Allahabad Court March 1944 Judgments
Sonai Pasi Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All193a
ORDERMalik, J.1. This revision has been filed against an order of the lower appellate Court dismissing an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. On 18th September 1922, Baladin had executed a mortgage for Rs. 700 in favour of one Jagarnath. Baladin died and his rights came to his three sons, Subhaga, Khunai and Sonai. Mahadeo having purchased the one-fifth share in the property against a decree against Subhaga filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage of 18th September 1922, and redeemed the same and since then he has been in possession of the entire mortgaged property, one-fifth of which he holds as owner and four-fifths as mortgagee. Sonai and his two sons and Khunai, the mortgagor's representatives, filed an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act and claimed that the entire amount due from them had been paid off out of the usufruct of the property and the property therefore should be allowed to be redeemed without payment of any sum. The trial ...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshari Vs. Krishna Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All194
Sinha, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for actual possession with regard to a portion of the property and constructive possession with regard to the rest of the property. The facts very briefly are these. One Jageshwar owned some fixed rate tenancy and also some miscellaneous trees. He made a usufructuary mortgage some time ago in favour of two persons, Kandhai and Dhanai, of the property mentioned in list B of the plaint. On 4th June 1926 Jageshwar sold his rights in both the items of property, that is in the properties mentioned in lists A and B to a man named Brij Mohan. Under this sale, therefore, Jageshwar transferred the property itself in list A, but only the equity of redemption in respect of the property mentioned in list B. Brij Mohan, in his turn, made a mortgage of his rights in favour of one Dwarka Prasad. It must again be clearly understood that the mortgage was a mortgage of the property itself with respect to a portion of the property and of t...
Tag this Judgment!Udai Ram Gopi Ram Through Krishna Gopal Vs. Raghuraj Singh Khub Chand ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All211
Sinha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit, based upon a number of hundis. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Sessions and Civil Judge of Cawnpore, but was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge of Banda. It was transferred ultimately to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge of Banda. There were various adjournments in the case at the instance of the plaintiffs, with which it is not necessary to deal at this stage. The case finally came up for hearing on 28th January 1939 and was again at the instance of the plaintiffs, adjourned to 13th February 1939 for final hearing. On 3rd February 1939 the plaintiffs deposited the necessary process fee for the summoning of the witnesses and processes were issued for the purpose. The plaintiffs reside at Cawnpore. The defendants are residents of Hamirpur. Barring one witness, all the witnesses summoned by the plaintiffs reside at Cawnpore. It appears from the affidavit sworn by Mathura Prasad, the mukhtaram of th...
Tag this Judgment!Shatrughan Singh and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Minor Through Mt. Lakshmi Kue ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All126
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This is an execution second appeal by the judgment-debtors and arises in the following circumstances : The decree-holder respondent obtained a simple money decree against one Jai Singh on 22nd January 1932. Before the decree was put in execution, Jai Singh died leaving three sons Shatrughan, Udaibir Singh and Udaibhan Singh. The decree-holder executed the decree against the three sons and prayed for the attachment and sale of certain land. The sons objected to the execution of the decree by sale of their land on the ground that local rate payable by each of them did not exceed Rs. 25. This objection of the sons was based on the provisions of Section 17(1)(a), U.P. Debt Redemption Act (13 of 1940), which runs as follows:Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 16 or in any other law for the time being in force, the land of an agriculturist, the local rate payable by...whom does not exceed Rs. 25 per annum shall not be sold...in execution of a decree to which thi...
Tag this Judgment!Nurul Hasan and anr. Vs. Mt. Majidan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All210
ORDERPlowden, J.1. This is a reference from the Additional District Magistrate of Bareilly, dated 22nd October 1943.2. On 28th August 1942, a first class Magistrate of Bareilly passed an order and a reference was made to this Court by the Additional District Magistrate on 30th September 1942 with which I dealt on 18th May 1943. My order was rather brief and has been misunderstood by the first class Magistrate who had been unable to come to any conclusion under Section 145, Criminal P.C., as to who was in possession of the property when he made his inquiry and who, therefore, passed an order under Section 146, Criminal P.C., appointing a Receiver and ordering Anwar Ahmad Khan to file a declaratory suit within one month failing which the Anjuman would be put in possession. I remarked that it was not legal for the Magistrate to order Anwar Ahmad Khan to file a declaratory suit within one month failing which the property would be put in possession of somebody else. If the Magistrate consid...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Rukiayia Begum and anr. Vs. Radha Kishan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All214
Sinha, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration that the property detailed at the foot of the plaint belongs to defendant 2, Mahmud Husain Khan, and is liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree No. 11/4 of 1934. This decree was passed on 8th June 1934 by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Bilari in the district of Moradabad. The property in1 dispute consisted of two items, one mentioned in list A and the other in list B. Both the items of property are mortgagee rights. The first in Khata Khewat No. 1, mauza Newar, mohal Surkh Patti Zangari. The second item consists of Khata Khewat No. 2, Patti Rang Surkh.2. The facts which have led up to this suit which has given rise to the present second appeal, are these. On the night between 11th and 12th September 1925, Mahmud Husain Khan, defendant 2, was married to a lady Mt. Ruqiya Begam, who is defendant 1 in this action. Mahmud Husain on that date had no property of his own and the dower debt of the l...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Nolan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All118
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. The question that has been referred for decision to this Full Bench relates to the validity or otherwise of Rule 130A of the Defence of India Rules. The rule runs as follows:130A. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, no person accused or convicted of a contravention of these rules shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond, unless : (a) the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (b) where the prosecution opposes the application and the contravention is of any such provision of these Rules as the Central Government or the Provincial Government may by notified order specify in this behalf, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such contravention.2. To begin with, it is argued that the rule, casting as it does on the accused the burden of proving his innocence, is opposed to fundamental principles of crimi...
Tag this Judgment!Jangali Singh Vs. Ramjag Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All198
ORDERVerma, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this application for revision must be allowed. It appears that on 22nd June 1874, one Ajudhia executed a deed of mortgage in favour of one Moti Rai mortgaging certain plots of land in lieu of Rs. 500. By various devolutions the interest of the mortgagor Ajudhia became vested in Ramjag Rai, Jit (or Chet) Narain Rai and Salig Rai and the interest of the mortgagee came to be vested in one Mt. Sahodra Kunwar. On 1st September 1913, Ramjag, Jit (or Chet) Narain and 'Salig brought suit No. 391 of 1913 for redemption against Mt. Sahodra Kunwar. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they were entitled to redeem on payment of Rs. 512. The Munsif of Ghazipur, in whose Court the suit was brought, decreed the suit on 23rd April 1914. He held, however, that the amount which the plaintiffs mortgagors were bound to pay to the defendant mortgagee was Rs. 3489-15-0 and not Rs. 512 as alleged by the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushilla Debi Vs. Lachhmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All226
Mathur, J.1. This is a creditor's appeal under the Encumbered Estates Act. The creditor, after the application was filed and referred to the special Judge, filed his claim on the basis of a mortgage dated 1st May 1930 which was to secure a sum of RS. 9000. He claimed double the amount that is Rs. 18,000. On behalf of the landlord-applicant an objection was made that in a suit which the creditor had filed on 22nd April 1936 he had claimed only Rs. 12,953-4 0 and therefore he could not claim any enhanced amount. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the creditor having once claimed a lesser amount he was bound by it and could not go beyond it. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and, in our opinion, the reasoning of the learned Special Judge is not well founded. It is no doubt true that when the suit was brought on the mortgage the creditor had claimed a lesser amount, but in our opinion there was nothing to prevent him claiming a higher amount when an appli...
Tag this Judgment!L. Ram Autar Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All245
Sinha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 450 from defendant 1, Sita Ram. The facts very briefly are these. There were three decrees against defendant 2, Mr. E.B. Albert, who was employed as a guard in the East Indian Railway. The first two decrees, No. 100 of 1935 and No. 121 of 1936, were held by defendant 1, Sita Ram. The third decree No. 1203 of 1936, was held by the appellant, Ram Autar. The first two decrees were decrees of the Court of the Munsif of Saharanpur. The third decree was a decree of the Court of Small Causes, Moradabad. It is conceded that the decree-holder has realised his decree No. 100 of 1935 in its entirety. We are thus left with the two decrees No. 121 of 1936 of the Court of the Munsif of Saharanpur and No. 1203 of 1936 of the Court of Small Causes, Moradabad. There was rivalry in execution between the two decree-holders and we are concerned with the respective rights of both. Sita Ram made an application before the M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »