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.
Shah Muhammad Abbas and ors. Vs. Muhammad Hamid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.179
1. In October 1895, Imam Jan mortgaged her shares in two villages, Jamalpur and Bangaon to, Akbar Ali for Rs. 700. Subsequently, the share in each village was made a separate mahal of 16-annas. On her death, a 10-annas share in the mahalin Jamalpur and a 7 1/2-annas share in the mahal in Bangaon devolved upon two ladies, Musammat Hajira and Musammat Walia. The remainder of her property devolved upon other people with whom we are not concerned. On July 7th, 1893, Hajira and Walia mortgaged a 7 1/2-annas share in Jamalpur and a 5-annas odd share in Bangaon to Abbas Ali for Rs. 600 and on January 26th, 1893, they mortgaged a 10-annas share in Jamalpur and a 7 1/2-annas share in Bangaon to the same person for Rs. 393. On April 10th, 1900, they sold the share in Bangaon to the plaintiffs, who are the heirs of Akbar Ali, for Rs. 1,800. Of this amount, Rs. 199 were paid by the plaintiffs in cash; Rs. 515 were retained by them on account of the mortgage of October 17th, 1895; Rs. 600 were left...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Ram Karan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.187
1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to re-instate a suit dismissed for default of appearance by the plaintiff 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 re-hearing on the ground that sufficient cause had not been shown. The facts briefly are as follows:The suit was part 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 Pleader, however, misunderstood what th...
Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.214
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings held in the Court of the District Judge of Allahabad on a reference made by the Collector of Allahabad under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The only question is whether the Pleader's fee has been calculat. ed correctly in the Court below. The appellant contends that the Pleader's fee should have been calculated under Rule 461 of the rules of the 4th of April 1894. The respondent contends that the fee was rightly calculated under Rule 457. Rule 457, so far as it is relevant to the present case, is as follows: 'in suits or in appeals from original or appellate decrees in suits for money, effects or other personal property or for land or other immoveable property of any description when such suits or appeals are decided on the merits lifter contest'' (here follows the scale of fees.) Rule 461 is as follows: 'in appeals from orders and in other cases' (here follows the scale of fees).2. It is agreed that the decision in the present case was arriv...
Bhikamber Das Vs. Thakuri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.263
ORDER1. This was a suit on a mortgage brought against, the heirs of the mortgagor. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were impleaded as their names appeared on the khewat although they were not necessary parties. The Court of first instance, acting under Order I, Rule 10 Clause 2, struck out the names of the defendants Thakuri and Tula Ram. The plaintiff comes to this Court in revision and a preliminary objection is taken to the effect that as the order did not decide anything between the plaintiff and the defendants, no revision lies. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Malik Muhammad Ayub v. Muhammad Mahmood 7 A.L.J. 741 : 32 A. 623 : 6 Ind. Cas. 831. The preliminary objection is, in our opinion, a valid objection. We, therefore, dismiss the application with costs including fees on the higher scale....
Chedda Lal Vs. Basdeo Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.266
1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division, 1894. The fads briefly are as follows--One Niazi Begam was the owner of certain encumbered shares in three villages, one of which was Meghawala Mahal Sufaid. Her share in it was 6 1/4 biswa which was encumbered as follows: Rs. 7,474 were due to Fardausi Begum and Rs. 3,169-8 G were due to Lala Chheda Lai. Niazi Begam, on the 9th of November 1906, through her guardian, Dost Muhammad, executed a sale-deed of all her shares in the three villages in favour of Basdeo Lal. The real consideration for the sale as has been found was that the vendee would pay off all the incumbrances on the shares sold and that he would deliver possession of 1 1/2 biswa in Meghawala Mahal Sufaid, free from all incumbrances, to the vendor. Chheda La1 brought an action to pre-empt the share of 6-1/11 biswa in Meghawala Mahal Sufaid. The Court of first instance gave him a decree which directed him to pay all the incumbranc...
Juggi Lal and ors. Vs. Sri Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.146
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 plaintiffs 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 acknowledgment of their liability which, under the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, operates to save limitation. This acknowledgment is said to be found in the defendant's 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 authorised agent. In this respect, they have failed to satisfy us that the entries in question operate as an acknowledgment within the meaning of Sec...
Sham Manohar and anr. Vs. Great Indian Peninsula Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All422
Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for damages for non-delivery of three packages consigned by the plaintiff at the Etawah Railway Station for despatch to Jhansi. On the 23rd of May, 1910, the plaintiff booked six packages for despatch from Etawah station to Jhansi. Three of these were delivered and the other three were not delivered. In respect of the articles contained in the packages not delivered, the present suit was brought. The defendants to the suit were the East Indian Railway, The Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway. The suit was withdrawn against the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway; it was dismissed against the East Indian Railway, but a part of the claim has been decreed against the Great Indian Peninsula Railway. This application for revision has been filed on behalf of that railway. The first contention of the applicants is that having regard to the provisions of Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act (Act IX of 1890), the claim could not be decreed a...
Gopal Rai Vs. Sarwi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.243
1. This second appeal has been instituted by one Lala Gopal Rai. He was plaintiff in the Court of first instance and he sued for a decree to recover Rs. 2,003, principal and interest, due on a mortgage-bond and prayed that in default the mortgaged property might be sold. Of the three defendants one, namely, Musammat Sarwi Begam, objected that she had not received the money and that it was not borrowed for her use and benefit. She refused to admit the allegation in the plaint that her husband, Muazzam Ali Shah, was competent to execute any mortgage-deed on her behalf. In order to prove that her husband was competent to execute the mortgage deed, it was necessary for the plaintiff to produce a Mukhtarnama alleged to have been executed by Sarwi Begam in favour of Muazzam Ali Shah. The plaintiff called on the defendant to produce the document. This was done repeatedly but the defendant neither filed the original power nor obtained any copy of it. The plaintiff; then went into the Registrat...
Kamta Parshad Singh Vs. Sidh NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.251
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent, Sidh Narain Singh, for the recovery of Rs. 8,373-0-0 on the basis of two mortgages made on April 9th, 1863, and March 25th, 1861, by one Sital Singh in favour of Sheo Shanker Singh. The plaintiff in the suit is the son of Sheo Shankar Singh. One of the defendants in the suit is the appellant Kamta Parshad Singh, who was a son of Sital Singh. Kamta Parshad Singh's defence was that the mortgages were not made for consideration and that they were not made either for lawful necessity or to discharge any antecedent debt. There was also a question as to the amount of interest to be allowed. The Court fixed three issues: (1) Whether Sital Singh executed the deeds for consideration; (2) Whether the debts were incurred for family necessity, and (3) what amount of interest should be allowed. On the first issue, the Subordinate Judge found that the mortgages were made for the consideration stated in them. On the second he uses languag...
Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company Vs. Sham Manohar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.803
Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for damages for non-delivery of three packages consigned by the plaintiff at the Etawah Railway Station for despatch to Jhansi. On May 23,1910, the plaintiff booked six packages for despatch from Etawah Station to Jhansi. Three of these were delivered and the other three were not delivered. In respect of the articles contained in the packages not delivered, the present suit was brought. The defendants to the suit were the East Indian Railway, the Oadh and Rohilkhand Railway and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway. The suit was withdrawn against the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway, it was dismissed against the East Indian Railway, but a part of the claim has been decreed against the Great Indian Peninsula Railway. This application for revision has been filed on behalf of that Railway. The firts contention of the applicants is, that having regard to the provisions of Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890), the claim could not be decreed against this R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »