Allahabad Court November 1911 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.
Bande Ali Vs. Gokul Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All172
H.G. Richards, C.J., and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit 'in which the plaintiff claimed joint possession of a certain share in a grove. The defence was that the suit was barred by Section 43 of Act XIV of 1882, having regard to previous litigation between the parties. The previous litigation consisted of a suit in which the plaintiff sued the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and appropriating the fruits of the grove. There was also a claim for damages. This last mentioned suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession, and that neither injunction nor damages could, therefore, be claimed. The court of first instance dismissed the present suit. The court of first appeal reversed the court of first instance and held that the suit was not barred by Section 43. The learned Judge of this Court in a very careful and elaborate Judgment reversed the court of first appeal and restored the decree...
Mirza Bandey Ali Vs. Gokul Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.154
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed joint possession of a certain share in a grove. The defence was that the suit was barred by Section 43 of Act XIV of 1882 having regard to previous litigation between the parties. The previous litigation consisted of a suit in which the plaintiff sued the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and appropriating the fruits of the grove. There was also a claim for damages. This last mentioned suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession and that neither injunction nor damage could, therefore, be claimed. The Court of first instance, dismissed the present suit. The Court of first appeal reversed the order of Court of first, instance and held that, the suit was not barred by Section 43 The learned Judge of this Court, in a very careful and elaborate judgment, reversed the Court of first appeal and restored the decree of the Court of first inst...
Sohni Vs. Mohan Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.944
1. We think that the ground on which our learned colleague decided the case is correct, and it is unnecessary to go into the other Question of the powers of a Hindu father and the right of the sons to challenge the exercise of those powers. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs....
Ganpat Prasad and anr. Vs. Sarju
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All168
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. There has been some discussion in this Court as to what the lower appellate court intended to find, but in our opinion the findings are perfectly clear. The appellants here were commission agents carrying on business at Karwi in the Banda district. One Munna Lal, the proprietor of a shop at Katni in the Central Provinces, had five hundred bags of grain stored at Badausa in the Banda district. On the 25th of December, 1907, the defendants acting as commission agents of behalf of Munna Lal, sold the five hundred bags of grain to the respondent at the rate of 9 seers 6 chataks to the rupee, and the respondent paid them Rs. 51 as earnest money. Delivery of the grain was to be given in eight days ; but Munna Lal, the owner of the grain, refused to allow the appellants to deliver it to the respondent on the ground that he had not authorized them to sell the grain at the rate at which it was sold. The learned Judge finds distinctly that the appellants were au...
Ganpat Prasad and anr. Vs. Arju
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.94
1. There has been some dicassion in this Court as to what the lower Appellate Court intended to find, in our opinion, the findings are perfectly clear. The appellants here were commission agents carrying en business at Karwi in the Banda District. One Mannu Lal, the proprietor of a shop at Katri in the Central Provinces, had five hundred bags of grain stored at Badausa in the Banda District. On the 25th of December 1907, the defendants, acting as commission agents on behalf of Mannu Lal, sold the five hundred bags of grain to the respondent at the rate of 9 seers 6 chitaks to a rupee and the respondent paid them Rs. 51 as earnest-money. Delivery of the grain was to be given in eight days. But Mannu Lal, the owner of the grain, refused to allow the appellants to deliver it to the respondent on the ground that he had not authorized them to sell the grain at the rate at which it was sold. The learned Judge finds distinctly that the appellants were authorized by Mannu Lal to sell the grain...
Kuar Radhka Raman Parshad and ors. Vs. Musammat Gulzari Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.147
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal; and the objection is to the effect that no appeal lies. The application before the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur was an application on the part of the judgment-debtor praying that the sale of certain property which had been held by the Court might be set aside. The Court considered the application and, in our opinion, dealt with it under powers which it believed it had under Order XXI Rule 90. It passed an order setting aside the sale and the ground on which it set aside the sale was that the Court had before it no decree and no certificate such as is required in the case of decrees sent from a foreign Court for execution to another Court. Order XLIII, Rule 1(i) grants an appeal from orders setting aside a sale. Section 104 of the Code exacts that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal in such a case. This objection is fatal. We dismiss this appeal with costs.2. But, inasmuch as the case is one which, calls...
Bihari Lal and ors. Vs. Durga Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.156
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage made on the 12th of November 1880, by three persons, namely, Mulch Ram Singh, Kanbai Singh and Durjan Singh, in favour of Ram Dayal, Behari Lal and Kishori Lal, the predecessor-in-title of the defendants-appellants. The property comprised in the mortgage was a 10-bisw-is, 13 1/4--biswansis, share in the village of Mukimpur. In this property the share of Mukh Ram was 8 biswas and the remainder belonged to the other two mortgagors. The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 8,500 and the term of the mortgage was ten years. The plaintiffs are the assignees of the interests of same of the mortgagors. It is common ground that in execution of a decree obtained upon a prior mortgage of 1874 the shares of Kanhai Singh and Durjan Singh, namely, 2 biswas 13 1/4 biswansis was sold by auction and passed out of the possession of the mortgagees in 1686. The mortgage-deed in suit provides that the rate of interest was 1...
Lalman and ors. Vs. Kalka Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.194
1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the decree-holders to execute a money-decree held by them. The mode in which the assistant of the Court is required is set out as being by attachment of a malikana allowance. Both the Courts below have disallowed the application. It is contended before us that Order XXXIV,- Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar the present application. It was that order and that rule which the lower Appellate Court held to be sufficient reason for disallowing the application. We have examined the record of the suit and we find both from it and from the application for execution that the property which the decree-holders seek to attach is a malikana allowance payable from a Government Treasury. Such allowance is of the nature of a pension and by Act XXIII of 1871, Section 11, no money which is due or which is to become due on account of any pension or allowance shall be liable to seizure, attachment, or sequestration by process of any Cou...
Lekhraj Kunwar Vs. Harpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All65
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar (the plaintiff) from the decree of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces of India, dated the 29th of May, 1908, which set aside the decree in the plaintiff's favour of the District Judge of Jaunpur, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit and certain objections which had been filed by her.2. In the suit in which the decree now under appeal was made the plaintiff, who was the widow of Sheopal Singh, claimed proprietary possession of the riasat of Singra Mau in the district of Jaunpur, and mesne profits. The defendants to the suit, who are respondents to this appeal, are Thakur Harpal Singh, a distant cousin in the male line of Sheopal Singh, Shamsher Bahadur Singh, a younger brother of the father of Thakur Harpal Singh, Raghuraj Bahadur Singh and Rampal Singh, minors, sons of Shamsher Bahadur Singh, and Thakurain Janki Kunwar, the widow of Rudarpal Singh, who was a brother of Sheopal Singh and had died witho...
Abdul Hakim Khan and anr. Vs. Chandan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.83
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents under Section 77 of the Registration Act to secure registration of a sale-deed which was admittedly executed by defendant No. 1 as general attorney of defendant No 2. The suit was contested by both the defendants. Registration wan refused by the Sub-Registrar on the 20th of December 1908. Within the period of thirty days from that date the plaintiff-respondents applied to the Registrar under Section 73 of the Act. A date was fixed by the Registrar for an inquiry to be made under Section 74. On the date fixed the parties did not appear, and the Registrar recorded an order dismissing the application. The plaintiffs then brought the present, suit. The suit was resisted chiefly on the ground that there had been no inquiry by the Registrar under Section 74 of the Act and that, therefore, there had been no such refuel to register as is contemplated by Section 77. A plea has been raised in this Court, that, the applicat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »