Allahabad Court April 1941 Judgments
Mt. Majidunnisa Bibi Vs. Babu Puran Chander Roy, Official Receiver and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All316
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is an application in revision directed against an order of: the learned District Judge of Ghazipur which affirmed an order of the Insolvency Judge of Ghazipur. On 22nd December 1936, one Abdul Hafiz Khan executed a sale deed in favour of his wife Mt. Majidunnissa Bibi who is the applicant before us, for a consideration of Bs. 5000. Out of the sale consideration, Bs. 1600 was left with the vandee for the satisfaction of a mortgage bond. The balance of the sale consideration was set off against part of the dower debt due to the vendee. It has been found by the Courts below that the dower debt was Rs. 14,000. On 29th November 1937 Abdul Hafiz Khan made an application to the insolvency Court to be adjudged an insolvent. On 19th February 1938 the Courtadged him an insolvent and appointed an Official Receiver for the administration of the insolvent's estate. On 6th April 1938 the Official Receiver made an application under Section 53, Insolvency Act, for the avoida...
Tag this Judgment!Lalta Prasad Vs. Dwarka Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All313
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration that a sale deed executed by one Mt. Renka Kunwar on 18th March 1935 is null and void and ineffectual as against the plaintiff, the next reversioner. The last male holder of the property in suit was a man named Bansidhar, who died about 22 years before the suit, leaving a widow Mt. Eenka Kunwar. The sale deed in question was executed by Mt. Eenka Kunwar in favour of defendants 1 and 2. These defendants contested the suit alleging that the alienation was for legal necessity and alleging further that the. plaintiff was not the next reversioner. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and that decree has been affirmed by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court finds that the plaintiff is not the next reversioner as alleged by him; the next reversioner is a man named Chandra Shekar. And since the plaintiff ca...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagauti Prasad Vs. Chandrika Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All339
Dar, J.1. The plaintiff Bhagauti Prasad who is the zamindar of the village Mohanpur in the Gorakhpur district, brought a suit for recovery of rent against Chandrika Prasad alleging him to be a tenant of 14 holdings situated in the said village. On a plea being raised by the defendant that he was holding the property as a proprietor and that he was in adverse possession of the same, the matter was referred to the civil Court and on a finding of the civil Court against the contention of the defendant the revenue Court decreed the claim for rent against the defendant. Against this decree the defendant appealed to the District Judge of Gorakhpur and the learned Judge holding that the defendant had established his adverse possession against the property dismissed the claim. The plaintiff has now made a second appeal to this Court and the question before me is whether the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court with regard to the adverse possession of the defendant is legally correct...
Tag this Judgment!Chaube Ram Lal and anr. Vs. Ram DIn Kiledar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All318
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit brought for foreclosure of a mortgage by conditional sale dated 2nd July 1928 executed by Earn Din defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiffs, who are station-masters on the G.I.P. Railway. The Courts below dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs being railway servants were forbidden by law to enter into money lending business and accordingly under Section 23, Contract Act, the mortgage in suit was not enforceable. The main question that falls to be decided is, whether the Courts below have correctly interpreted the relevant sections of the Railways Act and Section 23, Contract Act. Section 137(3)(b), Railways Act, provides:A railway servant shall not in contravention of any direction of the Railway Administration in this behalf engage in trade. 2. The plaintiffs, who are own brothers, had to sign an agreement which embodies the terms of their service. Clause (5) of the agreement says:A railway servant w...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Kant Vs. Shrimati Bi Chandra Krin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All312
ORDERCollister, J.1. This is a debtor's application in revision under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act. The opposite party applied to have the applicant adjudged insolvent. The applicant contended that he was an agriculturist and was protected by the provisions of Section 3 of Act 10 of 1937. The question before the Court was whether the applicant was an 'agriculturist' at the date of the passing of the Act within the meaning of Section 3(1). The Bill was passed by the Legislature in October 1937. It was assented to by the Governor on 20th December 1937 and it came into force on 1st January 1938. Admittedly, in October 1937, the applicant was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act and admittedly he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act by 20th December 1937. The insolvency Judge was of opinion that the words 'the date of the passing of this Act' mean the date on which it was passed by the Legislature, which, as I have already said, was some date in October...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: H, an Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All280
Braund, J.1. This is a matter in which a complaint has been received by the High Court from a certain Abdullah Khan complaining of professional misconduct on the part of an advocate of Cawnpore. It has been referred to us to be dealt with under Section 10, Sub-section (2), Bar Councils Act, 1926. The complaint itself, to put it briefly, alleges the misappropriation by the advocate of some fifteen hundred odd rupees, being the balance of a sum received by the advocate on payment out of Court on behalf of his client, the complainant. If what the complainant says is true as to which, of course, we express no opinion, it would appear that the advocate may not only be liable in a civil Court to refund the money but may also be guilty of a criminal offence. We thought it right when the matter came before us on 23rd August last year to give the advocate an opportunity to tender any explanation he might wish to make. That he has done by a letter dated 19th February 1941 addressed to the Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All284
ORDERCollister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The applicant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 85 being the alleged price of goods supplied on vouchers. The suit was decreed ex parte on 2nd January 1940. On 3rd February 1940, the opposite party applied under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C, to have the ex parte decree set aside, and at the same time he applied for permission to give security other than cash. The application for leave to furnish security other than cash was allowed and the Court accepted the security bond which the applicant offered, and notice was issued in respect 'to the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. On a subsequent date, that is to say on 13th April 1940, for some reason which is not disclosed, the opposite party's counsel, offered to deposit cash. This offer was accepted, time being allowed for the purpose, and cash was deposited on 18th April 1940. On 20th April 1940 the Court allo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›