emption. This contention in our judgment is sound. A co-sharer is defined in Section 4, Agra Pre-emption Act, as a personother than a petty proprietor, entitled as proprietor to any share or part in a mahal or village whether his name is or is not recorded in the register of proprietors.3. Now the plaintiff having...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Radhey Shyam Seth and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All76
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question that arises for decision in the present appeal is whether a special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act (Act 25 of 1934) has power to pass suitable orders for the preservation of the property of a landlord applicant. This question did not in terms form the subject of consideration by this Court in Rajendra Singh v. Uma Prasad : AIR1938All80 . In that case it was held that a special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Act has no power to appoint a receiver at the instance of the holder of a simple money decree or a mortgage decree. It was further held in that case that Section 54 of the Act does not contemplate that the Local Government is to make rules which should include a rule making Order 40, Civil P.C. applicable to the proceedings taken before the special Judge. In the course of their judgment the learned Judges, after pointing out that the duty of the special Judge under the Act was merely to ascertain the assets...
Mt. Bhagwati W/O Kalyan Singh Bhargava Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All83
Collister, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act (11 of 1922). The assessee is Mt. Bhagwati, widow of Kalyan Singh, who died on 18th October 1918. On her husband's death, Mt. Bhagwati applied for mutation, alleging that Kalyan Singh was a separated Hindu. She was opposed by the collaterals, who contended that Kalyan Singh died a member of the joint family. The mutation Court found in favour of the collaterals; but, ultimately, the matter was compromised, the necessity for litigation in the civil Courts being thereby obviated. Under a deed of agreement dated 10th October 1919 the assessee accepted the position that her husband had died as karta of the undivided family and she gave up all right and interest in the family property except such as was embodied in deed of agreement; and the coparceners agreed to pay the assessee an allowance of Us. 1000 per mensem by way of maintenance for the remainder of her life. They agreed to other conditions also about certain fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »