Allahabad Court February 1943 Judgments
Hulas Singh and ors. Vs. Data Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All291
Iqbal Ahmad, C. J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for sale on a mortgage dated 10th July 1925. The defendants contested the suit mainly on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. This contention of the defendants found favour with the trial Court and that Court accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court on the question of limitation and decreed the suit. The sole question in the appeal is whether or not the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation and the decision of this question depends on the construction of certain sections of the Encumbered Estates Act ('25 of 1934) and on the true interpretation of Section 15, Limitation Act.2. The relevant facts are not in controversy and are as follows: The mortgage in suit was executed by the defendants or their predecessors in favour of the plaintiff-respondents on 10th July 1925, and, under the law of limitation, the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Taqi Khan and anr. Vs. Raja Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All267
Dar, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 10, Letters Patent, against a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, dated 25th August 1941 by which he reversed concurrent decrees of two Courts below in proceedings relating to restitution under Section 144, Civil P. C. Mul Chand, father of the respondents Raja Ram, Chiranji Lal and Mulchand's brother, Hoti Ram obtained a mortgage decree in Suit No. 157 of 1923 from the Court of the Civil Judge of Parrukhabad against the appellants, Mohammad Taqi Khan and Mt. Rahmat Khatoon who are husband and wife and against eight other persons for a sum of Rs. 5538-211. Part of this decree to the extent of Rs. 3190 was satisfied by some judgment-debtors other than Mohammad Taqi Khan and Mt. Rahmat Khatoon. In order to recover the balance of the decree, an application for execution was made by decree-holders on 25th August 1931 and in the course of execution a sale of immovable property of the judgment-debtors was notified. On 20th May 1932 Mohammad Taq...
Tag this Judgment!Zamurrad HusaIn and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All281
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference from the Taxing-Officer about the amount of court-fees to be charged in an appeal from a decree passed in a suit for partition. It was suggested by the officer whose duty it is to see that the proper fee is paid that the appeal should be taxed according to the value of the plaintiff's share in the property which was the subject of partition. The suit out of which the appeal arose was one for the partition of property in which the value of the plaintiff's share was estimated at Rupees 7000. There was no dispute about the shares of the parties in the trial Court and a preliminary decree was passed on the plaintiff's allegation. There were some disputes about the allocation of the property and consequently the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the final, decree and instituted the appeal. He paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 15. The difficulty arises from the wording of Sections 2 and 7 (vi-A), Court-fees Act. The latter section in so far as it is relevant i...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Lal Alias Birja and ors. Vs. Emperor.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All216
Plowden, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Patehpur, dated 31st August 1942. The prosecution case is that there was a dacoity at the house of Balraj and Gajadhar on 21st February 1942. Considerable amount of property was stolen and the inmates of the house were injured. Sixteen accused were committed to Sessions of whom nine were acquitted. Seven have appealed, two Indrasan and Shambhu through the jail. Two assessors were of opinion that only six of the 16 accused were not guilty and the third assessor was of opinion that only three were not guilty. Of the first six, the learned Judge found that four were guilty and so there was agreement between the Judge and the assessors about only two. Of the second* three the Judge and the assessors were in agreement about one man. I think the reason for this difference of opinion may be partly traced to the view held by the learned Judge about Ex. P-l which is a list given by Gajadhar of the stolen property on 22nd...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›