Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All448
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order of Mr. V. Prakash, Civil Judge, dismissing an application filed by the plaintiff-applicants for certain additions to be made in the description of some of the persons arrayed as defendants to the suit. The plaintiffs in the suit were Jagdish Saran and Shiam Saran who are real brothers. Bhagwat Saran defendant 1 is the step-brother of the two plaintiffs named above. On the date of the institution of the suit Bhagwat Saran had four sons. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs did intend to implead those four sons also as defendants to the suit. There was however much controversy between the parties as to the correct names of the sons. Two of the sons of Bhagwat Saran are admittedly named Dharam Prakash and Sat Prakash and their names were correctly given in the array of the defendants. The controversy between the parties centred round the question as to what were the correct names of the remaining two sons of Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All458
Thom, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the order of Allsop J. in an application by the official liquidators of the Lower Ganges Jumna Electricity Distributing Co. Ltd., (in liquidation). The official liquidators in their application invited instructions in regard to the ranking of certain creditors of the company who claimed to be debenture-holders. On 1st February 1931 the Board of Directors of the Company passed a resolution to issue debentures. On 7th May 1932 the Company executed a debenture trust deed and in pursuance of that trust deed debenture bonds were subsequently issued. The issue of the debentures was underwritten by the Central Bank of India. The amount of the debentures issued was three lacs. The appellant L. Manmohan Das, who was the Director of the Company, acquired from the Central Bank about 2 lacs of these debentures. The Central Bank, it is stated, still holds about Rs. 11,000 worth of debentures. In the winding up proceedings the debenture...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All412
ORDERAllsop, J.1. I have before me two applications for the revision of orders passed by a learned Magistrate in the district of Muzaffarnagar. One is an application by Qabul Singh who has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 3, Gambling Act, and the other is an application by four men who have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each under Section 4 of the same Act. It appears that a Sub-Inspector of Police obtained from a Magistrate a warrant to search the house of Qabul Singh because he had received information that this man was indulging in what is known as satta gambling, that is gambling on certain winning numbers which were to be ascertained in some way. The Sub-Inspector went to Qabul Singh's house in pursuance of the warrant of search and he found this man on the platform in front of the house writing numbers upon slips of paper. The man was searched in the presence of two witnesses and certain slips with numbers written upon them were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All403
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by her against the defendants-respondents for possession of the property described in the plaint. The property in dispute belonged to the plaintiff's brother, Nihal Singh. On his death, his widow Mt. Mansa succeeded to it. She died in 1935, and Mt. Gulab Dei, plaintiff, succeeded to it. Mt. Bishan Dei was Mt. Gulab Dei's daughter. Mt. Mansa executed a deed of gift in favour of defendants 1 to 3 in respect of a portion of the property in dispute and a mortgage in favour of defendant 4 in respect of the other portion to borrow money for the purpose of performing 'bhat' ceremony on the occasion of the marriage of Mt. Bishan Dei. The plaintiff's case was that Mt. Mansa had no right to execute these deeds and they were not binding on her. Defendant 4 contended that the mortgage was executed by Mt. Mansa for a legal necessity. Defendants 1 to 3 also contended that Mt. Mansa had a right to execute the deed of gift....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All424
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Mula, deceased. It was alleged in the plaint that Mula was the owner of the property in suit and that on 27th April 1876 he executed a deed of sale in favour of his sister, Mt. Siri; but this deed of sale was a sham and collusive instrument, the intention being not to pass title to the ostensible vendee, but to defraud the vendor's creditors. It appears that mutation was not effected until 1887 by which time danger to the property was apprehended from a creditor named Bishen Lal. In 1888 Bishen Lal had this property attached. Mt. Siri objected under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., but her objection was dismissed. 'Within a month after the passing of that order Mula and Mt. Siri jointly executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Mt. Bhoi, and Bishen Lal's decree was liquidated out of the mortgage money. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit for a declaration of their title as against the defendant,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All407
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that certain property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree for the plaintiffs. The allegations in the plaint were as follows:2. Defendant 2-a man named Sant Prasad-used to purchase cloth from the plaintiffs' firm, and on 1st June 1930 he executed a sarkhat for Rs. 8550 being the amount due from him at that date to the plaintiffs. Thereafter all business ceased between the plaintiffs and defendant 2. Subsequently, the plaintiffs instituted Suit No. 21 of 1933 and obtained a decree for Rs. 7761 against defendant 2 on 23rd May 1934. When they put their decree into execution and attached certain property as belonging to their judgment.debtor, defendant 1, namely Parbhu Nath Prasad, objected under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., alleging that he had purchased this property from defendant 2 on 4th October 1932 and it was not liable to sale. That objection was allowed and accordingly the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All426
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a criminal revision by Mr. B.B. Chandra on account of an accused person Satnarain Lal who has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.C., and sentenced by a Magistrate to four months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50 fine or in default two months' further rigorous imprisonment and that sentence has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal. When the revision was filed in this Court a learned single Judge of this Court passed the order:Admit only on the question of sentence. Record need not be sent for. Bail refused. Realization of fine will not be stayed.2. When the revision began before me today learned Counsel claimed that he had a right to address me not only on the sentence but also on the merits of the finding and his argument was that the order of the learned Single Judge meant an admission of the revision and therefore it was open to him to argue the revision on all points. Now Section 440, Criminal P.C., provides:No party has any right to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All423
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises out of execution proceedings. The respondent obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor on 17th May 1926. On 21st April 1928 a compromise was entered into between the parties in the execution proceedings by which the decretal money was to be paid in eight yearly instalments, each instalment payable on 31st May. The judgment-debtor paid the first four instalments, but made a default in the payment of the fifth instalment, which fell due on 31st May 1933. The present application for execution was made by the decree-holder on 5th July 1938. An objection was taken by the appellant that the execution was barred by Section 48, Civil P.C. The execution Court has repelled the objection. Section 48(1) lays down:Where an application to execute a decree not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of 12 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All443
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff who has lost his suit in the two lower Courts partly on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and partly on the ground that there are no merits in his claim even if the Civil Court had jurisdiction. The plaintiff is called Dr. Jagdish Prasad and he sues the Medical Council, United Provinces, Lucknow, as defendant. The plaintiff passed a F.C.P.S. examination in 1916 held by the College of Surgeons and Physicians in Calcutta, which is a private body and not a recognized University. He was previously enrolled as a licentiate of the same body. The plaintiff as a licentiate was entered in part 4 of the list of medical practitioners registered under the United Provinces Medical Act which is maintained by the medical council of the United Provinces. The plaintiff considers that he should be in part 2 and not in part 4. His F.C.P.S. was entered in the register but he was not changed to part 2. The Courts have found that he is no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All445
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal under Section 246, Agra Tenancy Act, (Act 3 of 1926). The suit was for arrears of rent for the years 1338 to 1341 Fasli in respect to plot No. 599 in patti No. 8 of a certain village. It appears that there was a private division of plots in this patti under a registered instrument between the cosharers, as a result of which the plot in dispute fell to a cosharer named Parmeshwari Dayal. In 1915 a lady named Mt. Savitri purchased the proprietary rights of Parmeshwari Dayal, and in the following year she executed a deed of wakf in favour of the Pathshala Trust Committee. On 10th August 1921, which was the Fasli year 1329, the Pathshala Trust Committee executed a deed of lease in favour of the defendant for a hundred years at a rental of Rs. 50 per annum. At that time a cosharer named Radha Kishen was in cultivatory possession of this plot as a tenant, and it was stipulated in the deed of lease that the lease should come into effect when Radha ...
Tag this Judgment!