Allahabad Court January 1912 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.
NaraIn Das Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.455
1. In this case, the parties referred their dispute to an arbitrator who submitted his award. The following objections were taken on behalf of Narain Das in the Court of first instance. The arbitrator was guilty of misconduct, the award covered a question which had not been referred by the parties to arbitration, and the reference to the arbitrator was not made by all the parties. The third point, it would seem, was not pressed before the Court of first instance. The decision of that Court on the question of misconduct was that there was no misconduct. On the question of excess in the award, the decision was that there was a matter which though not referred by the parties, was decided by the arbitrator, and that matter ought to be expunged from the award. The learned Munsif passed a decree in accordance with the award so far as it covered the points referred to arbitration. Ram Prasad appealed to the District Judge against the decree made by the Court of first instance. The case was tr...
Adhari DubaIn Vs. Sheodihal Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.708
George Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Musammat Adhari Dubain to enforce a right of preemption over a 4 pie share haq-i-adna and 8 chaitaeks haq-i-ala in Mauza Brahwan. The circumstances which led to the present suit arose out of a sale made on the 5th of June 1909, by Lalta Prasad, Sameshar and Kateshar in favour of ore Musammat Dhiraji, On the 4th of June, 1910, Musammat Dhiraji sold a portion of the property mentioned in the sale-deed of the 5th June, 1909, to one Sheo Dihal Pande. On the 7th of June, 1910, Musammat Adhari Dubain filed this suit and impleaded as defendants Musammat Dhiraji, the vendor, and Sheo Dihal Pande, the vendeo, It appears that all three persons, Dhiraji, Adhari and Sheo Dihal, are share-holders in mahal Brahwan. Sheo Dihal is not in any way related to either Musammat Dhiraji or Musammat Adhari who are Dubains. Lalta Prashadi Someshar and Kateshar are related and closely related to Shoo Dinah It is admitted both sides that th...
Khadim HusaIn Vs. Bharat Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All315; 14Ind.Cas.433
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, Khadim Husain, to have a document alleged to have been executed by the defendants on the 2nd of June, 1909, registered. Musammat Mathuri is the wife of the defendant No.1. She was joined as a defendant on the allegation that a portion of the property conveyed by the sale deed had been acquired benami in her name. The plaintiff made two attempts to obtain attendance of the executants at the registration office. On each occasion service of the summons was not effected on the executants. By an order, dated the 12th of October, 1909, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document for reasons set out at length in his order of that date. He stated that the plaintiff, Khadim Husain, had been unable to effect service of summons on the executants and that from the 17th of August, 1909, up to the date of the order, he had failed to take further steps. On the expiry of the four months from the date ...
Sahu Mahadeo Parshad Vs. Kandhaia Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.129
George Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Mahadeo Parshad to recover damages from Kanhaia Lal and another owing to non-delivery of certain coal. The terms of the contract between the parties have been re-produced by the learned Subordinate Judge in his judgment. They may be thus translated: 'Five railway carriages of charcoal will be despatched from Manikpur and will be wieghed over at the godown at the rate of 91/2 annas per maund. The coal on the trucks on arrival will be shown; if approved, the coal will be supplied at the godown; if not approved, the coal will be sold and I will supply charcoal of the kind obtainable in the bazar.' Then follow the words 'miti jeth sudi puranmashi'; and the word 'tain' afterwards. The defendant was to supply charcoal up to the 25th of June 1907. The Court of first instance found that of the five trucks of charcoal, four were supplied before the 26th of June 1907. One of these trucks was accepted by the plaintiff and th...
Baru Mal and ors. Vs. Sher Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.55
1. Tudraj and Musammat Shakuri mortgaged certain property. A decree was obtained against their heirs. The property was sold in execution of that decree on the 20th June 1909. The amount realized was not sufficient to satisfy the decree and, therefore, the decree-holders applied under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, for a decree against the assets of the deceased in the hands of the respondents.2. Both the Courts dismissed the application holding that no personal decree could be passed against the heirs.3. In second appeal, it is contended that a decree should have been passed against the property of the mortgagors of which the respondents may be in possession as their heirs. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on Mohan Lal v. Bilaso 14 A. 512 and Mazzem Hossein v. Sarat Kumari 11 C.L.J. 357 at p. 360 : 14 C.W.N. 433 : 5 Ind. Cas. 89.4. In our opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is perfectly sound.5. We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts belo...
