Allahabad Court March 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.
Hanuman DIn and anr. Vs. Ram Bisal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.260
Banerji, J.1. I think the Courts below are right. The plaintiffs are mortgagees from the defendant's father whom the defendant now represents and they are recorded as mortgagees. They brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover profits for the mortgaged share from the defendant. The defendant mortgagor happens to be the lambardar, and his contention is that the mortgagees ceased to be in possession long ago, and that their mortgage has come to an end. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that this is not a suit for profits by a recorded o-sharer against a lambardar but is in reality a suit by the mortgagees against their mortgagor who dispossessed them. No doubt, the names of the plaintiffs are recorded in the revenue papers. But the defendant fills two capacities. He is the mortgagor as well as the lambardar; by withholding profits he as mortgagor has dispossessed the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' remedy is to sue to recover possession and possibly m...
Mawasi Vs. Mulchand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.278
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is the owner of two small plots of land which are not assessed for Government Revenue. The plots held by the plaintiff appear in the same khewat as the land which goes to make up a 20 biswas mahal. To this extent and no further can it be said that the plaintiff is a proprietor in the mahal in which the property sold is situate. The 2 bighas, 3 biswas and 7 biswansis do not go to make up the 20 biswas share set forth in the khewat. The only evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of the existence of a custom of preemption is the Wajib-ul-arz. The Wajib-ul-arz for mahal Chidu is as follows: 'In this mahal if the owner of a share wish to sell it, he shall do so first to his near relation who may be a co sharer in the zemindari and in case of his refusal to any one he likes.' The Wajib-ul-arz for mahal Roti Ram is in similar terms. Now, the custom which the plaintiff attempts to set up is a custom giving a right of pre...
Jhandu Singh Vs. WahiuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.269
1. Jhanda Singh has brought the present petition praying that a certificate under Rule 3, Order XLV, be granted to him. Notice has been issued to the other side to show cause why such a certificate should not be granted and the petition has been strongly opposed in this Court. The subject-matter of the suit was in this Court over Rs. 10,000 in value and the subject-matter in dispute in the appeal to His Majesty in Council is also over Rs. 10,000. The decree of this Court affirmed the decree of the Court below and we have, therefore, to see whether this appeal involves a substantial question of law. The case before this Court will be found reported as Jhanda Singh v. Wahid-ud-din 33 A. 585 : 9 Ind. Cas. 1013 : 8 A.L.J. 389. The question that the learned Judges of this Court had to consider was, whether the deeds before them in this case were, or were not, deeds constituting a mortgage by conditional sale. That the case was considered by this Court to be as a case of importance is eviden...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.496
George Knox, J.1. This petition for revision arises out of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut. That Judge was asked to grant sanction for the prosecution of eight men. These eight men were witnesses for the defence in the case of King-Emperor v. Behary, decided by that particular Judge himself. After he had decided the case, he took action under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed the prosecution of such witnesses as he thought it desirable to prosecute. He refused to give sanction for the prosecution of the eight persons concerned in this petition, on the grounds that if they did perjure themselves, they played a very secondary part and the chief witnesses have been ordered to be prosecuted. An offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is an offence against public justice. The person best qualified to say whether a prosecution should or should not be instituted is the learned Judge before whom the evidence was given and who had cons...
Raghubar Rai and ors. Vs. Jaij Raj and anr. and Musammat Chuna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All429
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arose was one for recovery of money. The plaintiffs' case was as follows:On the 20th of April, 1895, the plaintiffs sold certain landed, property to some of the defendants and left a sum of Rs. 7 08 with the vendees for payment to one Sanchi Ram, who was the mortgagee of some other property of the vendors. The vendees failed to pay, and Sanchi's heirs sued on the mortgage and obtained a decree, dated the 14th of January, 1910, for Rs. 1,769-4-8. It is admitted that the plaintiffs have not yet paid any money under the decree. They, however, on the 6th of June, 1910, brought an action against the defendants for the recovery of the money covered by the decree. The court of first instance treated the claim as one for the unpaid purchase money and held it to be barred by time. The lower appellate court took the suit to be one for damages for the breach of the covenant to pay Rs. 708 to Sanchi, found that it was not barred b...
Raghubar Rai and ors. Vs. Jaij Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.244
1. The suit out of which this appeal arose was one for recovery of money. The plaintiffs' case was as follows:On the 20th of April 1895, the plaintiffs sold certain landed property to some of the defendants and left a sum of Rs. 708 with the vendees for payment to one Sanehi Ram who was the mortgagee of some other property of the vendors. The vendees failed to pay. Sanehi's heirs sued on the mortgage and obtained a decree dated the 14th of January 1910 for Rs. 1,769-4-8. It is admitted that the plaintiffs have not' yet paid any money under the decree. They, however, on the 6th of June 1910 brought an action against the defendants for the recovery of the money covered by the decree. The Court of first instance treated the claim as one for the unpaid purchase-money and held it to be barred by time. The lower Appellate Court took the suit to be one for damages for the breach of the covenant to pay Rs. 708 to Sanehi, found that it was not barred by time and reversed the decree of the first...
Lachhmi Vs. Sangram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.322
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, in which the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they are entitled to certain zemindari property. Mukh Ram, Sis Ram and Nichal were three brothers, who, according to the finding of the Court below, were separate Nichal died leaving his son Mula. Mula died, and after his death his mother Musammat Dharman was recorded? After her death Sis Ram succeeded to the property and thus became the owner of two-thirds. Sis Ram died without a son but, according to the finding of the Court below, (which upon this question, as also upon the question of the family being separate, is not challenged), Musammat Lachhmi was the legitimate daughter of Sis Ram. The plaintiffs allege that according to custom Musammat Lachhmi is excluded from all right to the property of Sis Ram. The custom, is set forth in paragraph 8 of the plaint as follows: 'The parties are Jats. The ancestors of the parties and the other members of the Jat community had come from ...
W. Barrow Vs. Gaya Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.729
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent, Gaya Prasad, for the recovery of Rs. 4,618-8 on the basis of a promissory-note said to have been made in his favour by Babu Ram Bahadur Singh, represented in this suit by the Court of Wards, Bengal, on the 11th of September 1906. First appeal No. 336 of 1910 arises out of a suit brought by the same person on three promissory-notes said to have been made in his favour by Ram Bahadur Singh on the 27th of December 1906, 29th of December 1906, and 31st of December 1906. Ram Bahadur Singh was, on his own application, under Section 6 (e) of the Bengal Court of Wards Act, IX of 1879, declared to be a disqualified proprietor and his estate was taken under the charge of the Court of Wards in March 1907. Both the suits were tried together in the Court below and may be disposed of here by the same judgment. The Court of Wards pleaded that the notes were not made for consideration, and that the ward, Ram Bahadur Singh, had, after his e...
Lalta Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Karan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All426
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to re-instate a suit dismissed for default of appearance by the plaintiffs under Order IX, Rule 8. The suit is one in respect to a trust by certain trustees against a co-trustee who is charged with the management of the property.2. The lower court rejected the application for rehearing on the ground that sufficient cause had not been shown. The facts briefly are as follows. The suit was partly heard. One of the plaintiffs had been examined and the suit adjourned to enable the other plaintiff to appear for examination. Two of the leading pleaders were appearing for them. One of these gentlemen and also the pleader for the opposite party are members of the Municipal Board of Cawnpore and on the date fixed were late in attending court owing to a meeting of the Board. The other pleader for the plaintiff represented this to the Court early in the day and the Judge consented to taking the case at 12 o'clock. The plead...
Jaggi Lal and ors. Vs. Sri Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All464
Henry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent based on a registered lease executed on the 1st of December, 1883, and registered on the 31st of December, 1883. The plaintiff's claim six years' arrears. The court below has given them a decree for three years' arrears, holding that the claim for three years is barred by limitation.2. The plaintiffs appeal, and it is contended that the defendants have made an acknowledgement of their liability, which, under the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, operates to save limitation. This acknowledgement is said to be found in the defendants' account books. Extracts of these account books are on the record. They contain certain entries relating to the rent of the land in suit. The plaintiffs, however, have failed to show that these accounts bear the signature of the defendants or their authorized agent. In this respect they have failed to satisfy us that the entries in question operate as an ackno...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »