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.
Ragho Prasad and ors. Vs. Mewa Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All223
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, which affirmed a decree of the Court of Small Causes there exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge.2. The suit was brought by the respondents Mewa Lal and Lachmi Narain to recover property of which they had been deprived through the intervention of a Government official who attached it and got it sold in order to satisfy a debt due to Government from somebody else.3. The facts are undisputed.4. On the 17th of December 1895, the respondents, who were mortgagees of shares in seven villages belonging to their mortgagor one Tufail Ali Khan, obtained the usual decree for sale. The 17th of April 1896 was the date fixed for payment of principal, interest and costs, which amounted in all to Rs. 19,290-9-6. The mortgagor made default. On the 23rd of April 1896, the mortgagees applied for an order absolute. The order was drawn up on the 16th of May following. On the 24th of March 1897 an application was made fo...
Brijbasi Lal and ors. and Piyare Lal Vs. Salig Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All282
George Knox and Harry Griffin, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Agra, on the 18th of May 1910. The Subordinate Judge had before him an application for an order absolute for sale under Order XXXIV, Rule 5. He granted the order absolute and in that order absolute he stated the amount that would be due and payable to the decree-holder on the 2nd of March, 1910, and it is this order which we are asked to set aside on the ground that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to alter or amend a decree after it had been affirmed by the High Court, because (i) the Subordinate Judge had put a wrong construction upon the decree of this Court, and (ii) the Subordinate Judge had erred in framing a decree for a larger sum than the judgment authorized. We need not mention the other grounds of appeal and we need not consider even those above-mentioned, because the appellants are met by the respondents with an objection which appears to us fatal to this appe...
Jai Nath Pathak and anr. Vs. Kalka Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All285
Henry Richards, C.J. and Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. The facts which must be assumed for the purposes of this appeal are very clearly set forth in the order of reference of the learned Judges. The short point for our decision is whether or not a person who was recorded in the manner stated must be deemed to have all the estate in the fixed rate tenancy vested in him or her alone, irrespective of the rights of all other persons, who under the ordinary law would be entitled to the tenancy, but for the fact that such a person is so recorded. The defendants, who are the transferees of Musammat Rupao, rely on the provisions of Section 9 of the Agra Tenancy Act. That section is as follows: 'Every entry at the last revision of records before the commencement of this Act recording a person as a permanent tenure-holder or a fixed rate tenant, or otherwise shall, in the absence of a judicial decision to the contrary, in proceedings instituted before the commencement of this Act, be conclus...
Sakalraj Dube and anr. Vs. Udit Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.158
George Knox, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two persons, Sakalraj and Mahabir, to enforce a right of pre-emption which they claimed to possess over a particular share in Mauza Majhganwan, mahals permanent and fluctuating and in Mauza Jagot Bela on payment of Rs. 100. The defendants are vendors and vendees of the same property. The Court of first instance found that the consideration mentioned in the sale-deed between the defendant vendor and the defendants-vendees was a sum of Rs. 299. It accordingly granted the plaintiffs a decree for pre-emption upon payment of a sum of Rs. 299 to the defendants-vendees within 30 days of the date of the decree becoming final. The plaintiffs-pre emptors appealed and the lower Appellate Court modified the decree given by the Court of first instance so far that it substituted as the price of the property Rs. 239 in place of Rs. 299.2. The pre-emptors have come in appeal to this Court and they contend that the lower Appellate Court shou...
Jainath Pathak and ors. Vs. Kalka Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.643
1. The facts, which must be assumed for the purposes of this appeal, are very clearly set forth in the order of reference of the learned Judges. The short point for our decision is whether or rot a person who was recorded in the manner stated must be deemed to have all the estate in the fixed-rate tenancy vested in him or her alone, irrespective of the rights of all other persons who under the ordinary law would be entitled to the tenancy, but for the fact that such a person is so recorded. The defendants, who are the transferees of Musammat Rupao, rely on the provisions of Section 9 of the Agra Tenancy Act. That Section is as follows: 'Every entry at the last revision of records before the commencement of this Act recording a person as a permanent tenure-bolder, or a fixed-rate tenant, or otherwise shall, in the absence of a judicial decision to the contrary in proceedings instituted before the commencement of this Act, be conclusive proof that such person is a permanent tenure-holder...
Sat NaraIn and anr. Vs. Badri Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.645
1. The sentence in this case was passed on the 16th March, 1911, and the District Magistrate's letter of reference was written only on the 8th July. Again, a reference was made by this Court to the District Magistrate in regard to the case on the 18th July, but it was not answere until the 30th November, i.e. after more than four months had elapsed.2. The sentence is certainly inadequate, but it is not now, after the elapse of nine months, expedient to enhance the sentence by ordering the accused to undergo 2 or 3 months' imprisonment as proposed by the District Magistrate....
Rashik Lal Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All273
Karamat Husain, J.1. On the 26th of August, 1898, the defendant, Rashik Lal, executed a conditional sale in favour of Cheda Lal, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, to secure a sum of Rs. 5,000. He stipulated that he would pay the principal and interest on Kuwar Sudi Puno, Sambat 1956 (i.e., 18th October, 1899), and would redeem the zamindari property, and that if he failed, the property should be deemed to have been sold, and the consideration was acknowledged to have been received as follows:Rs.Deducted ... ... ... 750Received before execution of mortgage ... 125Shall receive at registration ... ... 125Received a hundi drawn by Cheda Lal ... 4,0002. The plaintiffs brought an action for the recovery of Rs. 1,000 principal and Rs. 1,790-1-3 interest, or for possession of the property 'sold conditionally. They alleged that the sum of Rs. 4,000 had not been paid.3. The pleas in defence were that no consideration for the mortgage was paid by Cheda Lal ; that the mortgage was ob...
Shankar Lal Vs. Mahtab Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.414
Griffin, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff for possession of a house by ejectment of the defendant. Evidence was adduced by both sides. After the time fixed for the production of documents had passed, the plaintiff tendered in evidence a certain document purporting to be a title-deed. The Court refused to admit it in evidence on the ground that it had been produced too late. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed, one of the grounds taken being that the first Court ought to have admitted in evidence the document. Arguments were heard before the Court below, but before its decision, the plaintiff applied for permission to withdraw the suit under the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below granted the application. The Court below was of opinion that the plaintiff ought to have been given an opportunity to withdraw, for even if her document of title were produced in time, her suit might have failed by reason of a formal defect ...
Birjnath SarIn Vs. Sergeant F.M. Byrne
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.506
Chamier, J.1. This is a second appeal in a suit for damages for defamation.2. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 400 but his decision was reversed by the District Judge who held that the expressions used by the defendant, though intemperate, were not defamatory. The facts are that the plaintiff obtained a decree for a small sum against Tulsi, a Chamar employed in a grass farm managed by the defendant. He tock out execution and a process was issued to Tulsi which somehow or other came into the hands of the defendant who wrote on it: 'The amount Rs. 41-2-0 has been lying in my office since the date of my judgment (sic). It appears to me that this is a case of malicious prosecution and so it is a Government case and does not concern Tulsi whatsoever. The decree-holder is a most insolent upstart. He came to my bungalow on a Sunday and I told him my office hours and then he would not grant a stamped receipt. The next time he came he was most insolent and was told to w...
H.W.G. vs. Mrs. H.W.G. and P.L.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.617
1. This matrimonial reference comes before us for confirmation of the decree granted by the learned District Judge of Cawnpore, who granted a decree for the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner Henry William Gill and his wife Catherine Isabella Gill.2. According to the evidence of the petitioner the parties were married in the year 1883. In 1891 his wife left him to visit a sister at Jhansi who was ill. In consequence of a letter which he received he went to Jhansi and there found that his wife was living in adultery with his brother-in-law, the latter's wife having died. He taxed his wife which infidelity. She admitted it and told him that she would not come back to him. He took away his two children, the issue of the marriage. It is admitted that he took no steps further than to consult a Pleader until the present petition was filed; that is to say, a period of no less than 19 years has elapsed since the alleged misconduct of the wife occurred to the personal knowledge ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »