Allahabad Court February 1910 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.
Beshasher Das and ors. Vs. Abdul Jalil and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.556
1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad whereby he granted permission to the Plaintiffs in this case to withdraw from the suit which they had filed with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of the suit. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge is a brief order and in many ways unsatisfactory. There is nothing in the order which shows that the learned Subordinate Judge did grapple with the issue with which he shored have grappled viz. that the suit before him must fail by reason of some formal defect. All that he says is that he had heard much argument addressed to him by the learned Advocate for the defendants about formal defect in the plaint inasmuch as it did not mention the exact date of the mortgage and then proceeds 'I think it is a fit case to grant permission to withdraw the suit and bring a fresh suit.' This leaves it perfectly open as to whether the Court merely entertained an apprehen...
Hafiz Haji Muhammad Fakhar-ud-dIn Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.621
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the matter in controversy between the parties was referred to arbitration by consent of parties, that the arbitrator made an award, that the Court below has passed a decree in accordance with the award and that consequently no appeal lies from the decree so passed. In our judgment this objection must prevail. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the award is ab initio void and that, therefore) an appeal lies. We do not agree with this contention. It is said that the award is void because the arbitrator accepted the report of one Mr. Craig to whom certain matters were referred by consent of parties. We find that both parties agreed that some of the matters in dispute should be enquired into and reported upon by Mr. Craig. Mr. Craig was examined as a witness before the arbitrator and as the parties had agreed to accept the estimate and valuation mad...
Dipan Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Khelawan Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.557
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The defendants-appellants were owners of certain lands which they cultivated as their sir. On the 15th of July 1905, they executed a document in favour of the plaintiff-respondent to the following effect they set forth that they had taken a loan of Rs. 599 from the plaintiff and had placed him in actual physical possession of their sir lands so that he might cultivate the lands himself or through sub-tenants in order that the plaintiff might recover from the income of the land the interest on his money. They made a stipulation as to the payment of revenue due on the lands with which we are not concerned. They further contracted that they should redeem the mortgage only by paying the principal in the pumamashi of Jeth of any year. They further stipulated that if they or any of their heirs in future should dispossess the plaintiff then the latter should be able to recover from then the amount lent with interest as d...
Radhay Parshad Vs. Musammat Nannu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.669
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts of the case are these. In khewat No. 35 of the former settlement and No. 25 of the recent settlement one Rasul Baksh was the owner of one-half. He was succeeded by his two daughters, Musammat Nanhoo the plaintiff and Musammat Soghra, whose step-sister the plaintiff is described to be but it appears that they were half-sisters on the side of their father Rasul Baksh. Musammat Soghra died and was succeeded by her husband Abdul Rabim and her son Abdul Kabir. Abdul Rahim sold the property in dispute to Pandit Radhe Prasad. The plaintiff instituted the suit which grave rise to this appeal for pre-emption on the basis of the wajib-ul-arz on the ground that under the terms of the wajib-ul-arz she had a preferential right. The pleas raised in defence for the purposes of this appeal were that the plaintiff was not a rishtadar karibi of Abdul Rahim and that the defendant like the plaintiff was a shikmi hissadar in khewat No. 25 and that the plaintiff had no prefere...
Ganesh Singh Vs. Debi Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.419
1. This second appeal Arises out of Execution Proceedings, taken by one Ganesh Singh on the basis of a compromise decree obtained by him on the 29th of August 1907.2. On the 8th of March 1907, Debi Singh had executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of Ganesh Singh. Possession over the property mortgaged was, however, not given and in consequence Ganesh Singh brought a suit for possession. The parties came to terms with each other with the result that in accordance with the compromise a simple money decree was passed in favour of Ganesh Singh. One of the terms of the compromise embodied in the decree was that the decree was not to be executed for 2| months. At the end of this period as payment had not been made, Ganesh Singh asked the Court to attach, and bring to sale the property which had formed the subject-matter of the mortgage dated the 8th of March 1907.3. The judgment-debtor objected that the mortgagee was not entitled to bring this property to sale otherwise than by i...
Safdar Singh Vs. Akbar Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.497
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant on the following allegations. The appellant was the owner of certain immovable property. On 17th June 1903, he created a mortgage on a part thereof. On 14th July 1903, he executed in favour of the respondents an unconditional deed of gift, reciting therein that the respondents would be liable for payment of the mortgage debt, and that he delivered possession to them in respect of the whole of the property in so far as it was capable of physical possession. After the execution, the respondents applied for mutation of names. The appellant contested this application but the Revenue Court held in favour of the other side and granted the application. The plaintiff then brought the present suit, stating that the defendants had assured him that they would redeem the mortgaged land and that they would pay him Rs. 84 a year out of the income of the estate and that on this condition, he executed a deed of gift but it was also...
Beni Prasad Tewari and ors. Vs. NaraIn Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.529
1. This first appeal arises out of execution proceedings connected with a decree for possession over 14 annas share of mauza Dharampur. The decree contains a direction that the mesne profits were to be determined in the execution department. As a certain amount of argument in the case has turned upon facts prior to the decree, it is necessary to recapitulate these facts. The decree-holders, who are appellants here brought a suit for redemption and also for mesne profits, arising out of the following circumstances. On the 25th of June 1896, they deposited what they considered to be the mortgage money in Court and called upon the respondents, under Section 83, Transfer of Property Act, to accept the money deposited in full discharge of the amount due on the mortgage and for delivery of the mortgage deed. The respondents did not accept the money so deposited and the appellants had to bring a suit, which they did on the 16th of October 1901. This suit resulted in a decree on the 11th of Ap...
Mathura Prasad Pande Vs. Gauri Shankar Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.564
1. These proceedings arise out of an application made by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale held by order of (he Court. The applicant sets out that upon 'his being declared the purchaser he at once paid into Court the sum of Rs. 1,000 towards the purchase-money, although he was required only to deposit at that time 25 per cent, of the purchase-money, i.e., of Rs. 2,200. Before the balance of the purchase-money was due from him the judgment-debtor approached the Court with an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and asked the Court to set aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 89. So far as we can ascertain from the record, along with this application the judgment-debtor deposited in Court a sum equal to five per cent, of the purchase-money for payment to the purchaser. He also deposited in Court a sum for payment to the decree-holder. We are not concerned with that in these proceedings. It does not, however, appear that the judgment-debtor pai...
Mumtaz HusaIn Vs. A.E. Lewis
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.467
1. The plaintiff-appellant is a Sub-overseer in the Betwa Canal department, Jhansi Division, and the defendant is an Assistant Engineer of the same Division, under whom the plaintiff-appellant works. On the 23rd of March 1907, the defendant went to the place where earth-works were being carried out and began to check and measure the earth work. It is said that the defendant complained of inaccuracies in the entries of the plaintiff and was annoyed at the assertion of the plaintiff that the entries were correct and, therefore, used insulting language to the plaintiff and struck him with a cane. Other allegations of improper conduct on the part of the defendant are also alleged. The defendant in his written statement, denied the allegations of the plaintiff and, amongst other defences, set up a defence under Section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act XLV of 1882, alleging that all that happened was in the discharge by the defendant of Government duties and in the capacity of a Gover...
Thakur Karanpal Singh Vs. Bhima Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.423
1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this case filed a suit in the rent Court for profits. On the date fixed for hearing neither the plaintiff nor his mukhtar were present in Court and the case was struck off the file in default. The appellant then went in appeal to the Additional District Judge of Aligarh and that Court held that no appeal lay. 'The Appellant' it observed 'was attempting to appeal from an order under the Tenancy Act of 1901 and that Act gave no right of appeal from an order'. The appellant comes here in second appeal and contends that an appeal did lie. We have heard a long and careful argument addressed to us, by the learned Vakil for the appellant, but the matter seems to us to be covered by the previous decisions of this Court. Indeed there seems to us no need for any further decision on the point. The Tenancy Act of 1901 is an Act which contains in itself an interpretation clause in which some twenty and more expressions used in the Act are interpreted. No pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »