Allahabad Court December 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.
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All126
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:2. The plaintiff, Bhagwati Prasad, together with his half brothers, Jokhu and Lachman, and his uncles Umrao and Ram Nath, and the widow of his deceased uncle Nandan, constituted a joint Hindu family. The family owned a share in mauza Dibaria Buzurg. The defendants, first party, Bhagwati Prasad No. II, minor, &c;, were also co-sharers, and so also were the defendants, third party. These three groups of co-sharers cultivated their separate sir lands. The defendants, second party, are the plaintiffs' half brothers and uncles and aunt. The first set of defendants applied to the Collector under the Land Revenue Act for partition of their share into a separate mahal, The plaintiff was then a minor, and, as the names of all the members of the family were recorded in the khewat, his name was also recorded therein under the guardianship of his half brother, Lachman. There was no objection to the parti...
Baldeo Prasad Shukul and anr. Vs. Mahabir Prasad Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.99
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. The defendant-respondent mortgaged certain property to the plaintiffs-appellants or their predecessors entitle. The mortgage was a simple one. Subsequently to the mortgage, the property was attached in execution of some body else's decree and was put up to sale on the 20th of July 1893. It was purchased by the mortgagees. They, however, though they obtained a certificate of sale, were kept out of possession. They, on the 12th of July 1905, i.e., within 12 years, brought a suit to obtain possession of the property. An examination of the plaint shows that they sought to obtain possession as full owners and, as the facts are stated before me, they 'were' full owners and entitled to possession. The suit was, however, dismissed on the 5th of December 1905 by reason of the plaintiffs' default. They subsequently applied to the Court for re-hearing but that application was also disallowed. They have now brought on the 29th of...
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Bhagwati Prosad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.846
1. The facts out of witch this appeal has arisen are as follows:2. The plaintiff Bhagwati Pershad together with his half brothers Jokhu and Lachman and his uncles Umrao and Ram Nath and the widow of his deceased uncle Nandan constituted a join Hindu family. The family owned a share in M. Dobaria Buzurg.3. The defendant 1st party Bhagwati Pershad No. 2, minor, etc., were also co-sharers and so also were the defendants 3rd party.4. These three groups of co-sharers cultivated their separate sir lands. The defendants 2nd party are the plaintiff's half brothers and uncles and aunt.5. The first set of defendants applied to the Collector under the Land Revenue Act, for partition of their share into a separate mahal.6. The plaintiff was then a minor and as the names of all the members of the family were recorded in the khewat, his name was also recorded therein under the guardianship of his half-brother Lachman. There was no objection to the partition nor is it denied even now that the parties...
Sadho Lal and ors. Vs. Kalian and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All116
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. The respondents to this appeal brought a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage. They impleaded certain persons as subsequent transferees. It appears that there were three prior mortgages, one in favour of Bidhi Chand and two in favour of Kalian. Bidhi Chand sold his rights to Kalian and the other three appellants before us. At the trial of the suit these four persons thought fit to stand upon their rights as prior mortgagees and claimed that the plaintiffs should redeem them before they sold the mortgaged property. The result of this was a compound decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the following effect. The court ordered the original mortgagors to pay up the plaintiffs' debt within three months. It then ordered that if they failed so to pay, the plaintiffs should pay within a further period of one month to the present appellants the sums due on the three prior mortgages, and conditional upon...
Satya Shankar Ghoshal and ors. Vs. Maharaj NaraIn Sheopuri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All119
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The circumstances out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The decree holder, on the 26th of January, 1912, obtained a decree for possession of certain house property together with mesne profits and costs. Under the decree the judgment-debtors were directed to vacate the house within one month, i.e., the judgment-debtors were allowed one month's grace to remove their property. On 11th of April, 1912, the decree-holder applied to execute the decree. He asked to be put in possession of the house by ejectment of the judgment debtors because the latter had not vacated it. They also asked for attachment and sale of movable property in order to recover the costs and mesne profits. On the 20th of April, 1912, the judgment-debtors filed an appeal against the original decree in this Court. No application was made at the time for stay of execution. On the 23rd of April, 1912, the Amin in the court below gave possession to the decree-holders and duly e...
Kalian and ors. Vs. Sadho Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.14
1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. The respondents to this appeal brought a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage. They impleaded certain persons as subsequent transferees. It appears that there were three prior mortgages, one in favour of Bidhi Chand and two in favour of Kalian. Bidhi Chand sold his rights to Kalian and the other three appellants before us. At the trial of the suit, these four persons thought it fit to stand upon their rights as prior mortgagees and claimed that the plaintiffs should redeem them before they sold the mortgaged property. The result of this was a compound decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the following effect. The Court ordered the original mortgagors to pay up the plaintiff's debt within three months. It then ordered that if they failed so to pay, the plaintiff should pay within a further period of one month to the present appellants the sums due on the three prior mortgages, and conditional upon their so doing, the decree ...
Satya Shankar Ghosal and ors. Vs. Maharaj NaraIn Choudhri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.728
1. The circumstances out of which this appeal has arisen, are as follows: The decree-holder, on the 26th of January 1912, obtained a decree for possession of certain house property together with mesne profits and costs. Under the decree, the judgment-debtors were directed to vacate the house within one month, i.e., the judgment-debtors were allowed one month's grace to remove their property. On the 11th of April 1912, the decree-holder applied to execute the decree. He asked to be put in possession of the house by ejectment of the judgment-debtors because the latter had not vacated it. They also asked for attachment and sale of moveable property in order to recover the costs and mesne profits. On the 20th of April 1912, the judgment-debtors filed an appeal against the original decree in this Court. No application was made at the time for stay of sale. On the 23rd of April 1912, the Amin in the Court below gave possession to the decree-holders and duly ejected the judgment-debtors. Move...
Jambu Prasad Vs. Nawab Aftab Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.126
1. The value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council far exceeds Rs. 10,000. The decisions, however, of this Court and of the Court below are concurrent and accordingly we have to say whether we can certify that there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The question, upon which the case turned both in the Court of first instance and in this Court, was whether or not the mortgage-bond was duly registered. Both the Courts held that it was not. It must be taken that the Courts have decided that the person who handed the bond to the Sub-Registrar was not a person authorised to do so under Section 33 of the Registration Act (III of 1877). The evidence, however, establishes that prior to the registration there were present before the Sub-Registrar assenting to the registration of the bond persons who were authorised to 'present' the bond to the Sub-Registrar for registration. The question is whether this constitutes a good '...
Anant Ram and ors. Vs. Raja Sheoraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.305
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court below exceeds Rs. 10.000. That Court made a decree for Rs. 15,985 3-10. This amount upon appeal preferred by some of the defendants was reduced by this Court by a sum which is much less than Rs. 10,000. Therefore, the value of the subject-matter of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council is below Rs. 10,000 and the case does not fulfil the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. It is, however, contended that questions of general importance are involved in the case and that we should certify it as otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.' The questions which arose in the case are two-fold. First, whether the burden lies upon a mortgagee, who takes a mortgage from the manager of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, to prove that the debt was incurred for family necessity and the second is whether if...
Bhagwati Misir Vs. Ram Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.687
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the District Magistrate of Basti, dated the 22nd of October 1912, whereby he granted sanction to the other party, to prosecute Bhagwati Misir, under Sections 193 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are briefly as follows: The applicant, Bhagwati Misir, is the servant of one Rajit Ram. Between Rajit Ram and the opposite party there appears to be a dispute in regard to some jungle land bearing trees. From the record I gather that there has been a riot. Bhagwati came to the Court and laid a complaint against Ram Dial, Ghirrao and Ali Khan or Ali Jan, accusing them of having voluntarily caused grievous hurt, His, statement briefly put was that they were cutting certain trees in the jungle, that he went to protest and that Ram Dial struck him with a lathi on the middle finger of the right hand, completely severing the upper joint. The medical evidence proved very clearly that the upper joint of the finger had been...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »