Allahabad Court April 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.
Dalip Singh and ors. Vs. Bahadur Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All446; 15Ind.Cas.435
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 563 odd by the sale of a share in a village. The suit is based upon a document, dated the 31st of March, 1891, which, according to the respondent, effected a mortgage of the share, but which according to the appellants effected only a charge on the share. If there was a mortgage the suit is maintainable, and the order of the lower appellate court remanding the suit for trial on the merits is correct. If there was only a charge, the suit is barred by limitation, as was held by the court of first instance, and this appeal must be allowed.2. The deed opens with a recital that the executant has borrowed Rs. 991 ; then follows a promise by him to pay that amount with interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem within a certain time, and after that there are the following words:Muakhiza aslo sud to yom-ul-wasul upar [description of the share] haqiyat win muqir...qaim rahega....
Shiam Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.602
George Knox, J.1. Shiam Lal has been convicted under Section 147 of Act I of 1900, and sentenced to pay a flue of Rs. 10. The rule which he is considered to have broken is apparently contained in paragraph 5 of a paper which is on the record. That paper runs thus: 'The Municipal Board of Muttra hereby requires with reference to Section 87 of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh Municipalities Act I of 1900 that applications for building new houses or adding to existing ones may be sanctioned by the Public Health Sub-Committee only on the following conditions'. Condition No. 5 is: 'no projection shall be allowed in any lane whose width is less than 12 feet.' If this be a rule as authorized by Section 128B of the same Act, any such disobedience of such rule would be an offence under Section 147.2. No other rule has been pointed out. I have gone carefully through the so-called rules but I do not find anything in them which in express terms requires the public to obtain previous sanction t...
Suraj Ghulam Singh and ors. Vs. Chab Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.347
Piggott, J.1. The question essentially in issue in this appeal turns on the application of the Second clause of Section 202 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901) to the facts of the present case. The suit was one in ejectment against trespassers. The plaintiffs came into Court alleging that they were owners of certain plots of land and that the defendants were in possession of the same without any title. In order to explain how the defendants obtained possession, the plaintiffs stated that the plots in suit appertain to a share, which was mortgaged by one of the plaintiffs to the defendants on March the 8th, 1886, and that the defendants originally obtained possession as mortgagees under that mortgage. It was further alleged that the mortgage was redeemed by one of the plaintiffs in the month of May 1906 and that some of the lands appertaining to the mortgaged share had duly passed into possession of the plaintiffs since this redemption but that the defendants were retaining p...
Ram Singh Vs. Lalta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.733
Banerji, J.1. I think the conclusion at which the Courts below have arrived is correct. The plaintiff is the lambardar and he brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, against the defendant, who is a co-sharer, to recover arrears of revenue paid by the plaintiff for the defendant. The amount of the revenue was actually paid on the 3rd of July 1906. The suit was brought on the 30th of June 1909. The question is whether the claim is time barred. The decision of this question depends on whether the suit was in reality a suit under Section 159 of the Agra Tenancy Act or under Section 160 of that Act. Section 159 contemplates a suit by a lambardar for arrears of revenue payable to the Government through the lambardar by a co-sharer, whether such revenue has actually been paid or not. The limitation for such a suit is three years from the date when the revenue became payable. Section 160 contemplates a case where arrears of revenue have actually been paid by one co-sharer for an...
The Allahabad Bank Ld. Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.589
1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Judge of Cawnpore, setting aside an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Cawnpore, under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Harish Chander and others applied to the Small Cause Court to be declared insolvents. In due course, an order of adjudication was made, a Receiver was appointed and the 5th of September 1908 was fixed for the proof of their debts by the creditors. A large number of creditors put in proofs and in December 1903 a schedule was prepared in the ordinary way under Section 24 of the Act, Nearly a year later, on November 19th 1909, Murlidhar presented a petition to the Court praying that his name might be entered in the schedule of creditors. He put in an affidavit showing that his claim amounted to over Rs. 53,000. The Court caused notices of the application to be served on the Receiver and the creditors whose names were already in the schedule and, after lengthy proceedings which it is unnecessary ...
The Allahabad Bank, Limited Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All442
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Judge of Cawnpore, setting aside an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Cawnpore under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Harish Chandar and others applied to the Small Cause Court to be declared insolvent. In due course, an order of adjudication was made, a receiver was appointed and the 5th of September, 1908, was fixed for the proof of their debts by the creditors. A large number of creditors put in proofs, and in December, 1908, a schedule was prepared in the ordinary way under Section 24 of the Act. Nearly a year later, on the 19th of November, 1909, Murlidhar presented a petition to the court, praying that his name might be entered in the schedule of creditors. He put in an affidavit showing that his claim amounted to over Rs. 53,000. The court caused notices of the application to be served on the receiver, and the creditors, whose names were already in the schedule and after ...
Behari Lal Vs. Basheshar Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.591
Chamier, J.1. These appeals arise out of an application made by the appellant under Order XXXIV, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a money, decree. The first Court passed a decree as prayed. Three appeals were filed in the Court of the District Judge, who held that the application was barred by limitation and for other reasons also was not maintainable. The decree-holder has appealed to this Court. The same questions arise in all three appeals and can be disposed of by one order. The facts are as follows:On the 13th of September, 1904 the appellant obtained a decree nisi for the sale of mortgaged property. On the 18th of April 1905, an order absolute was made for the sale of the property, but before the sale could take place other persons brought a suit and obtained a decree for possession of the property. That case was disposed of by the Court on the 30th of March 1908. Three days later, i.e., on the 2nd of April 1908, the appellant applied for an order for the sale of the mo...
Jhabba and ors. Vs. Dalchand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.760
ORDERChamier, J.1. The applicants have been ordered by a Magistrate of the first class to-refrain from interfering with the cultivation of certain fields by one Dalu. They complain that they had no opportunity of producing evidence and that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction. It has been held in several cases by this Court that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 435, Sub-section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court can interfere with orders of this kind passed by a Magistrate where the Magistrate has made no order at all showing that he was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning the land. In the present case, there is no preliminary order whatever. There is simply an application by one party, on which the Magistrate said that he himself would visit the fields. He visited the fields, called upon the parties to put in statements of their case and, without allowing either side an opportunity of producing evidence, pass...
Saiyid Faiyaz Ali Vs. Saiyid Ewaz Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.982
Karamat Husain, J.1. Ewaz Ali and his son, Faiyaz Ali, have been quarrelling for sometime. Proceedings were started under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and both parties were bound down to keep-the peace. That order was passed on February 14th, 1912. Afterwards an order was passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting Ewaz Ali from collecting rents of the property in dispute. Faiyaz Ali also instituted a civil suit in respect of the property in dispute, for a declaration that he is in possession of the property and that he is entitled to it. The Police however, reported that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed, concerning the property in question. On this, the Magistrate, on the 17th of February 1901, declared Ewaz Ali to be in possession of it until he was evicted in due course of law and prohibited all disturbance of such possession until such eviction. Faiyaz Ali comes in revision to this Court and the main point taken is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›