Allahabad Court July 1950 Judgments
Moti Lal Jhun Jhunia Vs. Mool Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All242
Malik, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for damages. The lower Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 1,327-8-0. The plaintiff had, however, claimed as damages Rs. 11,872-7 0. This appeal is for the balance, i. e. Rs. 10,644 15-0 only. On 2nd December 1941 there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant by which the defendant agreed to purchase ten cases of katan silk, Panchtara Brand No. 13.15 at the rate of Rs. 30-6-6 per pound, the date of delivery being 18th December 1941. According to the custom of the market the buyer was entitled to two days grace.2. The case of the plaintiff is that on the due date he sent a wire to the defendant to take delivery of the ten cases but that the defendant put it off till the Amawasya Day which was the 20th of December. On 20th December, the plaintiff got from the Central Bank of India 14 cases, 8 half and 6 full, of katan silk for delivery to the defendant. Up to here the facts are not in dispute, The plaintiff's furt...
Tag this Judgment!Jawala Prasad Vs. Amar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All474
Sapru, J.1. This application in revision has been presented to this Court by the defendant. On 12-12-1946 the plaintiff opposite-party, Lala Amar Nath, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of RS. 4,000 from the present applicant in the Court of the civil Judge of Hardoi. On 25-3-1947 the suit was, by mutual agreement, refer red to the arbitration of the persons, namely, Shri Sundar Lal Gupta and Shri Shiva Govind Mehrotra. The first of these two persons was counsel for the plaintiff and the second was counsel for the defendant. Three days later, i. e., on 28-3-1947, the defendant intimated to both the arbitrators that it was his desire that they should not proceed with the case because he had, subsequent to their appointment, gathered some information to the effect that his own counsel was related to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's counsel was a friend of the plaintiff and had had money dealings with him. The defendant followed up this notice to the arbitrators by an application t...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. Kanhai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All303
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is a second appeal by an objector whose objection under Section 47, Civil P. C.on the ground that the execution application was time-barred was dismissed by the executing Court and whose appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The facts of the case are that both the appellant and respondents were defendants in a partition suit in which a final decreewas passed on 25-8-1939. The final decree allottedseparate shares to the plaintiff of that suit and the present appellant and respondents, who wereall defendants in that suit. In addition some portion of the land was kept joint by the decree. The first execution application in respect of that decree was presented by the plaintiff decree-holders on 14-10-1939. This execution was for costs only. A second execution application by the plaintiff-decree-holders was presented on 15-12-1942, and in this execution the plaintiff decree-holders obtained separate possession over the kura which was separately allotted t...
Tag this Judgment!Girja Shankar and ors. Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All301
Malik, C.J.1. One Ram Nath executed a simple mortgage on 8-11-1930 in favour of Jagannath plaintiff. In the mortgage deed a 1/6th share in certain properties was included. The mortgage was for Rs. 700 and the amount was payable after one year. On the date of the mortgage Ram Nath was, however, owner of only a 1/9th share in the mortgage. In 1932 Ram Kumar, nephew of Ram Nath, died and Ram Nath inherited a 1/18th share in the property from Ram Kumar and thus became the owner of a 1/6th share of the property. Thereafter Ram Nath died and on 17-5-1933, the widow of Ram Nath as guardian of her minor sons defendants 1 and 2 executed a mortgage in favour of defendants 3 and 4. The mortgage was of a 1/18th share in the same property. In this mortgage deed no mention was made of the first mortgage. Jagannath, plaintiff, filed a suit on the basis of the mortgage dated 3-11-1930, out of which this appeal has arisen, for sale of the 1/6th share included in his mortgage. Defendants 1 and 2 did not...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. Suraj Bali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All859
Chandiramani, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The facts of the ease are that defendant respondent 1, Suraj Bali, filed a suit for foreclosure against the plaintiffs respondents on 20-4-1936. The plaintiffs were sued as minors under the guardianship of their mother Mt. Rukmin, defendant respondent 2. A preliminary decree was passed on 7-7 1936. A final decree was obtained on 19.3.1938, and in execution of the final decree possession of the property was given to defendant 1 on 14-5-1938. In 1943 the plaintiffs filed a suit for setting aside this final decree for foreclosure on various grounds. One of them was that Ram Prasad plaintiff at the time of the filing of the suit for foreclosure was a major and not a minor and that the decree in these circumstances was a nullity against him. The other plaintiffs, who were minors at the time of the present suit and the suit for closure, alleged that their guardian had been grossly negligent in the conduct of the suit and so the decree against...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar and ors. Vs. Brijbasi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All361
Brij Mohan Lal, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtors against an appellate decree of the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad.2. It appears that firm Banarsi Das Durga Prasad (hereafter described as decree-holders) obtained in 1932 a decree against the following two sets of defendants, namely--(1) Ram Ratan and his brothers and (2) Krishna Kumar, Murli Manohar and their aunt, Shrimati Javitri.3. On 31-10-1936, Ram Ratan and his brothers made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act. Krishna Kumar and Murli Manohar were impleaded as parties to those proceedings. For reasons, which do not appear on the record, Shrimati Javitri was not impleaded as a co-debtor. On 25-8-1943 the Special Judge apportioned among the debtors the debt due to the decree holders. Sam Eatan and his brothers were found liable to pay a half share of the decretal amount and Krishna Kumar Murli Manohar were held liable to pay the remaining half. Since Shrimati Javitri was not a party to...
Tag this Judgment!Saltanat Begam Vs. Syed Mohd. Saadat Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All817
Chandiramani, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal against the decree of Shri R. P. Verma, Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, dated 24-9-1947, holding that the decree in execution is declaratory only and therefore cannot be executed. 2. It appears that while the estate of Nanpara was under the Court of Wards, the proprietor, Raja Mohammad Siddique, executed a will on 8-1-1906. He had at the time four wives, Rani Saltanat Begam, the present appellant, Rani Dilaphja, Rani Champa and Rani Nasim Sahri, All these Ranis were under the will given the right to adopt a son to the Raja. The right was to be exercised by Rani Nasim Sahri first within a certain specified time, and if she failed to do so, the power was to be exercised next by Rani Saltanat Begam, appellant, and in case of default, the other two Ranis in their turn were given the power to adopt. The right of adoption was to be forfeited on the remarriage of a wife. The Raja of Nanpara had two sisters, Rani Kafiiz Begam of Utraula a...
Tag this Judgment!Swayamber Singh Vs. Ghasitey Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All479
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money due upon a simple money-bond. 2. The defendant executed a simple money-bond in favour of the plaintiff respondent on 23 11 1933 for a consideration of Rs. 980. The bond contained a provision that if any amount of six monthly interest was not paid, the creditor will have a right or option (akhtiyar hai) to recover the entire amount due under the bond withoutwaiting for the period fixed in the bond. The interest was not paid. The creditor brought the Suit on 1-12-1943, that is, within 3 years of the expiry of 10 years. The defence inter alia was that the suit was barred by time. Both Courts below have repelled this contention and decreed the suit. 3. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Harnandan Prasad has strongly relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Jawahar Lal v. Mathura Prasad, 1934 ALL. L. J. 1035 : 57 ALL. 108, and on two other subsequent caaes, namely, Rup Narain v. Tirleni Sahai, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hakim Vs. Jan Mohammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All247
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment & decree of the learned Civil Judge of Basti upholding the decree of the learned Munsif of Bansi by which he partially decreed a claim for preemption. The relevant facts are as follows:2. On 14-9-1944, Hari Prasad & Bhawa, defts. 10 & 11 sold certain Zamindari property to the defts. 1st party. There were originally seven vendees, one of them died during the pendency of the suit & his heirs, seven in number, were substituted in his place.3. A perusal of the sale-deed shows that the sale of the vendees was in specified shares. Half of the property was sold to Abdul Hakin, minor,, deft. 7, who is applt. l in this Ct., & the remaining half was told in equal shares to the rest of the vendees. The sale consideration was RS. 17,000. Some of the vendees were co-sharers with the vendors but some were strangers. On 1-11-1944,, the stranger vendees executed a deed of exchange in favour of the defts. second party & those vendees who ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. Chaube Rudra Dutt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All493
Agarwala, J.1. This is a decree-holders' second appeal arising out of an objection that the execution application was barred by time. The relevant facts are these.2. The decree under execution was passed by the Assistant Collector, first class, Kanpur, on 30-9-1938. Both the parties appealed to the District Judge. The decree-holders filed their vakalatnama in the judgment-debtor's appeal on 27-2-1939, while the judgment-debtor also filed his vakalatnama in the decree-holders' appeal, but the date is not known. Both the appeals came up for hearing on 15-5-1939. None of the parties seemed to have appeared and both the appeals were dismissed for default on that date. The decree-holders then filed an application for execution on 5-2-1942. The judgment-debtor objected that this application was beyond limitation as it was beyond three years of the date of the decree. His contention was that the order dated 15-5-1939 passed in appeal could not give a fresh starting point for purposes of limit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »