Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Mt. Jamna Kunwar vs Lal Bahadur And Ors. on 4 October, 1945 cites

Wiqar Ali Khan vs Narain Das Lala Rahumal on 6 January, 1939

In that respect, therefore, the case is to be distinguished from the case in Wiqar Ali Khan v. Narain Das ('39) 26 A.I.R. 1939 All. 322. We do not agree, however, with the observation that in the case before the Privy Council the Board imposed restriction as to the appeal because they considered that it should be imposed. Whether the Privy Council imposed the restriction because it should be imposed or whether they imposed it because counsel for the applicant had intimated that he proposed to restrict the appeal to the question of maintenance is not at all clear from the terms of the judgment of the Board.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Haji Sheikh Wahid-Uddin vs B. Makhan Lal And Anr. on 4 May, 1938

The other case is Sh. Wahid-ud-din v. Makhan Lal ('44) 31 A.I.R. 1944 Lah. 458. Its facts were these : In execution of a decree against Wahid-ud-din, eight items of property were sold in different lots for a sum of Rs. 42,000, on 1st December 1941. Two of the items were purchased by the decree-holders themselves and the remaining six by outsiders. Wahid-ud-din moved the execution Court under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., but his objections were disallowed and the sales were confirmed on 26th May 1942. He went in appeal before the High Court. Abdul Rashid J. set aside the sale of three items, but affirmed it with respect to the remaining five. On Letters Patent appeal this judgment was affirmed. He then made an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The learned Judges refused leave on the ground that For the purposes of Section 110 a decree or order to be appealed from, where it partly maintains the decision of the Court immediately below and partly reverses, it is deemed to be one of affirmance when the subject-matter of the appeal to His Majesty in Council is confined only to that part of the decree or order which affirms the decision of the Court below on that matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mt. Sahodra vs Ram Babu on 13 April, 1937

2. The sons and grandsons of Gauri Shanker made an application under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, on 21st September 1935. They furnished a list of certain property. On 20th August 1936, they furnished a supplementary list of further property, consisting of 37 items as belonging to them. Mt. Jamuna Kuer, the daughter of Tikaram by his first wife, took exception to the supplementary list and claimed the property as the step sister of Kunj Behari. The learned Special Judge by his judgment of 4th May 1942, rejected her claim on the ground that she was, on the authorities as they existed then, not entitled to the estate of her half brother. Against this decree she came in appeal to this Court. The learned Judges, by their judgment of 24th July 1944 held that in view of the decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mt. Sahodra v. Ram Babu ('43) 30 A.I.R. 1943 P.C. 10 and Mt. Mesar Kuer v. Bishundeo Singh ('43) 30 A.I.R. 1943 P.C. 184, she was entitled to the estate. They, however, accepted her appeal only with regard to 18 out of 37 items of the property. The applicant proposes to go in appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decision of this Court with regard to the remaining 19 items.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1