Allahabad Court March 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.
Seth Gokul Das Vs. Hansraj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.824
1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed damages for breach of contract. The defendants reside at Jaitu in the Nabha State. The plaintiff resides at Jalaun. The question was raised whether or not the Court at Jalaun had any jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The lower Appellate Court held that it had no jurisdiction because none of the defendants reside in Jalaun, and the contract did not wholly or partially arise in Jalaun. Notwithstanding this finding, the Court gave the plaintiff a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,125. odd, which the defendants admitted were due, with proportionate costs. The defendants had denied the jurisdiction but had brought this sum of money into Court saying in effect that, while they denied the jurisdiction if that was held against them, the only liability they were under to the plaintiff was such sum. In our opinion the Court was not justified in granting a decree. We agree with the finding of the Court below that the cause of act...
Muhammad HussaIn and ors. Vs. Vinayak Rao and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.828
1. This was a suit of a somewhat extraordinary nature. The plaintiff alleges that he executed a bond in favour of the defendant on the 26th of July 1891, but he states that this bond was fictitious and that 'it is barred by Article 132, Act XV of 1877 and IX of 1903.' The relief sought is that 'it may be declared that the bond, dated the 26th of July 1891, is barred by limitation and ineffectual as against the plaintiff.' What the plaintiff means by saying that the bond is barred by limitation it is difficult to understand. Apparently, he means that a claim upon this document if brought would be time barred. The Court below has dismissed the suit and we think rightly. It is also found that it creates a mortgage and that a suit for enforcement of the mortgage would not be time-barred if instituted at the date of the tiling of the present suit.2. It is contended before us that the document created merely a charge and is not a mortgage. By the document certain immovable property is made s...
Shah Chhaturbhuj Vs. Mangal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1005
Richards, J.1. The facts out of which this and the connected Appeal No. 595 of 1910 arise are as follows, One Shah Chaturbhuj instituted a suit in the Revenue Court against Mangal Singh and others under Section 154 of the Tenancy Act to resume land alleged to be held rent-free at the pleasure of the grantor. The defendants pleaded that they were the proprietors of the land sought to be resumed. The Revenue Court purporting to exercise the powers conferred by Section 199 of the Tenancy Act made an order requiring the defendants to institute a suit within three months in a Civil Court for the determination of the question of title. It is now contended that the Court ought not to have made this order. However, whether the order was right or wrong, it was in fact made apparently without objection by either side. A suit was then instituted in the Civil Court by Mangal Singh and others in which they claimed a declaration that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were proprietors of the land in disput...
Ram Sarup Vs. Dasrath Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.817
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken in execution of a decree under Section 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. The decree is that the 15th of September 1893, and was a decree for possession of immoveable property and for mesne profits. On the 3rd of June 1905, the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree. On the 27th of September 1905, the application was struck off by the Court on its own motion. Consequently on this an application for the re-admission of the application was made on the 30th of August 1906 and on the 15th of September 1906, the application was re-admitted. On the 13th of November 1907, the application was again struck off on the ground that insufficient process-fee had been deposited by the decree-holder. He, on the 3rd of December 1907, applied to the Court for restoration of the application setting out the circumstances under which he failed to pay the requisite amount of process-fee. The Court was satisfied with his exp...
Baijnath Vs. Bhadaiyan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.990
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to foreclose a mortgage by conditional sale. On the 16th of December 1880, it is alleged, that Musammats Sabji and Chaubi executed a deed in favour of the plaintiff's father.2. The deed provided that the ostensible vendors should repay the money lent at the time of the execution of the deed with interest within a period of two years, and that in default of payment the ostensible vendee should be entitled to institute a suit and get proprietary possession of the property. This transaction constituted what is known as a mortgage by conditional sale. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was the heir of Musammats Sabji and Chaubi. The defendant pleaded that the Musammats never executed the document at all, that if they did they had no power to mortgage the property, that the property originally belonged to one Chatri, who was the grand-father of the defendant, and that the defendant was in possession as heir of Chatri. The Court of first ...
Beni Pershad and ors. Vs. Sarju Pershad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.982
1. This is an application in revision. It appears that on the 31st March 1910 the applicants obtained a compromise decree in the Munsif's Court. The suit in which the decree was granted was conversant with a claim by the applicants on two bonds and the matter resulted in a compromise and a decree in accordance with that compromise. On the 28th September 1910, that is to say, six months after, the opposite party applied for sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to institute a prosecution under Section 209, Indian Penal Code, against the applicants for having fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to injure or annoy the opposite party made a false claim. This application was made to the Munsif who threw out the application or grounds more or less technical. On the 1st of October 1910, an application for the restoration of the application for sanction was made by the same party, and this was also thrown out. Thereupon, the opposite party applied under Clause (6)...
Janki Das Vs. Sandal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.825
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken in execution. The decree under execution is a decree passed on the 13th of December 1909. It was a decree giving the decree-holder right to bring to sale three houses. In the suit which led up to the decree the defendants, who are respondents judgment-debtors took no exception to the effect that the houses were houses which were not capable of transfer. When the decree-holder on the 2nd of February 1910, asked for an order absolute, the respondents again took no exception. It is only when the decree is put into execution that they now, for the first time, urge that they are agriculturists and the houses being the houses of agriculturists are not liable for sale. We have been referred to no authority which lays down that houses of agriculturists are property which cannot by law be transferred. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon which reliance is placed, refers to houses of agriculturists and enacts that in execution of a money-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›