Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-07-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All620a; 157Ind.Cas.347
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Three questions have been referred to this Full Bench, for an expression of opinion by a Division Bench before which a Letters Patent appeal from an order of a Single Judge of this Court dismissing an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, came up for hearing. On 2nd May 1932, the appellant filed an application in this Court before, a Single Judge for leave to appeal in forma pauperism and that application, as required by Order 44, Rule 1 was accompanied by a memorandum of appeal containing the grounds of objections and also a prayer for the appeal being allowed. No court-fee was, of course, at that time paid on the memorandum of appeal. Both the application and the memorandum of appeal were received by the learned Judge and registered as a Miscellaneous Case, and were later on put up again before him on 9th May 1932 with an office report that the application was beyond time. On that date the applicant was not present in the Court room and her application for lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-28-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All678; 157Ind.Cas.511
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an execution of decree appeal by Syed Tahir Hasan, who objected in the Court below to the execution of a decree obtained by the respondent, L. Chander Sen, on foot of a mortgage deed executed by the appellant's patients and the appellant himself, on 21st March 1921, in respect of proprietary right in the right to hold revenue free shares in a number of villages described in the mortgage deed.2. The objector-appellant was a party to the suit in which the decree for sale of the mortgaged property was passed. The father of the appellant had died before the institution of that suit, which was brought against the other two executants, including the appellant, and certain subsequent transferees. The appellant did not, enter appearance, and the proceedings were ex parte against him. His mother however contested the suit. She pleaded that the property to which the mortgage related was not transferable under the Pensions Act 23 of 1871, nor had the Court any jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-06-1935
Reported in : 155Ind.Cas.667
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent for possession over plot No. 196 of Abadi and Parti land described in the plaint by removal of the defendants' cattle troughs and thatch. The parties were co-sharers. A. partition took place between the parties and other co-sharers in 1926. The plot in dispute was allotted to the patti of the plaintiff at the time of the partition. There was at the time of partition a Bagar of the defendants' on the plot in dispute. The plaintiff brought this suit on the allegation that he was obstructed by the defendants when he wanted to make some constructions on the plot in dispute. The defendants contended that they had their Bagar on the plot in suit and therefore they had a right to remain in possession. The trial Court decreed the suit partly for possession over the plot except over that portion on which the defendants' chhappar stood. A cross-objection was filed by the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!