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.
Ali Baksh and ors. Vs. Barkatullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.181
1. One Chhidda, a Muhammadan, was an occupancy-tenant of a holding. He died leaving four sons and three grandsons, the sons of a deceased son. The latter brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, claiming possession of a 3/4th share of the occupany-holding. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiffs a decree for 1/oth share in the holding, i.e., the extent of the share which their father would have been entitled to, if he had been alive on the death of Chhidda. Both parties appealed to the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed. The defendants' appeal was successful so far that the decree of the first Court was modified and in lieu of a decreee for possession, a decree was given declaring the plaintiffs to be joint sharers in the holding to the extent of 1/5th. The defendants appeal against the decree of the lower Court and the plaintiffs have filed cross-objections. We are asked in this appeal to read the personal law of the parties into Section ...
Ali Bakhsh and ors. Vs. Barkat-ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All419
Henry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. One Chhidda, a Muhammadan, was an occupancy tenant of a holding. He died, leaving four sons and three grandsons, the sons of a deceased son. The latter brought the suit out of which this appeal has risen, claiming possession of a 3/7th share of the occupancy holding. The court of first instance gave the plaintiffs a decree for a 1/6th share in the holding, i.e., the extent of the share which their father would have been entitled to, if he had been alive on the death of Chhidda. Both parties appealed to the lower appellate court. The plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed. The defendants' appeal was successful so far that the decree of the first court was modified and in lieu of a decree for possession a decree was given declaring the plaintiffs to be joint sharers in the holding to the extent of 1/6th. The defendant's appeal against the decree of the lower appellate court and the plaintiffs have filed cross-objections. We are asked in this appeal to read the ...
Khadim HusaIn Vs. Bishan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.224
1. This was an application by a judgment-debtor to be declared insolvent. The Court rejected the application on the ground that the evidence adduced by the other side proved that the judgment-debtor had sufficient means to meet his liabilities. An appeal is preferred from that order, and it is contended by his learned Vakil that at this stage of the application the learned Judge was wrong in throwing it out and in support of this contention he relies upon Girwardhari v. Jai Narain 32 A. 645 : 7 Ind. Cas. 39 : 7 A.L.J. 835 which was quoted with approval in Samiruddin v. Srimati Kadar Moyee Dassi 15 C.W.N. 244 : 7 Ind. Cas. 691 : 12 C.L.J. 445. In view of the above rulings, the decision of the Court below cannot stand. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Court below and declare Khadim Husain insolvent, and send back the case to it to proceed according to law....
ismail Khan Vs. Mithu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.799
George Knox, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Haji Muhammad Ismail, who in his plaint describes himself as proprietor and lambardar of a certain mahal. He alleges in his plaint that one Lekhraj has been for more than twelve years cultivator of certain land assessed to certain rent; that three months ago Lekhraj died without leaving any heir, and that in consequence of this he, as zemindar, became proprietor of the land, trees and pucka well standing thereon. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2, according to him, allege that they have purchased the land, the trees and the well, under a sale deed executed by Lekhraj and are now obstructing plaintiff's possession. He prays that he may be declared to be in proprietary possession of the property, that the sale-deed be declared null and void as against himself and that a perpetual injunction issue restraining the defendants from offering any obstruction. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 admit that the plaintiff is proprietor and lamba...
In Re: Nawal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All393
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, directing the prose cution of the applicant for the offences mentioned in that order. It appears that one Sumat Prasad brought a suit against the applicant and others on two promissory notes. This was suit No. 200 of 1906. In answer to the claim, the applicant denied the genuineness of one of the promissory notes and pleaded payment of the amount of the other and produced a receipt. As regards both the promissory notes the court of first instance held the defendant's pleas to be false and found in favour of the plaintiff. The decree of that court was made on the 15th of April, 1908. On the 25th of May, 1908, the plaintiff, Sumat Prasad, made an application to the court for sanction to prosecute the defendants to the suit for falsely verifying their written statement and for committing forgery in respect of the receipt produced. Meanwhile the defendants preferred an appeal to t...
Khetpal Vs. Tikam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All396
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. In this case the decree-holder obtained a simple money decree against the judgment-debtor on the 19th of December, 1896. Various infructuous applications were made for execution of the decree, and the decree-holder, on the 15th of December, 1908, applied for the transfer of the decree from the court at Agra, to that at Aligarh. The application was granted on the 24th of February, 1909. He, then, on the 23rd March, 1909, applied to the court at Aligarh for execution. The court came to the conclusion that the application, dated the 23rd of March, 1909, was barred by the 12 years' rule of limitation. The decree-holder has preferred an appeal to this Court, and his learned vakil argues that the application in question is an application in continuation of the application for transfer, dated the 16th of December, 1908, and is thus not barred by limitation. In support of this contention reliance is placed upon Ram Sahai v. Nanni Weekly Notes 1886 p. 137. It l...
Kalla and ors. Vs. Hargian and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All416
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. On the 29th of January, 1909, Hargian, Bhogi Ram, Paran Sukh and Kachera executed a mortgage with possession in favour of Manik to secure a sum of Rs. 1,500. The entire property mortgaged was 26 bighas, 5 biswas. The share of Hargian in that was 4 bighas, 18 biswas, that of Bhogi Ram, 1 bigha, 12 biswas, and the remaining 19 bighas, 15 biswas belonged to Paran Sukh and Kachera. The mortgagors undertook a liability joint as well as several to pay the mortgage debt. On the same day Hargian executed a deed by way of mashrut-ul-rehan (a further charge) in favour of Manik, in which he mortgaged his own share amounting to 4 bighas 18 biswas, for a sum of Rs. 99. In this separate deed by way of mashrul-ul-rehan, the sipulated that at the time of redeeming the mortgage executed jointly by him and three other personas, he would pay the money due under this separate deed. There is a recital in the mortgage deed that a sum of Rs. 150 was due by Hargian to Kalla a...
Bohra Khetpal Vs. Kuar Tikam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.172
1. In this case the decree-holder obtained a simple money-decree against the judgment-debtor on the 19th of December 1896. Various infructuous applications were made for execution of the decree, and the decree-holder on the 15th of December 1908 applied for the transfer of the decree from the Court at Agra to that at Aligarh. The application was granted on the 24th of February 1909. He then on the 23rd of March 1909, applied to the Court at Aligarh for execution. The Court came to the conclusion that the application dated the 23rd of March 1909 was barred by the 12 years' rule of limitation. The decree-holder has preferred an appeal to this Court and his learned Vakil argues that the application in question is an application in continuation of the application for transfer dated the 15th of December 1908 and is thus not barred by limitation. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon Ram Sahai v. Nanni A.W.N. (1886) 137. It lays down in substance that an application for tran...
Nawal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.766
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for the revision oi an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, directing the prosecution of the applicant for the offences mentioned in that order. It appears that one Sumat Prasad brought a suit against the applicant and others on two promissory-notes. This was Suit No 200 of 1906. In answer to the claim, the applicant denied the genuineness of one of the promissory-notes and pleaded payment of the amount of the other and produced a receipt. As regards both the promissory notes, the Court of first instance held the defendant's pleas to be false and found in favour of the plaintiff. The decree of that Court was made on the 15lh of April, 1908. On the 25th of May, 1908, the plaintiff, Sumat Prasad, made an application to the Court for sanction to prosecute the defendants to the suit for falsely verifying their written statement and for committing forgery in respect of the receipt produced. Meanwhile the defendants preferred an appeal to th...
Har Sarup Vs. Gur Charan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All391
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. This was a suit instituted in the court of a Munsif for a declaration that a certain municipal election was invalid. The learned Munsif decided that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There was an appeal to the learned Additional District Judge of Meerut, who came to the conclusion that the Munsif had jurisdiction to try the suit and remanded the case to his court for trial on the merits. An appeal is preferred to this Court from the order of remand, and the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that under Section 187 of the Municipalities Act, No. 1 of 1900, a previous publication of the rules finally made by the local Government is a condition precedent to the validity of such rules. His contention is that the draft of these rules was published in the local Gazette of these provinces on the 27th of February, 1909, and that in that draft a Rule No. 39 ran as follows :--'The validity of an election may be questioned by a pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »