Allahabad Court July 1947 Judgments
Ziaul Hasan and ors. Vs. Mt. Ruquyia Begum and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All123
Malik, J.1. This is a Judgment-debtors' appeal. On 8-2-1930, the appellants executed a mortgage for Rs. 840 in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of this mortgage the plaintiff filed a suit for sale of the mortgaged property, which consisted of a sitting room and a shop, in the Court of the First Munsif of Bulandshahr (orinigal Suit No. 4 of 1939). A preliminary decree was passed on 15-1-1940. The final decree for sale was passed on 5-9-1940, for Rs. 2008-2-0. This decree was put into execution and the property included in the mortgage was sold for Rs. 1200.2. The mortgage decree was not satisfied in full and the mortgagee filed an application on 8-1-1942, for a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., The judgment-debtors filed an objection that they were agriculturists and were entitled to the benefit of Section 21, U.P., Debt Redemption Act (13 [xiii] of 1940) which provided that no decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., could be passed against them.3. On 8-10-1940, an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal Vs. Keshabdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All133
Malik, J.1. This and the connected appeal arise out of proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. There were three mortgages on the basis of which three simple money decrees had been passed under Section 14 by the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge had placed them all in class (4). An application was made by Seth Keshabdeo that as his mortgage was of an earlier date the decree in his favour should be ranked higher for payment than the decrees on the other two mortgages. The learned Special Judge carefully went into the question and realised the difficulty in ranking the three debts inter se inasmuch as in all of them there were some properties that were common and some other properties which were not included in the other two mortgages. He, however, thought that the provisions of Section 16 made it incumbent upon him to rank them in some order and he tried to adjust the equities by ranking the three mortgages in order of date and then directing that the first mortgage ...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Prasad and ors. Vs. Shib Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1949All457
Malik J.1. These two appeals raise a very simple question of law. Two sale deeds were executed on different dates and to preempt each sale two separate suits were filed, that is, there were in all four suits. There were two seta of rival preemptors who filed these suits. Second Appeal No. 168 of 1946 arises out of Suit No. 10 of 1944 filed by Madho Prasad and others and Suit no. 21 of 1944 filed by Dori Lal and Pooran, who were plaintiffs first set, and six others, who were arrayed as plaintiffs second set, on the allegation that the suit should be decreed in favour of either the 1st or in the alternative in favour of the plaintiffs' 2nd set. Two similar suits were filed to pre-empt the other sale deed.2. Madho Prasad and others pleaded that by reason of the fact that in suit no. 21 of 1944 Dori Lal and Pooran had joined with them six other persons as plaintiffs and had claimed an alternative relief, it was clear that either Dori Lal and Pooran were strangers or those other six plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Vs. Shri Ram Lachman Janki Bharat Satrughan Hanumanji and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All195
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against whom a suit for a scheme of management in respect of certain trust property, was decreed by the learned Munsif. That decree was affirmed, on appeal, by the learned Civil Judge and he has come before me in second appeal.2. The facts are mostly, if not entirely, admitted and are briefly these. There was a temple built in the city of Cawnpore about the year 1912 or 1913, adjoining his house, by one Bhagwan Das, the father of Ram Narain the appellant before me, and his brother Sheo Narain. Sheo Narain has taken no interest in this matter and may, therefore, be dismissed from consideration. The temple was a substantial temple and was constructed at a cost of nearly RS. 25,000.3. On 14-8-1926, a cousin of Bhagwan Das, namely Bansi, dedicated considerable property to it. It might be mentioned that the presiding deities of the temple were Ram, Lachman, Janki, Bharat, Shatrughan and Hanuman. The deed of trust is an elaborate document, sprea...
Tag this Judgment!Ram DIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All101
Sankar Saran, J.1. The appellant, Ram Dinalias Ram Adhin Brahman was convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, and Section 449, Penal Code. Under Section 302, Penal Code, he was sentenced to death and under Section 449, Penal Code, he was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. He has made an appeal to this Court. There is the usual reference by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the sentence of death passed upon the appellant.2. In the village of Bhunna, in the district of Farrukhabad, there lived an old woman Mt. Sumitra Devi aged 56, widow of Ganga Narain who was a Sub-Assistant Surgeon and is said to have left considerable property. It appears, that Mt. Sumitra had been a widow for a number of years and was living all by herself at her house and was attending to her domestic duties unaided.3. On the morning of 16th April 1946, it was discovered that the house in which Ganga Narain's widow lived remained unopened and her buffalo was bellowing inside the house....
Tag this Judgment!Noel Frederick Barwell Vs. John Jackson and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All146
Verma, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments prepared by my brothers Malik and Mootham and also of discussing the case with them. Having given the matter my careful consideration, I find myself in agreement with my brother Malik.2. There can be no doubt that the members of an institution like, the Club in question must be governed by the contract by which they have agreed to be bound and that that contract is to be found in the Rules of the Club. I am, further, satisfied that there is no rule in the rules of this Club laying down the circumstances, and the manner, in which a dissolution of the club could take place. In fact, there is no rule providing for the dissolution of the Club. All that Rule 6 says is that, if a winding up or dissolution does take place, the property is to be distributed in a certain manner.... I agree with my brother Malik's opinion that this rule cannot fairly be interpreted as a rule providing for the dissolution of the Club. Its only object...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Capt. Jatindra Mohan Mitra Vs. Mt. Dayal Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All134
ORDERMootham, J.1. One Shamsher Singh, a Hindu, died at Dehra Dun on 21-1-1946. A petition has been filed in this Court for probate of a will made by the deceased on 14-1-1944 whereof the petitioner is the executor named therein. A caveat against the grant of probate has been entered by Shrimati Dayali Devi, the widow of the deceased, who, inter alia, contends that the will of which the petitioner seeks to obtain probate is not the last will and testament of the deceased as it has been superseded by a later will made by the deceased on 4-1-1946.2. When the matter came before me on 29-4-1947, Mr. R.C. Ghatak for the petitioner argued that it was not open to the caveator to contend that the will of 1944 was not the last will made by the deceased unless she herself applied for probate of the later will said to have been executed by the deceased on 4-1-1946; and with the consent of both parties the following preliminary issue was accordingly framed:Whether the caveator can set up a later w...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkishore Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All79
ORDERMalik, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 13 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance for having refused to sell woolen cloth to one Ghulam Ahmad. The shop is carried on in the name of Messrs. Ram Gopal Lakshmi Narain and is at Sambhal. According to Ghulam Ahmad, he went to the shop on 29th December 1945, and wanted some woolen material but Ram Kishore who was at the shop refused to sell it to him.2. Lakshmi Narain, Jagdish Saran and Ram Kishore were all prosecuted for the contravention of the Ordinance. Lakshmi Narain's defence was that he was no longer connected with the shop and was carrying on the business of an importer at Moradabad. Jagdish Saran admitted that he was the proprietor of the shop but pleaded that at the time of the occurrence he was not present. The defence of Ram Kishore was that he had not refused to sell the material to Ghulam Ahmad but as Ghulam Ahmad wanted to take the cloth on approval Ram Kishore had refused to give it to hi...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All95
ORDERMalik, J.1. Nand Ram and Laxmi Narain have been convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, read with Clause 4, U.P. Revised Foodgrains Supplementary (Movement) Control Order, 1943, and Rule 47(3), Defence of India Rules, and have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each under each count, and in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The charges framed against the applicants were as follows:Firstly - That you, on or about the 3rd day of September 1945 at Orai Railway Station, District Orai, contravened Clause 3, U.P. Revised Foodgrains Supplementary (Movement) Control Order, 1943, inasmuch as you caused 200 bags of gram to be carried by rail from Orai to Gorakhpur which is outside Cawnpore Region through forged permit Ex. P-4 which was in the name of Prag Narain Suraj Bhan and not in the name of your firm, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Clause 4, U.P. Revised Foodgrains Supplementary (Movement) Contro...
Tag this Judgment!ShamsuddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All100
ORDERMalik, J.1. The facts of this case are that a ferry contractor had made an illegal demand of Rs. 9 from one Ahmad Khan to allow his bamboos to pass under the boat bridge constructed by the contractor. He was prosecuted under Section 22, Northern India Ferries Act, and has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference on the ground that the accused had, in his view, committed no offence under Section 22 of the Act. Section 22 provides that every such lessee or other person as aforesaid and any person in possession of a private ferry asking more than the lawful toll or without due cause delaying any person, animal, vehicle or other thing shall be punished. The learned Sessions Judge has said in his order that no toll is charged for allowing things to pass under the boat bridge and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any amount charged in excess of the amount of the lawful toll. I regret, I am not able to accept this...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »