Allahabad Court July 1941 Judgments
Murlidhar Vs. Gorakh Ram Sadho Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All358
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court below. The suit was for a declaration that the decree passed in suit No. 374 of 1931, Gorakh Ram Sadho Ram v. (1) Murlidhar, (2) Rao Saheb Rang Nath Khem Raj and (3) Shri Niwas, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay be declared ultra vires, without jurisdiction and illegal and it be further declared that the sale held in execution of the said decree on the original side of the Bombay High Court was invalid and no title in the property detailed at the foot of the plaint passed to defendant 1, Messrs. Gorakh Ram Sadho Ram. The history anterior to the present litigation might be given in a few words. It appears that the three abovenamed persons Murlidhar, Eang Nath Khem Raj and Shri Niwas had borrowed certain sums of money from Gorakh Ram Sadho Ram and had executed an equitable mortgage of certain properties situated in Wardha (Central Provinces) and Mirzapur (United Provinces), but none ...
Tag this Judgment!L. Murli Dhar and ors. Vs. Mahabir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All371
Thom, C.J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal in execution proceedings. The decree-holder Mahabir Singh instituted a suit for ejectment and possession against one Khub Chand. On 30th June 1930 the suit was dismissed by the Munsif of Bulandshahr. The plaintiff appealed and on 17th August 1931 the appeal was allowed. The defendant thereupon appealed to the High Court. His appeal was dismissed on 25th February 1932. He obtained leave to appeal against this decision and filed a Letters Patent appeal. While this appeal was pending Khub Chand died on 5th April 1934. On 2nd August 1934 the High Court declared that in consequence of Khub Chand's death, the Letters Patent appeal had abated and further that the plaintiff-respondent Mahabir Singh was entitled to his costs of the Letters Patent appeal from the assets of the deceased appellant. The plaintiff appellant Mahabir Singh on 20th April 1936 instituted execution proceedings in respect of the subject-matter of the suit, as distinct from the...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar HusaIn Khan and anr. Vs. Budhu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All431
ORDERBraund, J.1. This is an application made under Order 82, Rule 7 of Schedule 1, Civil P.C. The proceedings out of which the application arises were taken under the Encumbered Estates Act and, so far as we are now concerned, the dispute was whether the appellants or the respondents were the owners of a certain piece of land. In the lower Court it has been decided that the respondents were the owners of that land. The appellants are uncle and nephew, the latter of whom is a minor, his co-appellant being his guardian ad litem.2. It appears to be considered that it will be to the advantage of the appellant if this appeal is compromised and a proposal is put forward that, in consideration of a payment of Rs. 500 to be made by the appellants to the respondents, the respondents shall relinquish all their rights, title and interest to or in the property in question in favour of the appellants. The present application is therefore-or rather should be - an application under Order 32, Rule 7 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›