Allahabad Court October 1943 Judgments
L. Bhola Nath Vs. Parmeshwari Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All35
Collister, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. On 21st May 1928, the appellant obtained a decree against Rai Sahib Parmeshwari Dayal and two other persons. We are not concerned with the latter, but only with the former, who is the respondent to this appeal. As against the respondent, the decree was in respect to the assets of his wife Mt. Shyam Kunwar in his hands. On 28th October 1929, the decree was affirmed in appeal and it was from that date that limitation began to run. The appellant applied for execution on various dates, but for one reason or another they were all dismissed. The first application was made on 18th October 1932, but it is unnecessary to say anything about it. On 21st October 1935, another application was preferred and it was decided on 6th December 1935. That was an application for attachment of moveable property and it appears that it was dismissed for the reason that the appellant did not point out the property that was to be attached and did not press his ap...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Gur Saran and anr. Vs. Shib Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All393
Collister, J.1. These are two appeals under the Letters Patent from a decision of a learned Judge of this Court. The appeals arise out of two suits for redemption of two sets of property said to have been usufructuarily mortgaged in or about 1836. It was alleged that one of the mortgages was executed by Tulsi and Dilsukh in favour of Lachhman, Maharam and Mahasukh for Rs. 278-4-0 and that the other was executed by Natha and Hira in favour of the same mortgagees for Rs. 883. Actually the mortgagees were probably Lachman's ancestors. It was contended that limitation was saved by two acknowledgments, made in 1269 Fasli, equivalent to the year 1852, and in 1285 Fasli, equivalent to 1878, respectively. Plaintiff 2 is a transferee from the heirs of the original mortgagors and plaintiff 1 is the adopted son of the deceased husband of plaintiff 2. It was alleged that the income from the property was more than sufficient to discharge the interest, that the principal amount in each case has been...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahab Khan Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All36
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Abdul Wahab Khan, and the suit was for recovery of possession of certain zamindari property mentioned in Schedule A, a house mentioned in Schedule B and certain ornaments mentioned in Schedule C. The above mentioned properties were owned and possessed by one Shaikh. Ataullah who died leaving a widow Mt. Rasul Bandi Bibi. The case of the plaintiffs, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan and Ashfaq Ahmad Khan, was that the dower of Mt. Easul Bandi Bibi was fixed at Rs. 36,000, and five asharfis and the entire dower was deferred and that after the death of Ataullah Khan, Easul Bandi Bibi entered into possession of the plaint property to the extent of one-fourth as an heir and to the extent of the remaining three-fourths in lieu of the aforesaid unpaid dower with the consent of the heirs of Shaikh Ataullah. Mt. Rasul Bandi Bibi died on 4th December 1934, whereas Ataullah had died sometime in 1923 and the dower debt had not been paid either d...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Saran Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All379
Iqbal Ahmad, C. J.1. After the promulgation of Ordinance 19 of 1943 on 5th June 1943, numerous appeals against the decisions of Special Judges and Special Magistrates, in cases tried by them in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 2 of 1942, were filed in this Court and, in most of the appeals, the validity of Ordinance 19 itself was assail-ed. A number of applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., were also filed and in those applications as well the question of the validity or otherwise of Ordinance 19 was directly and specifically in issue. Before these appeals and applications were put for final disposal, the question raised formed the subject of debate and discussion in and of decision by the Calcutta, Patna and the Madras High Courts, and the decisions of those Courts were by no means uniform. To avoid conflict of judicial opinion in this Court on the question raised, and also with a view to have an authoritative pronouncement for the guidance of the Sessions Judges s...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Vs. Baba Mahadeo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All41
ORDERCollister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. The applicant applied under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for redemption of two usufructuary mortgages, of which one was executed on 16th March 1897 for Rs. 50 and the other was executed on 12th August 1897 for Rs. 40. The property which was the subject of each of these two mortgages consisted in plots of an occupancy holding. The Assistant Collector held that plots of an occupancy holding could not legally be mortgaged and the Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. There was an appeal to the Civil Judge, but the appeal was dismissed. When the revision first came before me on 18th March 1943, it was contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that on the assumption that the two mortgages in question were not legally competent the opposite party had nevertheless prescribed for the status of usufructuary mortgagees. I acc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›