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.
Nand Ram Vs. Bhupal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All126
H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant to enforce a mortgage, dated the 8th February, 1888, for Rs. 80, executed by Bahadur Singh, ancestor of the defendants Nos. 1--5. The rate of interest stipulated for in the mortgage deed is Rs. 2-4-0 per cent. per mensem, compound interest, with half-yearly rests. The plaintiff alleged that in accordance with the terms of the mortgage the total amount due to him exceeded Rs. 17,000, but he claimed to recover Rs. 2,500 only.2. The court of first instance was of opinion that the mortgage was made for the payment of Government revenue, but that it had not been established that there was any necessity for borrowing money at the high rate provided for in the mortgage deed. That court made a decree for simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum, and the total amount decreed by it was Rs. 432-1-0, that is, more than five times the principal amount borrowed.3. The plaintiff appe...
Gaura Bibi and ors. Vs. Ghasita
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All123
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Munsif of Gorakhpur and of an appellate order of the District Judge of Gorakhpur. The facts are as follows:-- The applicants brought a suit against the respondent in the court of the Munsif of Gorakhpur in which summons was issued for final disposal of the suit for the 5th of August, 1910. On that date the respondent filed a written statement denying the claim. The applicants applied for amendment of the plaint. This was allowed, and the case was put off to duce the certificate. The applicants' witnesses were not in attendance. The applicants, therefore, asked for a postponement of the case. This was allowed, and the case was fixed for August the 30th, 1910. On that date the respondent was present, but the applicants were absent. Their pleader, who was present in court, said that he had no instructions to go on with the case. The Munsif then dismissed the suit. A perusal of the Munsif's order leave...
Gokul Chand Vs. Shib Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.59
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by the (sic) respondent for the ejectment of the appell (sic) from the southern portion of a shop (sic) in the town of Moradabad. The (sic) originally the joint property of (sic) and the appellant. The (sic) in 1900 sued for partition of the shot separate possession of his share of it. (sic) suit terminated in a compromise, according to which the shop was divided between the parties, the respondent getting the southern portion, and the appellant the northern portion of it. But it was agreed that the respondent should give to the appellant a lease of the southern portion for eight years. It was part of the compromise that the respondent should give the appellant a registered lease. No lease was ever given but the appellant occupied the southern portion of the shop as the tenant of the respondent and it has been found by the Courts below that the term of eight years for which the appellant was to hold possession as tenant terminated on the 20th September 190...
Raghubir Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Chandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All121
H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. In our opinion the decision of the court below was correct. It is admitted that the defendant was declared an insolvent and that declaration was in full force and effect at the time when this suit was instituted. Section 16(2) expressly provides] that, save as in that section provided, no suit shall be brought against a person who is declared an insolvent without the leave of the court. It is not contended that any leave was obtained. It is next urged that this is a suit for rent brought by a landlord against a tenant and that the landlord ought to be considered a secured creditor having regard to the definition in Section 2(f). In our opinion, so far as an ordinary suit for rent is concerned, the landlord is in exactly the same position as any other creditor. It may, no doubt, be that he would have a right to distrain for his rent notwithstanding the declaration of insolvency. The words of Section 16, Sub-section (5), are 'nothing in this section ...
Janki Das Vs. Tika Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.48
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside an award dated the 24th of August 1906. Three brothers Janki Das, Tika Ram and Baldeo Das had a dispute about certain property, moveable and immoveable, belonging to their common ancestor. Accordingly, on the 29th of September 1905, they submitted their disputes to arbitration. Two of the brothers joined hands together and Janki Das, the plaintiff in the present suit, was the opposite party. Two arbitrators were appointed for Janki Das and two arbitrators for Tika Ram and Baldeo Das. An Umpire Chandan Lal was also appointed. The award which is sought to be set aside is alleged by the defendant to be the award of these arbitrators and the Umpire. The plaintiff attacks the award on three grounds. He says, first, that there was such gross delay on the part of the arbitrators that he was justified in serving a notice on the 16th of August 1906 withdrawing from the arbitration and that the submission must be taken to have been revoked. His se...
Jamna Das Vs. Ram Auta Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All63
Macnaghten, J.1. This is a perfectly plain case. The action is brought by a mortgagee to enforce against a purchaser of the mortgaged property an undertaking that he entered into with his vendor. The mortgagee has no right to avail himself of that. He was no party to the sale. The purchaser entered into no contract with him, and the purchaser is not personally bound to pay this mortgage debt. Therefore, he is not a person from whom, in the words of the 90th Section of the Transfer of Property Act, 'the balance is legally recoverable.' Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Gopi NaraIn and ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All306
Henry Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 19th of June, 1887. The mortgagor was one Fateh Chand, and the mortgagee was one Abdul Kafil. The mortgage was for Rs. 50,000 at 14 annas per cent, per mensem interest. It is clear now that Abdul Kafil was not the real mortgagee, but was only benamidar for one Abdul Jalil, a pleader in Cawnpore. This mortgage was subsequently attached and sold in execution of a simple money decree which Gaya Prasad had obtained against Abdul Jalil and which was being executed against the representatives of the latter. The certificated auction purchaser of this mortgage was Babu Kunj Behari Lal, the plaintiff in the present suit. This bond has been the subject of a good deal of litigation which, in the view we take of the case, it is not material to refer to. It was made, as already stated, by Fateh Chand in favour of his pleader, and one of the defences taken in the present suit is the plea that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›