Allahabad Court May 1944 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kr. Aittar Singh Vs. Mahabir Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All213
Allsop, J.1. The appellant executed a deed of mortgage in the year 1922. Thereafter in the year 1929, he made a gift of part of the mortgaged property to his wife, Mt. Mahrani. This lady died two or three years later and then an entry was made in the register of proprietors that the judgment-debtor's second wife, Mt. Raj Koeri was in possession, although it is not contended that any transfer was ever made in her favour. On the death of Mt. Mahrani Kuer the judgment-debtor again inherited the gifted property.2. A suit was instituted against him and Mt. Raj Koeri in the year 1934 for sale of the property on the basis of the mortgage and a decree was passed to that effect. Most of the mortgaged property had been transferred to third parties and that property has already been sold in execution of the decree. There remained only the property which had been gifted to Mt. Mahrani Kuer and which had reverted to the judgment-debtor. When the decree-holder sought to put this property to sale in ...
Narsingh Dube Vs. Mt. Dhanesra Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All247
ORDERMalik, J.1. This revision has been filed by Narsingh Dube and Jagdish Narain Dube, objectors, in a proceeding under the Encumbered Estates Act. Mt. Dhanesra Kuer and others filed an application under the Encumbered Estates Act which in due course was sent to the learned Special Judge, 2nd grade, Ghazipur under Section 6 of the Act. Notices under Section 8, Encumbered Estates Act, were published on 11th December 1936. After the publication of the said notices the present applicants put in an objection on 27th May 1937, under Sections 9 and 10, Encumbered Estates Act. Under Section 9 they claimed that they were creditors of the landlord applicants and set out the details of the amount due. Under Section 10 they alleged that five fixed-rate tenancy plots in village Chandipur had been purchased by them under a registered sale deed dated 12th November 1935, and they were the owners of the said plots. On 11th September 1937, fresh notices were published under Section 11, Encumbered Esta...
Ram Nath Upadhya Vs. Sheo Naik Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All249
Mathur, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal against a judgment of the Civil Judge of Jaunpur, dated 26th August 1941 by which he confirmed a decree of the Munsif of Shahganj, dated 31st March 1941. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for redemption of a mortgage, alleged to have been executed on 28th August 1882 by Sukhraj and Sukhbhawan, ancestors of the plaintiff in favour of the ancestor of the defendants. The sum secured was Rs. 1000 but it is alleged in the plaint that it has been paid off by the usufruct of the property and on that allegation, the plaintiff claims possession without payment of any money. A variety of pleas were raised in defence. It was denied that the plaintiff was the heir of the mortgagors but that point has been decided by both the Courts below against the defendants-appellants and is not urged before us. Another plea taken was that the document of the year 1882 was not a mortgage but an out and out sale. In the alternative, it was further pleaded th...
Liaqat Khan Vs. Abdul Majid Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All284
Hamilton, J.1. This is an appeal by four plaintiffs whose suit for pre-emption was dismissed by the Civil Judge of Ghazipur. He held that the vendors, Sohrab Khan and others, had sent to the plaintiffs by registered post a notice under Section 14, Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 stating what property was to be sold, the names of the vendees and the price settled and that the plaintiffs Liaqat Khan and Muhammad Khalil Khan took delivery of the notice but Liaqat Khan alone replied while the other two plaintiffs Raja Khan and Arif Khan refused to take delivery of the notice. As regards the reply sent by Liaqat Khan the learned Judge held that it did not indicate his intention to purchase the property so that none of the plaintiffs had communicated any such intention and, therefore, in view of Section 15, Agra Pre-emption Act, their right to pre-empt had become extinguished. In any case, even if Liaqat Khan had not lost his rights under Section 15, he sued jointly with others who had and he c...
Gopi Nath Mehrotra Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All193
Allsop, J.1. The applicant was the treasurer of the Reserve Bank Currency Office at Cawnpore. He was arrested on 17th December 1942 when he was leaving the bank at closing time. He was in a tonga and had with him a sum of Rs. 540 in small coins. He was charged with an offence under Rule 90(2)(d), Defence of India Rules. The Magistrate who tried him sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500. He also directed that the small change seized at the time of the applicant's arrest should be confiscated. The applicant appealed to the. Sessions Judge of Cawnpore who reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, but maintained the fine and the order of confiscation. The applicant now asks us to interfere in accordance with our revisional jurisdiction. We have been taken through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and we find that his conclusions on the question of fact involved are in favour of the applicant. He has given ...
Kunj Behari Lal Alias Kunji Lal Vs. Kashi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All236
Sinha, J.1. This is an application by the defendant against an order of the learned District Judge of Allahabad by which he affirmed an order of the learned Munsif, rejecting an application for restoration. On 15th July 1930, a mortgage was made in favour of the plaintiff. It was put in suit on 17th August 1985, and a preliminary decree was passed on 18th January 1937. The usual sale took place on 23rd August 1940, and a house belonging to the judgment-debtor was sold for Rs. 1400. The balance due to the decree-holder, therefore, was a sum of Rs. 1600, the entire decretal amount being Rs. 8000. On 11th September 1940, an application for setting aside the sale was made by the judgment-debtor on the ground that the proceedings had been taken behind his back and without his knowledge. It appears that along with the application for setting aside the ex parte decree a prayer was also made for staying the confirmation of the sale which evidently had not till then been confirmed. The matter w...
Dauru and anr. Vs. Badri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All239
Allsop, J.1. The properties involved in these two Letters Patent appeals are plots Nos. 810, 817, 313, 274 and 841 in Patti No. 13 in the village of Roshanabad. The plaintiffs in the suit which has given rise to the appeals were Badri and Makhan and the defendants were Dauru and Lahauri. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of the plots in suit and that the defendants were interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs' alleged, cause of action was that the defendants would not let them remove the wood of fallen trees in the plots. They alleged that they had acquired a half share in the plots under a deed of sale executed by Lahauri on 29th September 1932, and the other half share under a foreclosure decree against Dauru which was dated 6th January 1934. They sought an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The defendants claimed ex-proprietary rights in favour of the plots and said that the fifth, No. 274, was waste land and that t...
Laxmi Pd. Singh Alias Lallan Singh and anr. Vs. Kunai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All251
Allsop, J.1. The last male owner of the property in suit died before the year 1912. He left him surviving a widow and two daughters. The widow made a gift of the whole property to the daughters. She purported to transfer an absolute title. Thereupon some collaterals instituted a suit as reversioners in order to obtain a declaration that the deed of gift was not binding upon them. It happened that the son of one of the daughters was alive, but inspite of that fact the widow and the daughters and the collaterals entered into a compromise about the year 1913 by which the collaterals were given an absolute interest in 1/4th of the property and the daughters an absolute interest in the other 3/4ths. A few years later, in 1916, the daughter's son brought another suit and there was another compromise which overruled the previous one. By this second compromise the collaterals got 1/6th of the property and daughters and the daughter's son got the remaining 5/6ths. The suit which has given rise ...
Sant Ram Misir Vs. Ram Bilas Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All283
Sinha, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for accounts under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The mortgage was made on 25th October 1933, for a sum of Rs. 1950 by Ram Bilas and others in favour of Sant Ram. Various defences were raised to the action with which we are not concerned at this stage. Part of the property was in possession of tenants and it is admitted on both sides that the rent realized by the mortgagee from them was Rs. 35-15-6 per year. There is no controversy as regards this. The dispute is as regards the portion of the profits of the mortgage which was actually in the possession of the mortgagee himself. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the basis of calculation must be the letting value of the plots and he declared a sum of Rs. 1582-7-0 as due to the mortgagee. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned District Judge has dissented from that principle and has held that the true basis of calculation must be 'the usufruct minus...
Manmohan Das Vs. Mt. Radha Rani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All288
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the judgment-debtors, Lala Man Mohan Das, against an order passed under Section 47, Civil, P.C., whereby his objection to execution was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. The facts of the case cover a very long period and a large field and are, as such, complicated. They are, however, briefly these. On 28th August 1923 some amount had been advanced to a firm called the United Provinces Anilinedyes Co., which was a partnership consisting of four partners. Baldeo Narain Tandon, who had made the advance, brought a suit, Suit No. 102 of 1926, on 27th August 1926, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad against four persons who were the partners of the firm, Mata Prasad, Lala Man Mohan Das, Pt. Krishna Kant Malaviya and Rai Bahadur Mathura Prasad Mahrotra. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 14,950 and Rs. 5872 interest. Various defences were raised to the claim, with which it is not necessary to deal at this stage. The learned Subordinate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›