Allahabad Court February 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.
Monohar Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All323
Henry Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to realize the amount of a mortgage, dated the 4th of June, 1877, by sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff alleged that the mortgage was in renewal of another mortgage of the 12th of June, 1875, and he claimed priority for his mortgage as of that date. He further set forth in his plaint that the ancestor of the defendants first party had made a mortgage of the 8th of November, 1875, in favour of the ancestor of the defendants 9--11, that a suit had been instituted on foot of this mortgage of the 8th of November, 1875, and the property sold, but he submitted that this mortgage ]of the 8th of November, 1875, must under the circumstances, be deemed to be puisne to his mortgage, but that if any part of the defendant's mortgage should be held to have priority over his mortgage, then he asked that the property might be sold subject to the debt that had priority.2. The defendants 9--1...
Gobardhan Sahai Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All321
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. An application by the decree-holders was put in for the execution of their decree objection was taken by the judgment-debtor that there was no valid decree which could be executed against him. The facts as shown by the objection of the judgment-debtor are the following:--The decree-holders obtained a decree from the lower appellate court against the present appellant and other judgment-debtors. The latter preferred a second appeal to this Court. While the appeal was pending, the guardian ad litem of Sita Ram, one of the respondents, died. No application was made by the judgment-debtor, appellant in that case, to have another guardian ad litem appointed to represent the minor decree-holder Sita Ram. This Court dismissed the appeal of the judgment-debtor in that case and affirmed the decree of the lower appellate court. The present appellant was one of the original judgment-debtors and a pro forma respondent in that appeal. Under these circumstances the ...
Gobardhan Sahi Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.506
1. An application by the decree-holders was put in for the execution of their decree. An objection was taken by the judgment-debtor that there was no valid decree which could be executed against him. The facts, as shown by the objection of the judgment-debtor, are the following:The decree-holders obtained a decree from the lower Appellate Court against the present appellant and other judgment-debtors. The latter preferred a second appeal to this Court. 'While the appeal was pending, the guardian ad litem of Sita Ram, one of the respondents, died. No application was made by the judgment-debtor, appellant in that case, to have another guardian ad litem appointed to represent the minor decree-holder, Sita Ram, This Court dismissed the appeal of the judgment debtor in that case and affirmed the decree of the lower Appellate Court. The present appellant was one of (he original judgment-debtors and a pro form a respondent in that appeal. Under these circumstances, the mere fact that one of t...
Manohar Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.674
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to realise the amount of mortgage, dated the 4th of June 1877, by sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff alleged that the mortgage was in renewal of another mortgage of the 12th of June 1875, and he claimed priority for his mortgage as of that date. He further set forth in his plaint that the ancestor of the defendants first party had made a mortgage of the 8th of November 1875, in favour of the ancestor of the defendants Nos. 9--11, that a suit had been instituted on foot of this mortgage of the 8th of November 1873, and the property sold, but he submitted that this mortgage of the 8th of November 1875, must, under the circumstances, be deemed to be puisne to his mortgage, but that if any part of the defendant's mortgage should be held to have priority over his mortgage, then he asked that the property might be sold subject to the debt that had priority.2. The defendants Nos. 9--11 pleaded, amongst other things, ...
Parbati Vs. Baijnath Pathak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.61
Karamat Husain, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was for the cancellation of a deed of gift, dated the 18th of November 1909. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant No. 1 and the father of the defendant No. 2 induced her to sell her immoveable property to (hem; that they got a deed of gift written and that the plaintiff on knowing that it was a deed of gift refused to have it registered; that they procured its registration against her wishes and that, therefore, she sued for its cancellation. The defence was that she executed the deed of gift of her own free will but that when she refused to have it registered, it was registered by the order of the Registrar on the application of the defendants. The Court of first instance, finding that the plaintiff executed the deed of gift of her own free will, dismissed the suit and its decree was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The point taken in second appeal is that the deed of gift is ineffectual inasmuch as it...
Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. Bohra Net Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.237
1. The appeal arises out of a suit for sale based on a mortgage-deed, dated 18th April 1377, brought on 26th February 1910, i.e., practically 33 years after the band was executed, by four persons, by Har Sukh, Parfcab, Deo Hans and Deo Kunwar, in favour of the plaintiff Net Ram and one Mansukh Das, deceased, and covered the sum of Rs. 4,000.2. Among the present defendants are prior mortgagees and subsequent transferees When the plaint was first filed, the plaintiff who sues alone, claimed therein to be the sole heir and representative of the deceased Mansukh Das and, therefore, entitled to sue alone. He, however, amended his plaint and by the amendment claimed to have acquired the interest of Mansukh Das by survivorship they having constituted a joint Hindu family.3. Among other defences, the defendants raise the plea that the plaintiff was not the sole mortgagee and not entitled to sue alone It appears that a copy of the original plaint was served on the defendants and not one of the ...
Emperor Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All319
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:--One Babu Lal was a licensed vendor of opium. One of the general conditions under which he was licensed to sell was that sales should not be made to children below the age of fourteen years. In his absence his sales-man sold opium to a person under the age of 14. Both the sales-man and the licensed vendor have been convicted. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that the licensed vendor, Babu Lal, is not liable under the circumstances of the present case for the act of his servant. He has been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act in that he has sold opium in contravention of the rules made and notified under Section 5 Rules made and notified under this section set out the general condition which we have mentioned above. The question is whether the master in the circumstances of the present case is liable for the act of his servant committe...
Babu Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.666
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: One Babu Lal was a licensed vendor of opium. One of the general conditions under which he was licensed to sell was that sales should not be made to children below the age of fourteen years. In his absence, his salesman sold opium to a person under the age of 14. Both the salesman and the licensed vendor have been convicted. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that the licensed vendor, Babu Lal, is not liable under the circumstances of the present case for the act of his servant. He has been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act in that he has sold opium in contravention of the rules made and notified under Section 5. Rules made and notified under this section set out the general condition which we have mentioned above. The question is whether the master, in the circumstances of the present case, is liable for the act of his servant committed by the latter in the course ...
O'Grady Vs. Herbert Winn
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.135
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for breach of warranty on the sale of a. horse. The matter commenced between the parties by an answer to an advertisement in the 'Pioneer'. This was followed by considerable correspondence in the course of which the defendant made representations which the Court below held amounted to a warranty. This was also admitted on behalf of the defendant. We ourselves consider that the representations did amount to a warranty that the horse was sound. It has been found on evidence that the horse was unsound at the time of the sale. This is a finding of fact binding on this Court in second appeal. The Courts below awarded damages amounting to Rs. 200. We are bound by this finding also. Shortly before the bargain was concluded between the parties and after the defendant had made the representations, which we hold to amount to a warranty, the plaintiff telegraphed on the 29th of July 1908: 'Will take mare. Letter posted.' This telegram was followed b...
Baijnath Dube Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.658
1. The applicant, Baijnath Dube, is a pony contractor, whose animals work on the road between the Brewery near Naini Tal and Ranikhet. He has been tried for an offence under Section 6 of Act XI of 1890 (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) on the ground that he permitted unfit animals in his possession and under his control to be employed or worked, which by reason of wounds, diseases and other causes were unfit for work. The evidence for the prosecution shows that on the 21st of July last, an Inspector of Police and a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon visited various stables in which the applicant's ponies were kept. In those stables certain ponies were found to be unfit for work. Only one pony, a flea-bitten grey, was found harnessed in a carriage, was galled and unfit for work. In so far as the prosecution evidence goes and as the Magistrate in his judgment has to admit, there is no evidence to show that any unfit animal was being worked except the above mentioned pony. From certain evi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »