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.
Nawab Nurullah Khan Vs. Musammat Hayatunnissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.155
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff-appellant for possession of certain immoveable property. This property forms part of a jogir granted in the year 1819 by the British Government to a Pindari Chief of the name of Karim Khan. He died about the year 1827 leaving two sons, Shamsher Bahadur Khan and Shahamut Khan. After his death the jagir was divided between these sons, the former getting a 7-annas share and the latter of 9-annas share. The plaintiff Nurullah Khan is the son of Shamsher Bahadur Khan and in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen he claims certain property which is now in the possession of the descendants of Mariambai, one of the daughters of Shamsher Bahadur Khan by a wife who was not the mother of Nurullah Khan. The plaintiff's contention is that, under the terms of the grant, and also in accordance with a family custom, the property which originally belonged to Karim Khan was to go to his male descendants and not to his fem...
Janki Prashad Vs. Thakur Das Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.21
Tudball, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, It rises out of the following circumstances: In 1902, the applicant advanced a sum of Rs. 50 to the opposite parties on a promissory-note at the rate of Rs. 37 1/2 per cent, interest per annum. In February 1903, he sued to recover his money plus interest. His claim was for Rs. 54 odd, a payment of Rs. 5 haying been already made. He obtained a decree and put it into execution several times without success. Finally, in January 1909, when one of the judgment-debtors, who is a Railway servant, had been transferred to Allahabad, he put his decree into execution. He allowed certain payments as having been made. One of the judgment-debtors came to Court and filed an objection to the effect that he paid off the whole amount of the decree. He produced some nine receipts, six of these covered sums which the decree-holder had allowed in his application as having been paid. In the case of o...
Shami Nath Chaudhri Vs. Ramjas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All143
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant to set aside a decree for partition of a joint family property which was passed upon a compromise between the parties. The ground of suit is that the consent of the appellant to the compromise was obtained by undue influence exerted on him by the defendant respondent, Ramjas Chaudhri. The suit has been dismissed by the court below on the ground that no such suit is maintainable. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that a decree could not be set aside by suit except on the ground of fraud or collusion. In the course of his judgment he refers to Section 44 of the Evidence Act. But that Section does not purport to enumerate the grounds on which a decree can be attacked by a separate suit. There are cases no doubt which suggest that where a decree is attacked by a party on any ground other than that of fraud, he should proceed by way of motion or application for review of judgment. But all the rece...
Shankar Lal and anr. Vs. Sarup Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All140
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. Roshan Lal, the owner of certain property in the Saharanpur district, died of plague in May 1907. After his death his stepmother applied for a succession certificate, and thereupon the defendants to this suit produced a will in their favour which they alleged had been executed by Roshan Lal. The plaintiff in this suit and his brother, who is the father of one of the defendants, appear to be the heirs of Roshan Lal. Mansa Debi, the stepmother, is admittedly not an heir, but she is in possession of the property. The plaintiff asks for a decree declaring that the will is a forgery and void against him, and that it should be delivered up and cancelled. The first court found that the will was not proved to have been executed by Roshan Lal, but it dismissed the suit on the ground that it was governed by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, and that the claim for a declaration was not maintainable as the plaintiff was entitled to claim possession of the pro...
Bala Proshad Vs. Partab Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.38
1. This was a suit for sale upon a mortgage bond. The Court of first instance found that the defendant's sons should have been impleaded, and that as they were not impleaded within time, the suit must be dismissed. There was an appeal to the lower Appellate Court which agreed with the first Court in dismissing the suit. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. In our opinion the Courts below were wrong in the view they took. The sons of the defendant should have been made parties at the instance of the Court and then the suit should have been tried against them as well as against their father. Even if the Courts below had come to the conclusion that the suit against the sons was barred by time, they could probably have given some sort of decree against the mortgagor alone if the claim against him was not barred by time. We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remand the case to the Court of first instance through the lower Appellate Court for re-admission and dis...
Shankar Lal and anr. Vs. Saruplal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.19
1. Roshan Lal, the owner of certain property in the Saharanpur District, died of plague in May 1907. After his death his step-mother applied for a succession certificate, and thereupon the defendants to this suit produced a Will in their favour which they alleged had been executed by Roshan Lal. The plaintiff in this suit and his brother, who is the father of one of the defendants, appear to be the heirs of Roshan Lal. Mansa Debi, the stepmother, is admittedly not an heir. But she is in possession of the property. The plaintiff asks for a decree declaring that the Will is a forgery and void against him and that it should be delivered up and cancelled. The first Court found that the Will was not proved to have been executed by Roshan Lal. But it dismissed the suit on the ground that it was governed by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, and that the claim for a declaration was not maintainable as the plaintiff was entitled to claim possession of the property. In the decree of the fir...
Ramnath Zutshi Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.46
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State on foot of a contract of the 18th of March 1904 for the construction of certain buildings at a place called Mahoba in the Banda District. The buildings were required as the residence and Office of the Survey Officer and are situate in a place somewhat out of the way. According to the terms of the contract, the works were to be completed on or before the 30th of September 1904. As a matter of fact, the contract was not fulfilled until March 1905. The contract provided also that in the event of any part of the work nor, progressing satisfactorily the Public Works Department were entitled to take away that portion of the work and give it to other contractors. There was also provision for a penalty of Rs. 5 for every day that the work remained uncommenced or unfinished after the proper date, the maximum amount of such penalty being a sum of Rs. 870.2. It is common case that portion of the work was t...
Qudrat Ullah Vs. Chunni Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.60
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by the appellant for the redemption of a mortgage made by one Chajju Khan in favour of the respondent Chunni Mal on March the 11th 1898. Chajju Khan transferred all his rights in the property to the appellant on November the 16th, 1908. The deed seems to have been before the Courts below, but it cannot now be found on the record. It is said to contain a statement that the amount remaining due on the mortgage was Rs. 115. The appellant prayed for a decree for redemption of the property on payment of Rs. 115, alleging that the remaining amount claimable under the mortgage had been paid to the mortgagee. The respondent Chunni Mal pleaded that no payments had been made to him at all. In paragraph 3 of the plaint the appellant said that the original mortgagor had asserted that some of the amounts paid to the mortgagee were endorsed on the document and others were proved in other ways. The respondent Chunni Mal was called upon to produce the mortgage-deed. He sa...
Munni Lal and anr. Vs. Ganpat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All135
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. The following pedigree will stow the relation of some of the parties to this case:Gordhan Das______________________|______________________| |Ram Prased. Khairati Lal________________________ || | Keshab Deo.Raghunath Das Manohar Lal |Kashi Nath.2. The plaintiffs, Munni Lal and Chhedi Lal instated this suit against Ram Prasad, Raghunath Das, Manohar Lal keshab Deo Kashi Nath, Ganpat Rai and Puran Chand on the following allegations. Ram Prasad, defendant No.1, was the proprietor and manager of the firm styled Gordhan Das Ram Prasad at Shts. In order to carry on the business of the said firm he borrowed from the plaintiffs Rs. 16,000 by hypothecating the family property, known as the Putaria Mahal in the city of Agra, under a registered bond, dated the 25th of January, 1903. Out of the amount of principal and interest due on the mortgage, Rs. 13,170 were paid by Babu Puran Chand, defendant No. 6, on the 4th of September, 1906. The balance, amounting to Rs....
Lala Ganpat Rai Vs. Munni Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.34
1. The following pedigree will show the relation of some of the parties to this case:Gordhan Das.|--------------------------| |Ram Prasad, Khairati Lal,| || Keshab Deo,| || Kashi Nath.|--------------------| |Raghunath Das. Manohar Lal.2. The plaintiffs Manni Lal and Chhedi Lal instituted this suit against Rarn Prasad, Raghunath Das, Manohar Lal, Keshab Deo, Kashi Nath, Ganpat Rai and Puran Chand on the following allegations: Ram Prasad, defendant No. 1, was the proprietor and Manager of firm styled Gordhan Das Ram Prasad at Agra. In order to carry on the business of the said firm he borrowed from the plaintiffs Rs. 16,000 by hypothecating the family property known as the Putaria Mahal in the city of Agra under a registered bond dated the 25th of January 1903. Out of the amount of principal and interest due on the mortgage, Rs. 13,170 were paid by Babu Puran Chand defendant No. 6, on the 4th of September 1906. The balance amounting to Rs. 6,585 has not been paid by the defendants. Kesha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »