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.
Chandan and ors. Vs. Abdul Hakim Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All165
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.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 was refused by the Sub-Registrar on the 20th of December, 1908. Within the period of thirty days from that date the plaintiffs 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 plaintiff 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 refusal to register as is contemplated by Section 77. A plea has been raised in ...
Jagarnath Ojha Vs. Ram Phal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All150
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. The only question in this appeal is whether a plaintiff, who had never been in possession but was entitled to possession jointly with other persons, could be granted a decree for joint possession. The facts of the case are fully set forth in the order of our brother Chamier, by which he referred this case to a Bench of two Judges. They are briefly these: The property in suit, which is a share of zamindari, originally belonged to one Lachmi Ojha. It passed on his death to his widow, and on the widow's death to the plaintiff, to the respondents, and to others. As the plaintiff did not obtain possession of the property, he brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for possession jointly with the defendants. He also-claimed damages, but that part of the claim has not been pressed in this Court. Other reliefs were asked for with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The court of first instance decreed a part of the claim, but refused to grant a dec...
Kedar Nath Kasondhan and anr. Vs. Naipal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All155
Banerji and Tudball JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants to enforce a mortgage of the 27th of December, 1891, executed by the first two defendants. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are puisne mortgagees of the property mortgaged, and defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are the sons of defendant No. 5. The property mortgaged, which the plaintiffs seek to sell, is what is known in the Gorakhpur district as a madndaddri tenure. The courts below have held that such a tenure is not saleable and otherwise transferable, and that a suit for the sale of such a tenure is not maintainable. It is admitted that if the plaintiffs cannot obtain a decree for Bale, they are not entitled to a decree for money only as more than six years had elapsed from the date on which the mortgage money became due before the institution of the suit. The only question which we have to consider is whether a mdndaddri tenure is transferable and a decree can be made for the sale of such a tenure. It is ...
Ram Sarup Vs. Jasodha Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All158
H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to recover certain money. A portion of the money was due upon accounts pure and simple for goods sold. Another portion of it the plaintiff claimed as having been advanced by him to the defendant and for which a certain document, alleged to be a promissory note, was passed. The claim is then made for Rs. 35-11-6 the price of cloth; Rs. 400 principal and Rs. 140-6-0 interest, that is, Rs. 540-6-0, in respect of a cash debt, in all Rs. 576-1-6, due under account books together with the costs of the suit and future interest. It will thus be seen that the plaintiff bases his claim upon his account books, and it is a claim for money lent. When the document to which we have referred was produced, it appears that the stamp was cancelled by means of two lines drawn crosswise upon it.2. The court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim, but holding that the stamp was not effectively cance...
Ram Sarup Vs. Musammat Jasoda Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.138
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover certain money. A portion of the money was due upon accounts pure and simple for goods sold. Another portion of it the plaintiff claimed as having been advanced by him to the defendant and for which a certain document, alleged to be a promissory-note, was passed. The claim is then made for Rs. 35-11-6, the price of cloth, Rs. 400 principal and Rs. 140-6-0 interest, in all Rs. 540-6-0 in respect of cash debt, in all Rs. 576-1-6 due under account-books, together with the costs of the suit and future interest. It will thus be seen that the plaintiff bases his claim upon his account-books and it is a claim for money lent. When the document to which we have referred was produced, it appears that the stamp was cancelled by means of two lines drawn crosswise upon it.2. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim but holding that the stamp was not effectively cancelled allowed other evidence including th...
Sarovi Begam Vs. Haider Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.404
Chamier, J.1. In this case, in execution of a decree held by the appellant against the respondents, certain property of the respondent, Musammat Ikram-un-nissa, was sold by auction to the appellant. Within thirty days of the sale the respondent, Sultan Muhammad, appeared before the Subordinate Judge with a tender of the required amount in the usual form, duly filled up and beating on it an office report, and he orally requested the Subordinate Judge to set aside the sale. The Subordinate Judge signed the tender, returned it to him, and told him to go and pay the money into the treasury; and the money was paid in by Sultan Muhammad on the same day. The tender was made on behalf of Ikram-un-nissa. On a later date, the case was called on before the Subordinate Judge and he confirmed the sale forgetting that an oral application to have the sale set aside had been made to him by Sultan Muhammad Khan. The three respondents then applied to him for a review of his order, and thereupon he set i...
Emperor Vs. Behari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All146
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, The facts of the case are as follows:--The applicants for revision in the court below, namely, Behari Lal and Bashir-ud-din are the lessees of Singhi Rampur Ferry. As such lessees, they employed certain persons to attend to the ferry and collect the tolls. These servants in contravention of the law extorted unauthorized and excessive tolls from certain passengers, thereby committing an offence under Section 22 of the Ferries Act. The lessees, who apparently were not present and took no part in the extortion, have been prosecuted for this offence and have been convicted and fined, apparently on the ground that whatever the servants have done in the course of their employ meat, that act is the act of the masters. The learned Government Advocate has called my attention to a ruling in Queen-Empress v. Tyab Ali (1900) I.L.R. 24 Bom. 432. That is a case under the Arms Act. The accused therein was a licensed vendor of arm...
Huran Bibi and anr. Vs. Hingan Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All148
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision which has been made under the following circumstances. One Musammat Hingan Bibi applied under the Succession Certificate Act for a certificate enabling her to recover certain debts due to her deceased husband. She was opposed by two parsons, who are sisters of the deceased. The application was made in the court of the Munsif, which is a court empowered by the Local Government under Section 26, Clause (1) of Act VII of 1889, to deal with such applications. The Munsif after some proceedings decided in favour of the applicant for the certificate. The two sisters who had objected, preferred an appeal to the District Court. The District Judge transferred the appeal for hearing and decision to the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Cawnpore. That court has dismissed the appeal. The applicants have come here in revision, and it is urged that the Judge of the Court of Small Causes had no jurisidiction to hear the appeal, which could only be h...
Emperor Vs. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.101
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, The facts of the case are as follows: The applicants for revision in the Court below, namely, Behari Lal and Bashir-ud-din, are the lessees of Singhi Rampore Ferry. As such lessees they employed certain persons to attend to the ferry and collect the tolls. These servants in contravention of the law extorted unauthorized and excessive toll from certain passengers thereby committing an offence under Section 22 of the Ferries Act. The lessees, who apparently were not present and took no part in the extortion, have been prosecuted for this offence, and have been convicted and fined, apparently, on the ground that whatever the servants have done in the course of their employment that act is the act of the masters. The learned Government Advocate has called my attention to a ruling in Queen-Empress v. Tyab Alli 24 B. 423. That is a case under the Arms Act. The accused therein was a licensed vendor of arms and ammunition ...
Abdul Ghani Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.116
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for his share of profits for the years 1311, 1312 and 1313 fasli. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that it is time-barred. The circumstances under which this objection has been urged are these. The suit was filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector and the amount claimed was a sum of Rs. 6,000. The Assistant Collector made a decree in the plaintiff's favour for Rs. 1,635-7-0. The plaintiff claimed a farther sum of about Rs. 1,200, and in respect of this amount he preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge. In that Court no objection was taken on behalf of the defendant that an appeal did not lie to that Court. The result was that the appeal was heard by the learned District Judge and he varied the decree of the Court of first instance. Thereupon, an appeal was preferred to this Court, and this Court was of opinion that no appeal lay to the learned Judg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »