Allahabad Court April 1950 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.
Mahabal Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All604
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. The fundamental question common to the revision and the two connected second appeals relates to the legal effect of a mortgage of tenancy or occupancy rights by a tenant and to the relief, if any, which can be granted to such a mortgagee in a suit brought by the mortgagor. There is also a question as to the appropriate form of action. The controversy arising in these cases will be clearer by a statement of facts in each case. I shall first take up the revision application.2. This application arises out of proceedings under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act and has arisen in the following manner. On 13th October 1900, Ram Adhin and Drigbijai Singh mortgaged an occupancy holding to Sheo Narain for Rs. 1000/-. The original mortgagors and the mortgagee are dead and are represented by their heirs and legal representatives. The representatives of the mortgagors filed an application under Section 12 for redemption of the mortgage and they claimed redemption on the grou...
Chotey Lal Vs. Mt. Durga Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All661
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit for his ejectment from a room and a dalan and some open space in front of them situated in Mohalla Uncha Mandi of the city of Allahabad. One Mt. Kallo was the maid servant of the plaintiff. She stood in need of a house. The plaintiff permitted her to construct a house on the disputed site on the condition that the right of possession was for her lifetime, only and upon her death the plaintiff would be entitled to the possession of the site. Mt. Kallo died in 1940. The suit was brought by the plaintiff in 1944 on the ground that, in view of the conditions under which Mt. Kallo was allowed to construct and occupy the house, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the site. The defendants were the heirs of Mt Kallo.2. It appears that subsequent to the oral agreement between the parties a deed was executed by Mt. Kallo on 19th November 1928, embodying the terms stated above and agreeing to pay a...
Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh Vs. the Universal Film Co. (India) L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All696
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising out of a suit for recovery of rupees 1280-13-4 brought by the respondent against the appellant.2. The plaintiff is a limited liability Company called the Universal Film Company Limited, Lucknow. It went into voluntary liquidation on 13th December 1941, and Mr. Kashi Prasad, Advocate, was appointed liquidator. Rai Krishna Pal Singh, the taluqdar of Birapur, who is now represented by the Deputy-Commissioner of Pratapgarh in charge of the Court of Wards, purchased 100 shares of the Company at RS. 10 each share for a sum of Rs. 1000. These shares were allotted to him on 25th November 1936. Rai Krishna Pal Singh paid Rs. 250 upon allotment and he was still liable to pay the balance of Rs. 750 according to the Company. Rai Krishna Pal Singh was a director of this Company also at one time. He did not pay the sum due from him, whereupon, the Company brought a suit for recovery of, that amount plus Rs. 513-13-4 as interest at 12 per cen...
Badri Prasad and anr. Vs. Shankar Lall
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All713
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. The question which the Full Bench is invited to decide in this appeal is as follows :'Is an order refusing to amend a decree under Section 8, Debt Redemption Act a question relating to execution or discharge of the decree and as such appealable under Section 47, Civil P. C., as held in Mohammad Abdul Razzak v. Mt. Parvati Devi, 1942 O. W. N. Rev. 607: A. I. R. (29) 1942 All. 394 (F. B.) or does not the contrary view in Salik Ram v. Ram Sarup, 1945 O. W. N. 230 : A I. R. (32) 1948 Oudh 251 (F. B.) lay down the correct law ?'2. The facts may be shortly stated : A preliminary decree for sale on foot of a mortgage was passed in favour of the respondent Shankar Lal against the appellants Badri Prasad and Bishambhar Dayal on 30th October 1935. This decree was made final on 18th May 1940. On 18th May 1943, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree. On 3rd August, the judgment-debtors applied for amendment of the decree under Section 8, U. P. Debt Redemption Act....
Balwant Singh and ors. Vs. Umrao Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All334
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The only point urged is whether the custom of pre-emption existed in tha mahal in suit. 2. The property ia dispute is in patti jatan mahal muddlehem. In this mahal muddlehem there is another patti harnam. Now this mahal muddlehem came into existence in a partition held in the village in the year 1893. In the year 1882, there was a settlement in the village called the settlement of Munshi Nasir Ali. At that time there were three pattis in the village. It does not appear that there was any mahal. These pattis were known as patti jatan, patti Brahmanan and patti bhagwan. There were two wajib-ul-arzes. One wajib. ul-arz was for the entire village, Ex. 2. In this wajib-ul-arz, the custom of pre-emption was recorded. There was a separate wajib ul-arz for patti jatan. In this wajib-ul-arz, it was mentioned that the proprietor, who was the sole proprietor of the entire patti, had a right to transfer the propert...
Sunder Lal Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All205
Sapru, J.1. This is a defendant a application in revision. The opposite party, Ram Sarup, who was the plaintiff in the suit sued the defendant for recovery of Rs. 800 as damages caused to his wooden shop which the applicant had taken on rent from the plaintiff. The Court below held him liable to make good the loss on the ground that there is a special contract regarding liability for losses in para. 3 of the agreement. Admittedly the loss which has taken the shape of the destruction of the wooden shop which the defendant was using as his betel shop was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant. According to the learned Judge, the defendant who is a betel seller and had hired the shop on rent for selling betels took all the care which can reasonably be demanded from a person in dealing with his own property. The loss sustained by the wooden shop was due to a communal riot which occurred in Meerut and for which the defendant, in no way, is responsible. Shops and houses were ...
Chittan Singh Vs. Sahib Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All617
Malik, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. One Baren Singh died leaving a brother, Sahib Dayal, and a widow, Mt. Maharaji. Mt. Maharaji on 23rd January 1930, executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter, Mt. Sukhraji, and her daughter's son Chittan Singh. A Suit (No. 107 of 1930) was filed by Sahib Dayal, brother of Baran Singh, for the cancellation of this deed of gift on the ground that Baran Singh was a member of a joint Hindu family with Sahib Dayal and on Baran Singh's death the property came to Sahib Dayal and his son, Lakhan Singh, by survivorship and that the widow had no right to execute the deed of gift in favour of her daughter or daughter's son. The daughter's son, Chittan Singh, was a minor and was impleaded under the guardianship of his father. On 27th March 1931, the parties settled the terms and the guardian of the minor, Chittan Singh, applied for permission to enter into a compromise under O. 32, R. 7, Civil P. C. Permission was granted, the compromise was enter...
B. Chotey Lal Vs. Fazlul Rahman Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1954All176
Wali Ullah, J.1. These are two appeals against two orders of the Civil Judge of Moradataad dated 30-8-1941, and 28-3-1942, by which a decree was amended under Section 8, U. P. Debt Redemption Act (Act 13 of 1940).2. The facts cover a long period and are rather complicated. Abdul Karim and his son Fazlul Rahman hold considerable property. On 11-1-1924 the father and the son granted a simple mortgage in favour of the respondent, Rai Bahadur Chotey Lal, for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. It was in respect of some house property as well as some zamindari property in three villages viz. Ichaura Kamboo, Dalpatpur and Papri. Between 1927 and 1928 certain payments were made in part atisfaction of the debt. The mortgage was put in suit--suit No. 169 of 1923--and on 28-1-1929, a decree was passed on the basis of this mortgage for a sum of Rs. 59,878-14-6. In satisfaction of this decree as well (?) substantial payments were made with the result that by 21-7-1931, the judgment debtors had discharged the d...
Gajraj Singh Vs. Mt. Deohlu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All331
Seth, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Allahabad, which, on account of its brevity, may appropriately be reproduced in extenso in this judgment. It runs thus: 'It is impossible to consider the applicant a fit guardian of the person of the minor as there is admittedly no woman living in his house and the youngest minor is only four years told and the female minor is aged 14. Application rejected.' 2. This order is so sketchy that it is not possible for me to regard it otherwise than unsatisfactory. It may be possible to gather from its perusal that it is an order intended to dispose of an application under Section 10, Guardians and Wards Act, but many relevant facts have been completely omitted from it. The learned District Judge has not chosen to mention even those facts which are required by the statute to be mentioned in an application for guardianship and which have to be taken into consideration by an appellate Court as well as by the Court of first ins...
Ghafoor Darzi Vs. Ram Nath Misir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All655
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal and it raises an interesting question of limitation. The decree in execution was for money passed on 16th November 1983. On 6th November 1936, it was put into execution, but the application for execution was struck off on 23rd November 1936, Another application for execution was made by the decree-holder on 17th March 1944. Objection was taken to this by the judgment-debtors on the score of limitation. This objection was allowed, although in view of the decree having meanwhile been amended under the Debt Redemption Act on 9th September 1945, the Court observed in its order that the question of the effect of the amendment under the said Act was left open. Then the application for execution of the amended decree, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was made by the appellant on 29th April 1945 (1948?). The judgment-debtors-respondents again objected to the execution on the ground of limitation. The execution Court dismissed the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »