Allahabad Court September 1946 Judgments
Bishwanath Singh Vs. Abdul Jabbar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All19
Allsop, J.1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is whether an appeal lies against the order of remand dated April 17, 1944, against which the appellant purported to institute his appeal.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a certain sum of money on the foot of a simple registered bond dated 12-9-1938. The defendants alleged, among other things, that the bond had been executed on the basis of antecedent debts and old accounts; that they were agriculturists, that the transaction should be re-opened and that the amount due should be calculated in accordance with the Acts, for the relief of agricultural indebtedness. The learned Munsif in whose Court the suit was instituted refused to allow an application by the plaintiffs for the production of their account books at a late stage of the proceedings, but when he came to hear the arguments he changed his mind and directed that the plaintiffs should produce their books within a certain period. The plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Sheo Kali Kuar Vs. Mt. Jaleba Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All56
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal which arises out of a suit for possession over some zamindari property which admittedly belonged to one Alrakh Rai, the father of the plaintiff. It appears that Alrakh Rai had a brother known as Sukhbas Rai who died in the lifetime of Alrakh Rai. Mt. Jaleba Kuar, defendant 1, is the wife of Sukhbas Rai. After the death of Sukhbas Rai, his property came into possession of Mt. Jaleba Kuar, It is common ground in the present litigation that the two brothers were separate. After the death of Alrakh Rai, some time in the year 1926, it appears that during the mutation proceedings in the revenue Court a compromise was effected between Mt. Sheo Kali, the present plaintiff, represented by her husband Kedar Rai who figures as defendant 2, and Mt. Jaleba Kuar, the contesting defendant. Thereafter on 23rd May 1938 the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff obviously for avoiding the compromise and obtaining possession over the portion of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Pran Dei Kunwari Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All54
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for accounting under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act. The debtor applicant claimed the benefit of the provisions of the Debt Redemption Act.2. The defendant mortgagee contested the suit on two grounds. One was that the Debt Redemption Act did not apply as the land mortgaged was situated within the limits of the Notified Area of Basti. The other was that nothing of the principal had been paid up from usufruct.3. Both Courts held that the Debt Redemption Act applied. The trial Court found Rs. 1989-4-0 still due to the mortgagee. The first appellate Court found RS. 2202-8-3 were due. The difference in the calculation by the two Courts lay in the amount allowed for the costs of production. Both the Courts held the profits to be equivalent to five times the rental according to the rent fixed under Section 110, U.P. Tenancy Act.4. The two points urged in appeal are practically the same. On the first point I agree with the co...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Harakh Rai Vs. Akbar Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All55
Malik, J.1. The facts of this case are complicated, but it is not necessary to set them out in any detail to understand the question of law involved in the case. Akbar Ali filed this suit for accounts on a usufructuary mortgage dated 24th June 1918. The mortgage was executed in favour of Shiva Harakh Rai and others by Walayat Husain. The mortgaged property had belonged to Walayat Husain, Hasan Raza, Akbar Ali and Asgar Ali. They brought a suit claiming that the mortgage was not binding on them. It was held in that suit that they were bound by that mortgage under Section 41, T.P. Act. The result of that decision was that all the four became liable under the mortgage. By certain transfers inter se Akbar Ali purchased the property of some of his other co-sharers.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that by reason of those purchases it must now be held that the liability for the repayment of the mortgage debt had, by contract, been transferred to another person. The position, in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›