Allahabad Court June 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.
Khachera Vs. Kharag Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.315
Tudball, J.1. This matter raises a question of the amount of Court-fees payable upon the objections raised by the respondent to the decree of the Court below. The lower Court has granted a decree to the respondent for Rs. 1,700-2-10 to be recovered by sale of a portion of the mortgaged property. Some of the defendants have appealed. The respondent has filed objections under which he asks this Court to declare that the property of one Data Ram, which has been exempted from the operation of the decree in his favour, is also liable to be sold in execution of that decree. According to the office report the fee which is chargeable upon the memorandum of objection is to be calculated under Clause (i), Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act on the full amount decreed by the lower Court.2. To this objection is taken and reference is made to the Pull Bench ruling reported in Kesavarapu Ramahrishna Reddi v. Kotta Kota Reddi 30 M. 96 : 1 M.L.T. 311 : 16 M.L.J. 458 (F.B.).3. In Second Appeal No. 640 of 1...
Har Chand and ors. Vs. Kishori Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.639
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts sufficient for the disposal of this appeal are these. The plaintiff sold property No. 2 to the defendants under a sale-deed of the 18th August 1896. In the sale-deed the details of the receipt of consideration are given, and it is stated that a sum of Rs. 179 is left with the vendees for payment to Chaggu father of Neka, deceased, who had obtained a decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra. The defendants, however, failed to pay the amount of Rs. 179 to Chaggu, father of Neka, and the plaintiff brought an action to recover it on the 20th August 1908. The Court of first instance decreed the suit and its decree was on appeal affirmed by the lower appellate Court. From the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it appears that two points were pressed before that Court in appeal. The first was that the suit was barred by limitation, and the second was that the sum of Rs. 179 was paid. The lower appellate Court on the first point came to the conc...
Sarju Sarun Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.50a
ORDERTudball, J.1. The facts of the case, out of which this application for revision has arisen, are briefly as follows :--The house of one Musammat Bahni was broken into and certain, property stolen during her absence. The matter was reported to the police who commenced an inquiry. Suspicion was apparently thrown upon two persons, Nandu and Kundan, who in their turn suggested that the police should make inquiries from persons who were accustomed to visit the lady. In the course of the inquiry the police officer sent for the applicant Sarju and examined him. In answer to questions put by the police officer, he made certain statements suggesting that Nandu and Kundan had committed the theft and that they had melted down certain stolen property in their house that same night. In respect of this statement he was prosecuted and convicted by the joint Magistrate of the offence of defamation and was sentenced to a, fine of Rs. 50. On appeal the Sessions Judge has held that the facts did not ...
Jagannath Prasad and ors. Vs. Rustam Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.98
1. The sole question involved in this appeal is concerned with the right of lambardars in the course of management of parti lands in a village, which parti lands are timber-bearing lands, to grant a lease of that land to lessees for the purpose of cutting down timber and converting it into charcoal.2. A lease was executed in this case by the lambardars on 27th of July 1908, for a term of three years, purporting to give the plaintiffs, the lessees, power to cut down wood and convert it into charcoal. The appellants 'who are co-sharers in the village objected to and interfered with the cutting down of the timber and alleged that the lambardars had no power to grant a lease of the kind.3. The Courts below relying upon the provisions of the Wajib-ul-arz of the village came to the conclusion that lambardars were authorised to grant the lease. It is said that the provisions of the Wajib-ul-arz do not give the lambardars such power and that under the ordinary powers of management they are not...
Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Shiam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.640
Karamat Husain, J.1. One Sagan Lal on 9th May 1910 gave a zar-i-peshgi lease of an occupancy holding to Sham Lal, Kallu and Tika from 1306 to 1314F. There was a covenant in the lease that the lessee would pay the rent of the holding to the zamindar. The zamindar brought an action against Sagan Lal for enhancement of rent from Rs. 335 to Rs. 650 to taka effect from the year 1314F. Sham Lal applied to be made a party to the enhancement suit but his application was rejected. The zamindar obtained a decree against Sagan Lal, the original occupancy tenant. He, on the basis of that decree, brought a suit against Sham Lal, Kallu and Tika for arrears of rent for the year 1314F. at the enhanced rate. I am concerned here with Sham Lal only. His defence was that he was not bound to pay the rent at the enhanced rate. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim. On appeal the decree of the first Court was modified and a decree at the lower rate of rent was granted. The plaintiff comes...
Pardas Singh and anr. Vs. Dwarka Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.50
1. The point raised in this appeal is concluded by a great weight of authority. The right of redemption, it has been held, is not lost until the order absolute for foreclosure is made. In other words, that the mortgagor can redeem the mortgaged property before the decree is made absolute. This was decided in the case of Poresh Nath Mojumdar v. Ramjadu Mojumdar 16 C. 246; Audhia v. Baldeo Pershad Singh 21 C. 818 at p. 824; Ramesh v. Ram Krishna 27 C. 705; Narayana Reddi v. Papaya 22 M. 133; Nabati v. Mitter Ken 20 A. 446 and Salig Ram v. Muradan 25 A. 231. The learned Vakil for the appellant, however, relies upon the case of Ram Lal v. Tulsha Kunwar 19 A. 180, which is certainly in favour of the view presented by him. That case, however, was not followed by one of the learned Judges who took part in the decision and it has never, so far as we are aware, been followed in any Court. We dismiss the appeal....
Bholu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.51
ORDERChamier, J.1. On September the 20th of 1903, one Bholu filed a complaint against Hira Charan under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Sub-divisional. Officer at Roorkee, the presiding officer being then Chaube Salig Ram. In October that Officer dismissed the complaint as false and called upon Bholu and some of his witnesses to show cause why action should not be taken against them under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure. Before the case came on for hearing, Chaube Salig Ram had reverted to his substantive appointment as Deputy Magistrate in the District and was succeeded as Sub-divisional Officer by Mr. Chamier. The latter, after taking some evidence, came to the conclusion that he had no power to act under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, but that he had power to act under Section 195(1)(b) of the same Code, being of opinion, it appears, that Chaube Salig Ram was subordinate to him within the meaning of that Section, and he proceeded to direct that ...
Kalyan Singh Vs. Man Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.637
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent in respect of the year 1316 Fasli brought by the landlord against a tenant. The defence in so far as this appeal is concerned was, that in the year 1315 Fasli the landlord and the tenant came to an arrangement, under which the tenant agreed to surrender the land at the end of the year, and the landlord consented to it, and that, therefore, the tenant was not responsible for the rent of 1316 Fasli.2. It appears from the findings of the Courts below, that in 1315 Fasli the tenant was in difficulties about his rent, that a third party-intervened, and made an arrangement between the parties, under which the tenant was to cultivate only for 1315 and to relinquish at the end of that year, and the landlord was to consent to that arrangement in consideration of the third party paying up the rent due from the tenant. The rent was so paid by the third party, and the landlord and the tenant both agreed to the arrangement to surrender. It is ...
Lala Narsingh Parshad Vs. Shiva Tahal Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.573
Karamat Husain, J.1. This was a suit for pos-session by right of pre-emption on the basis of two wajib-ul-arzes of 1833 and 1866. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the wajib-ul-arz in question incorporated a contract of pre-emption, and nota custom of pre-emption. The reasons which led that Court to that conclusion are that the preamble of the two wajib-ul-arzes contain expressions which go to show that they embody a contract only. The second reason is that the terms of the two wajib-ul-arzes are different, and that the difference in the terms is inconsistent with the existence of a custom. The lower appellate Court affirmed the decree of the first Court and adopted the reasons of that Court. The plaintiff comes to this Court in second appeal, and it is argued by his learned Vakil that notwithstanding the use of the term agreement in the preamble, and the differences in the terms of the two wajib-ul-arzes, they must be deemed to be records of the custom of preempt...
Dirgpal Singh Vs. Surat Upadhia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.738
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts are these: Musammat Daulta Kuer, mother of the plaintiff, mortgaged the property in suit to the defendant while the plaintiff was a minor. The plots mortgaged were 18, 46/26, 47/51, 52, 53, 182, 311, 242 and 273. The plaintiff's case was that his mother, without any authority or legal necessity, mortgaged the property to the defendant for no consideration and that the mortgage of the properties, which were occupancy holdings, was void. He, therefore, claimed possession of all the plots. The defence was that the plaintiff was bound by the mortgage created by his mother. The Court of first instance, coming to the conclusion that the mortgage was not binding upon the plaintiff, gave him a decree for possession of 182, 311, 242 and 273 and dismissed the suit as to the rest on the ground that the plaintiff had no right in them. The defendant appealed and the lower appellate Court modified the decree of the first Court in this way that it dismissed the claim fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »