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.
Gurcharan Das Vs. Har Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.191
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 I 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. Rule No. 39 ran as follows: 'The validity of an election may be questioned by a petition to the District Magistrate on the g...
Lochi Lal Vs. Mewa Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.242
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Agra, setting aside a decree passed ex parte on the 28th of August 1908. The decree was for Rs. 190 and costs amounting to Rs. 20-5 0. The decree-holder applied for execution of the decree in 1911 and a notice was issued to the judgment-debtor to show cause why the decree should not be executed. Thereupon, he presented an application on the 18th of July 1911 to have the decree set aside on the ground that he had no notice of the Suit. With his application, he deposited Rs. 190-8-0 as required by Section 17, Sub-section (1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The application was resisted on two grounds; first, that notice of the suit had been duly served on the defendant applicant and, secondly, that the deposit made was insufficient. It is contended here that as the decree was for Rs. 19ft principal and Rs. 20-8-0 as costs, the deposit made was insufficient and, therefore, t...
Raghunath Prasad Vs. Jagannath Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.176
1. A suit for profits under Section 164 of the Agra Tenancy Act was instituted in the Court of the Assistant Collector. That Court dismissed it with costs. There was an appeal to the District Judge, who under Order XLI, Rule 23, remanded the case to that Court. An appeal from the order of remand is preferred to this Court, A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal which is to the following effect. Section 193 of the Agra Tenancy Act excludes the application of Chapter XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. Section 588 of that Code is contained in that Chapter. Section 158 of the present Code of Civil Procedure provides: 'In every enactment or notification passed or issued before the commencement of this Code, in which reference is made to or to any Chapter or section of Act VIII of 1859 or any Code of Civil Procedure or any Act amending the same or any other enactment hereby repealed such reference shall, so far as may be practicable, be taken to be made to ...
Het Singh and ors. Vs. Tika Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All388; 14Ind.Cas.240
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. One Khushal Singh mortgaged the property in suit to Bhagwant Singh on the 19th of November, 1889. He again mortgaged it to Tika Ram on the 2nd of January, 1894. Bhagwant Singh brought a suit on his mortgage without impleadiug Tika Ram and got a decree on the 23rd of June, 1900, in execution of which he bought the property on the 15th of August, 1904, Tika Ram, on the 7th of February, 1910, got a decree to redeem the mortgage of Bhagwant Singh on payment of Rs. 462 with interest. The decree was in general terms and did not set out the amount of interest which Tika Ram had to pay. It provided that if Tika Ram failed to pay up to the 15th of August', 1904, his suit was to be dismissed. The date is presumably wrong. The 15th of August, 1910, was the date fixed. The date of the mortgage in favour of Bhagwant Singh is also wrongly shown as November, 1890, instead of the 19th of November, 1889. On the 2nd of August, 1910, Tika Ram paid into the court Rs. 2,27...
Gur Nanak Prasad Vs. Jai NaraIn Lal and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All385
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. Sarabjit and Sheo Gobind sold the property in suit to Bhaiya Rajpal Singh on the 7th of December, 1852, for Rs. 275. On the same date Bhaiya Rajpal Singh entered into an agreement with the vendors that on payment of Rs. 200, in any Jeth, he would recovery the property to the vendors. After Bhaiya Rajpal Singh's death his son, Suraj Bali, mortgaged the whole of that property along with some other property nominally to Rabsa Kunwar, but really to her husband. Suraj Bali also made a gift of that property to Musammat Adhar Kunwar. Jai Narain and Raghunath Prasad, the representatives in interest of Sarabjit and Sheogobind, instituted a suit for redemption of the property transferred on the 7th of December, 1852. In that suit they mppleaded Adhar Kunwar and Rabsa Kunwar, whose husband was then dead. The suit was defended by Adhar Kunwar only and Rabsa Kunwar did not put in any appearance. The court of first instance gave the plaintiffs a decree on the 30th o...
Chhajju Vs. Khyali Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.175
Karamat Husain, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arose was for sale upon a mortgage. Kure Mal and Chhajju executed a simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiff Khyali Ram on the 23rd of December 1890. On the 7th of August 1907, a suit on the said bond was instituted which was withdrawn on the 14th of the same month. The substance of the application was as follows:'There is such a patent defect (naqs sarih) in the case as renders its dismissal likely, it is, therefore, prayed that the case may be dismissed with permission to being a fresh suit.' The order on the application is in these terms:'This is an application under Section 373, Civil Procedure Code. I allow the application. The plaintiff should be at liberty to bring a fresh suit for the subject-matter of the claim'.2. The fresh suit was brought on the 30th of June 1910 with the allegation that in 1907 a suit on the same bond was withdrawn on the ground of limitation with permission to bring a fresh suit. Chhajju Mal denied ...
Gur Nanak Prashad Vs. Jai NaraIn Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.814
1. Sarabjit and Sheo Gobind sold the property in suit to Bhaiya Rajpal Singh on the 7th of December, 1852, for Rs. 275. On the same date, Bhaiya Rajpal Singh entered into an agreement with the vendors that on payment of Rs. 200 in any Jeth, he would re-convey the property to the vendors. After Bhaiya Rajpal Singh's death, his son, Suraj Bali, mortgaged the whole of that property along with some other property nominally to Rabsa Kunwar, but really to her husband. Suraj Bali also made a gift of that property to Musammat Adhar Kunwar. Jai Narain and Raghunath Prasad, the representatives in interest of Sarabjit, and Sheo Gobind, instituted a suit for redemption of the property transferred on the 7th of December, 1852. In that suit they impleaded Adhar (sic) and Rabsa Kunwar whose husband was then dead. The suit was defended by Adhar Kunwar only and Rabsa Kunwar did not put in any appearance. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiffs a decree on the 30th of September, 1907, entitling ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›