Allahabad Court March 1909 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.
Than Chand Vs. Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All346; 2Ind.Cas.400
George Knox and Griffin, JJ.1. A preliminary objection is raised to the hearing of this appeal, but we do not think it necessary to decide it, as independently of the objection we are of opinion that the appeal must fail.2. The appeal before us is a second appeal and the contention raised by the decree-holder is to the effect that Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to a sale carried out under the provisions of Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. The sale in the present instance was carried out in pursuance of an order absolute passed under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. This High Court has not thought necessary to avail itself of the power given by Section 104 of the Act to lay down any rules for carrying out orders under Chapter XV of Act No. IV of 1882. The suit out of which this appeal arose was a suit of the nature provided for in Chapter IV. In the absence of any special rule, the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure f...
Nand Dularey Lal and anr. Vs. Chand Bihari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.305
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale of mortgaged property. Nand Dularey Lal borrowed Rs. 3.200 from the plaintiffs OH the 27th of January, 1895, on the security of a bond which was executed nominally in favour of the wives of the three plaintiffs. For realization of the amount due on this security the suit was brought. The bond was executed on behalf of Nand Dularey Lal under a power-of attorney, dated the 26th of November, 1894. By this power-of-attorney Nand Dularey Lal appointed his brothers Raj Dularey, Madan Behari Lal and Bans Gopal his agents and authorised them to borrow money, sign and execute bonds in his name, hypothecate his property and get bonds registered. The bond in suit was signed by Raj Dularey Lal on behalf of Nand Dularey Lal as his attorney and was attested by Bans Gopal and Madan Behari Lal. The principal defence set up by Nand Dularey Lal was that Raj Dularey Lal was not alone authorised to execute the bond on his behalf and that the bond was not theref...
Mirzunnissa Vs. Fayaz HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.468
Richards, J.1. This was a suit for preemption based on the Muhammadan Law. There is no dispute about the facts as they have been presented to me. The property sold consisted of certain zamindari property and two houses. The plaintiff sought only to pre-empt the zamindari property. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt one house and his suit must be dismissed inasmuch as he has not claimed pre-emption in respect of the said house. It became necessary then to decide whether or not the plaintiff had a right to pre-empt the house. Both the vendor and the pre-emptor were co-sharers in the village. The house in question was situate in the village and was connected with the house of the pre-emptor by a public thoroughfare. The appellant contends that although the road was a public thoroughfare, nevertheless the soil in the road remains vested in the co-sharers, subject to a right of the public to use it as a roadway. In support of this contention he relies on the c...
Bhup NaraIn and anr. Vs. NaraIn Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All330
George Knox and Griffin, JJ.1. The order under appeal is an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly whereby reversing the decree of the lower court he remanded the case to that court to be replaced on its original number on the file of that court and to be disposed of according to law. The order continues. 'The lower court will pass a final decree in the plaintiff's favour for separate possession by partition.' The plaintiff's claim a five-ninth share in the property in dispute which is called a dera situate man agricultural village. They admit that the site upon which the dera stands is situate in a mahal of the village called mahal Multani in which they have no share. They themselves are owners of property in a mahal of the village known as mahal Surkh. When the Revenue Courts partitioned the village in 1867, the site on which the dera stands was allotted in its entirety to mahal Multani. The title of the plaintiff, rests partly upon inheritance from certain persons who wer...
Beni Prasad Vs. Kashi Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.222
1. This is a second appeal on behalf of a judgment-debtor. The decree against him was one passed on 7th August 1895. The present application for execution was put in on 26th August 1907, a few days beyond the limit of 12 years from the date on which the decree was passed. The judgment-debtor takes his stand upon the last clause contained in Section 230, Civil Procedure Code (1882), and contends that as the present application for execution has been presented more than 12 years after the date on which the decree was passed, the decree is no longer capable of execution. Both the Courts below have overruled the objection and we agree with the view which they have taken. We have been referred to a long list of applications made for execution of the decree by the decree-holder in which the applications have been fruitless because the judgment-debtor, who is said to be a well-known resident of Banda, has always contrived to be absent from his house when process has come for his arrest. On mo...
NaraIn Das Vs. Bhup NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.628
1. The order under appeal is an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly whereby reversing the decree of the lower Court he remanded the case to that Court to be replaced on its original number on the file of that Court and to be disposed of according to law. The order continues, 'The lower Court will pass a final decree in the plaintiffs' favour for separate possession by partition.' The plaintiffs claim a 5/9 share in the property in dispute which is called a dera situate in an agricultural village. They admit that the site upon which the dera stands is situate in a mahal of the village called mahal Multani in which they have no share. They themselves are owners of property in a mahal of the village known as mahal Surkh. When the Revenue Courts partitioned the village in 1867, the site on which the dera stands was allotted in its entirety to mahal Multani. The title of the plaintiffs rests partly upon inheritance from certain persons who were proprietors in possession of the...
Ram Charan and ors. Vs. Ram Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.759
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted against the sons of a deceased Hindu on foot of the alleged debt of their father. A suit was instituted in July, 1902, against Chhote and his sons to recover the money lent to Chhote. The plaintiff in that suit was the plaintiff in the present suit who was the son of Lachmi Narayan who had originally lent the money to Chhote. It was alleged in the suit that that debt was the joint debt of Chhote's family incurred by Chhote as the manager. It was held that the debt was not incurred by Chhote as a manager of the family but that it was his on private debt. The result was that the suit was dismissed against the sons of Chhote but a decree was made against him in November 1902. Chhote died and some attempts were made to execute the decree against the present defendants, but they succeeded in resisting the execution contending that a separate suit was necessary. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit. It appears that the first item of th...
Azharul Hasan Vs. Mazhar Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.467
George Knox, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad whereby on the 5th of October 1908, here voked the sanction given to prosecute one Mazhar Hasan under Section 211 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The application is under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in accordance with the decision in Emperor v. Shish Mahal (1908) A.W.N. 102. I have no option but to entertain and decide it. The learned Counsel who appears for the petitioner argued earnestly that this Court ought not to stop the sanction for prosecution seeing that the matter has been fully considered by a Deputy Magistrate who has come to the conclusion that although the person who lodged the complaint was one Ali Ausat--the person really entitled to be termed complainant is his master, the man Mazhar Hasan, who is the opposite party to this petition. I find it difficult to understand how the learned Deputy Magistrate ever brought himself to taking ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›