Allahabad Court August 1945 Judgments
Shiam Sunder Lal Vs. Data Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All147
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar by which he refused to extend to the appellant the benefits of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act (No. 13 [XIII] of 1940). The facts are these:2. A mortgage was made many years ago by the appellant Shiam Sunder Lal A portion of the property covered by that mortgage was subsequently transferred by him under two usufructuary mortgages to Harnam Singh and Nand Kishore. Another portion went, under an auction sale, to a man named Chhajju Mal. It is important to bear in mind that under none of these transactions, the money payable to the mortgagee under the mortgage of 1914 was left in the hands of the transferees. It must be remembered that the whole of the property has not passed out of the hands of the mortgagor, Shiam Sunder Lal. The mortgage was put in suit and a decree was passed on its basis. The decree-holder put the decree in execution and Shiam Sunder Lal applied for the benefits of the U.P. Debt R...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ummatunnissa Bibi Vs. Shiekh Jummai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All329
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the second temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, by which he set aside the judgment and order of the learned Munsif refusing restitution to the respondents under Section 144, Civil P. C. The facts are these: On 17th November 1932 a sale-deed was executed by Sayeed Khan in favour of Jumai and another for Rs. 300. The consideration was made up as below : (1) Rs. 125 due to Mt. Umatunnissa Bibi under a mortgage. (2) Rs. 60 paid in cash before the Sub-registrar. (3) Rs. 115 due to Shamsh Uddin. This sale was pre-empted by Mt. Umatunnissa Bibi. The suit was decreed conditional on the payment by her of a sum of Rs. 240. In other words, the Court accepted the sum of Rs. 125 as the sum due to her under the mortgage and Rs. 115 due to Shamsh Uddin.2. The payment of RS. 60 in cash before the Sub-registrar was not accepted. She was directed to pay this amount within two months of 12th December 1938. On 18th January 1939, the plaintiff fil...
Tag this Judgment!Sangam Lal Vs. Ganga DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All389
Verma, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was brought on 19th October 1940, by the appellant in the Court of the Munsif Haveli, Cawnpore, for possession of a house situated in the City of Cawnpore and for certain other reliefs which need not be mentioned. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate Court dismissed it on the ground that it was barred by time under Article 142, Limitation Act. The main allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint were that he was the owner of the house; that he had let it out to defendants 10 or 11 years before the institution of the suit on a monthly rental of Rs. 10; that the defendants had not paid any rent since 1st June 1939; that the plaintiff had brought a Suit No. 652 of 1939 in the Munsif's Court against the defendants, alleging that they were his tenants and praying for their ejectment, and that the defendants had alleged in their written statement filed in that suit that the plaintiff was not the owner of...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Sri Pateshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Abdul Karim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All277
Verma, J.1. This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The appellant, who is the proprietor of the Balrampur estate, is the decree-holder, and he filed an application in the Court of an Assistant Col lector of the First Class for the execution of a decree which had been passed in his favour by that Court on 31st May 1985, for the recovery of a sum of money which was in excess of Rs. 500. The Assistant Collector granted the application and ordered execution to proceed. The judgment-debtors, respondents before us, then filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge in accordance with the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1926. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, held that the revenue Court, which had passed the decree sought to be executed, 'had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree and only a civil Court was competent to pass a decree like that' and that 'the decree in that respect was a nullity,' and could not, therefore, be executed. He ac...
Tag this Judgment!Shadi and ors. Vs. Sultan Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All56
ORDERMallik, J.1. This civil revision is under Section 115, Civil P.C. The applicants had filed an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for redemption of a mortgage 'dated 24th October 1893 for Rs. 3800. Some of the representatives of the original mortgagors had redeemed the mortgage in January 1928. The applicants wanted to pay their share of the mortgage-debt and get possession of their share of the property. 'The original mortgagors had left a large number of heirs, three of whom Mt. Midi, Mt. Sadiqan and Mt. Makbuli, according to the applicants, had not been heard of for over forty years. The applicants' case was that they were dead and the applicants as their legal representatives were entitled to redeem their shares also. The trial Court decided in favour of the applicants and held that they were the heirs and legal representatives of Mt. Midi, Sadiqan and Makbuli who must be presumed to be dead. In appeal, however, the learned District Judge has held that he...
Tag this Judgment!Dina Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All53
Allsop, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Dina Nath who has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 for contravening the rules of the U.P. Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943. He had a licence as a hawker and, as such, was entitled to be in possession of a hundred pounds of cotton yarn which is equivalent to ten bales. In fact, he was found to be in possession of one thousand four hundred pounds or one hundred and forty bales. The order says that no person shall act as a dealer or retailer or hawker without a licence. This man had a licence as a hawker, but a hawker is defined as a person who does not deal with more than one hundred pounds of yam. He was dealing in a much larger quantity and therefore he was acting as a retailer or dealer and he had no licence to act as such. There cannot be the slightest doubt that he was punishable under Rule 13 of the Order.2. The other point is raised in connexion with the fact that the cotton yarn in possession of this man in excess...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All138
Allsop, J.1. This is an application in revision The applicant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 100 for a breach of Rule 90(2)(a) of the rules made under the Defence of India Act. This rule says, 'No person shall buy or sell, or offer to buy or sell, for an amount other than its face value, any coin or note.' The punishment for the contravention of this rule is contained in Sub-rule (8) of Rule 90 and amounts to imprisonment for a term which may extend for five years or fine or both. The applicant was convicted by a Magistrate and the conviction and sentence was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. The facts of the case are that a man who had a small stall had sold goods for a few annas and had been given a rupee for which the purchaser required change. The stall-holder went to the applicant's shop and asked him to change the rupee. The applicant gave him only thirteen annas instead of sixteen annas. The incident was observed by a memb...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›