Ram Sarup Vs. Nidar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.55a
1. This was a suit for possession of property.2. The first Court decreed it and the Court of Appeal confirmed the decree.3. The point taken in second appeal is that a father's mother's sister's son is not a bandhu.4. Mr. Ghose in his Hindu Law, 2nd Edition, at page 148, says: 'after the Samanodakas came the Bandhus. We have already seen that the technical Bandhus are the three Aliun Bandhus, i.e., father's sister's son, mother's sister's son, and mother's brother's son, the three Pitri Bandhus, i.e., father's father's sister's son, father's mother's sister's son, and the father's mother's brother's sons and the three Matri Bandhus, i.e., the mother's father's sister's son, mother's mother's sister's son, and mother's mother's brother's son' and Mayne in his book on the Hindu Law at page 694, paragraph 513, 7th Edition, says: 'The sons of the own father's sister, the sons of his own mother's sister, and the sons of the maternal uncle, must be considered as his own cognate kindred. The s...
Banarsi Das and ors. Vs. Banarsi Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.416
1. This is an appeal from an order passed on an application presented by Banarsi Das and others, who wished to be declared insolvents under the provisions of Section 3 of Act III of 1907. The case appears to have gone so far that, on the 18th of November 1910, the Court had declared its intention to hear the petition. Upon that date, the applicants said that their witnesses were not present and so they could not goon with their case. The Court thereupon directed them to pay Rs. 15 to the opposite party. This they did not pay. The Court appears to have overlooked the provisions of Section 14, Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Act III of 1907. Whether the witnesses were or were not present, it was incumbent on the Court to examine the debtor. After the Court had examined the debtor in the presence of the creditor, then it was for the Court to consider whether sufficient cause had been shown to grant time to the debtor to produce further evidence. We do not consider the order passed by the lear...
Champa Lal Vs. Sham Sundar Mali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.530
1. A perfumery business was carried on by one Radha Kishen. The business as well as other property moveable and immoveable passed on his death to his two sons Bindesri Pershad and Nandan Pershad and to Sham Sundar and Ram Behari, two sons oi Bindesri Pershad. Nandan Pershad relinquished all his right in the business and property and for some years the business was carried on by Bindesri Pershad. In December 1903 the plaintiff-appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 1,201 to Bindesri Pershad for the purposes of the business.2. On December 15th, 1905, Bindesri Pershad executed a deed of gift in favour of his son Sham Sundar. He seems to have repented of the gift and litigation followed. Ultimately Musammat Gangajali was appointed guardian of Sham Sundar. In the present suit, instituted in August 1909, plaintiff claims a decree for Rs. 2,369 odd against Bindesri Pershad, Nandan Pershad and Sham Sundar. The amount claimed is made up of the sum of Rs. 1,201 mentioned above, interest thereon and oth...
Musammat Kolpati Kuar Vs. Rajdhari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.641
Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for sale upon a mortgage of the 21st of November 1894 executed by one Musammat Sahodra. It was brought against the nephews of her husband, she having in the meantime died. The defendants contested the claim on the ground that Sahodra had no interest in the property as her husband died as a member of a joint Hindu family and the property passed by right of survivorship to the other members.2. The Court of first instance found that the family was joint and that, therefore, Musammat Sahodra had no right to make the mortgage and that the mortgage could not be enforced as against the property now in the hands of the defendants. That Court dismissed the suit. The decree of that Court has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court on the ground that in a suit between Sahodra and Gaya Prasad, the ancestor of the defendants, it was held in 1895 that Gaya Prasad, father of Beni Prasad, and Ganga Prasad, husband of Musammat Sahodra, were joint at the time of Ganga Pr...
Musammat Maghli Vs. Musammat Ladli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.644
Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for possession of a 4-pie share out of 8 pies, and for a declaration that the defendant had no title to the said share. The property originally belonged to two brothers Ram Nath and Sham Nath. Ram Nath died in 1884, and it has been found that his brother Sham Nath died a fortnight afterwards. The property came into the possession of Musammat Larai, the widow of Ram Nath, and she continued in possession until her death on the 20th of June 1904. The defendant-appellant is the widow of Ram Nath's uncle. The plaintiff is Ram Nath's mother. Upon the death of Larai half of the property was recorded in the name of the plaintiff and the other half in the name of the defendant. It is this half share which the plaintiff claims in the present suit. She states that upon the death of Musammat Larai she, as the mother of Ram Nath became entitled to the property. It is manifest that the defendant has no title. But she contends that the plaintiff has no right to the prope...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »