Allahabad Court May 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.
Baldeo Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.288
1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Maiapuri in which he recommends that the conviction of Baldeo Prasad under Section 147 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act should be set aside. The facts which are somewhat peculiar are as follows:--In a Civil suit between Baldeo Prasad as plaintiff and the Municipal Board of Etawah as defendant, it was decided by the District Judge on appeal that Baldeo Prasad was not entitled to close certain drain in front of his house; but that he might have the platform in front of his house connected with the public road by means of a stair case. The decree directed the Municipal Board to erect the stair case within two months, in default Baldeo Prasad was entitled to erect it himself and recover the cost of doing so from the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board took action, which they said complied with the decree. But Baldeo Prasad contended that the Board had not complied with the decree and he proceeded to enlarge the stair case which the...
Bhoj Raj Vs. Srigopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.647
Banerji, J.1. This was a suit brought by a lambardar for his remuneration as such, against a co-sharer. The claim was resisted on the ground that the defendant himself paid the revenue and the lambardar was not, therefore, entitled to get his fees. This contention was overruled by the Court below, which made a decree in the plaintiff's favour for the amount due, but did not allow interest. It is contended in this appeal that under the provisions of Section 144 of Act III of 1901, a lambardar is only entitled to his fees, if revenue is paid through him. It is further contended, though this plea does not appear in the memorandum of appeal, that under Section 159 of the Tenancy Act a lambardar car. sue for his fees only when he brings a suit against a co-sharer for arrears of revenue paid to Government through the lambardar. This last contention is wholly untenable. Section 159 provides for a suit by a lambardar, first for arrears of Revenue, secondly for village expenses, and thirdly for...
Malik Mohammad Ayub Vs. Malik Mohammad Mahmood and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.831
Karamat Husain, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Allahabad granting an application to sue in forma pauperis. The ground taken is that there was no valid presentation of the application to sue in forma pauperis and the Court below was bound to reject it. At the hearing of this revision, a preliminary objection is taken that inasmuch as the order is an interlocutory order it cannot be revised. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Har Saran Singh v. Mohammed Raza 4 A. 91, and on Bhulnesri Dat v. Bidia Das A.W.N. (1882) 69. In the latter case, Straight and Oldfield JJ., following the rulings of this Court, held 'that they could not interfere in revision with the Subordinate Judge's order refusing the application of the petitioners to sue in forma pauperis.' The learned Advocate for the applicant relies on Faiz Mohammed Khan v. Azizunnissa A.W.N. (1893) 218, in which a single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion t...
Kishan Dayal and ors. Vs. Har Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.287
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts of the case are these:--According to paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs' shop, on the 31st December, 1907, purchased 200 bags of bajra through the defendants' agency and directed them to send 100 bags to Amroha and 100 bags to Kanth; but the defendants' agency, contrary to the direction, sent 100 bags to Kunwat in the State of Jaipore instead of Kanth. The plaintiffs had to take delivery of their goods from Kunwat aforesaid. In this transaction they sustained an actual loss of Rs. 420 which ought to be paid by the defendants, but they are not inclined to do so. The plea in defence in respect of the above allegation was as follows: 'The 200 bags of bajra which Ram Sarup, a gomashata (agent) of the plaintiffs and Chandu Lal, son of Har Pershad, plaintiff, bought through the defendants' agency, were despatched to Amroha and other places by the said Ram Sarup and Chandu Lal themselves and not through the defendants' commission agency. If the plaintiffs...
Ram Autar Sahu Vs. Gulab Chaudhri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.700
Karamat Husain, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arose was for sale upon a mortgage dated the 10th of October 1894. The suit was instituted on the 6th of August 1907. The main plea in defence was that the debt had been paid off in part. The Court of first instance repelled the plea and decreed the suit on the 4th of December (sic). On appeal the lower appellate Court agreed with the learned Munsif that there had been no payment, but came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge in his judgment remarks as follows:'The suit is beyond time unless it is exempted under Section 31 of the new Limitation Act. At the time it was filed originally twelve years had elapsed and the suit was withdrawn. But to bring the case under Section 31 it must have been withdrawn on that account. Now this suit was withdrawn because tartih was defective. Tartib is perhaps best rendered as the frame of the suit. It has nothing to do with limitation. It is stated b...
Musammat Chhadngia Vs. Joti Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.703
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Court below refusing to grant leave to the applicant to sue in forma pauperis. The Court refused her application for leave not on the ground that she was not a pauper or on any of the grounds mentioned in Order XXXIII, Rule 5, but on the ground that the litigation would very likely end in failure. This is not a ground upon which the Court could refuse an applicator leave to sue in forma pauperis. This was held in Faiz Mohammad Khan v. Azizunnisa A.W.N. (1893) 218. The Court below in refusing the application has acted illegally. I accordingly allow the application, set aside the order of the Court below and send back the case to that Court with directions to dispose of it in accordance with law. The costs in this case will follow the event....
Choudhry Balbhadar Singh Vs. Chunni Lal Sahu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.707
Banerji, J.1. The opposite party obtained a decree against the applicant under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree was made absolute by an order dated 18th August 1906. The applicant, who is the judgment-debtor to the decree, applied to the Court below for amendment of the order absolute on the ground that it was not in conformity with the judgment. The Court below having dismissed the application, the present application for revision has been filed. What the judgment-debtor really wanted was not to bring the order absolute, made on 18th August 1906, into conformity with any judgment, but to have' it amended on the ground that it did not comply with the terms of the compromise which was the basis of the decree under Section 88. There being no judgment, with which the order of 18th May 1906 was at variance, the Court below was right in dismissing the application. The Court below apparently treated the application as one for review of judgment. If the order complained ...
Tapaishar Dichhit Vs. Gokul Dichhit and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.839
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant to enforce a right of pre-emption on the basis of village custom. Both the lower Courts have held on a construction of the wajib-ul-araiz of 1833 and 1862 that the plaintiff has failed to prove the custom which he alleges. The pre-emptor, the vendor and the vendee are all co-sharers in the village. The pre-emptor and the vendor are near co-sharers in the same thoh. The plaintiff relied upon a custom as set forth in the wajib-ul-arz of 1862. According to that document, a near co-sharer has a right of preemption as against the remote co-sharers in the village. The plaintiff's case is that this record is a record of custom and that the document has been wrongly interpreted by the lower Court. The respondent filed copies of the wajib-ul-araiz of 1833 and of 1862. They also filed a copy of the document called kaifiat sarishta nizamat. Under the document of 1833 it is quite clear that the plaintiff would have no right of pre-emptio...
Meghraj and anr. Vs. Ganga Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.286
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce payment of a mortgage debt by sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgage is dated the 28th of January, 1S90, and was executed by the father of the defendants, who has since died, in favour of the plaintiffs, to secure a principal sum of Rs. 270, with compound interest, at the rate of 24 per cent, per annum. In their written statement the defendants do not admit the execution of the mortgage and they say that the rate of interest charged therein is excessive and penal. They further say that the plaintiffs obtained the mortgage in bad faith; and that the property comprised therein was not of greater value than Rs. 3,000, and was already subject to a possessory mortgage. The learned Additional Judge gave a decree to the plaintiffs for the principal amount of the bond but reduced the interest payable to simple interest at Rs. 20 per cent, per mensem. He surmised that the plaintiffs extorted more onerous terms from the mortgagor than the term...
Musammat Moti Begam Vs. Ahbab Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.574
1. The facts are these: By a sale-deed of the 23rd December 1896 Musammat Moti Begam the plaintiff in the suit sold to Ahbab Ali the defendant in the suit a plot of land. The material portion of the sale-deed is as follows:-- 'Out of the land to the South of that house, land measuring 16 builder's yards East and West, by 12 builder's yards North and South, together with, foundations of the Southern wall and the well towards the south with a pair of doors and frame, the boundaries of which are set forth below was sold by me etc., etc..' The plaintiff on the basis of the above sale-deed brought an action against the defendant to have it declared that she sold only a portion of the plot lying to the South and measuring 16 by 12. The case of the defendant was that the entire plot within the boundaries was sold and that the specification of the area was immaterial; he further resisted the claim on the ground of equitable estoppel.2. The Court of first instance found that there was no estopp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »