Allahabad Court May 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.
Aziz Bakhsh Vs. Kaniz Fatima Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All490
karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor from an order passed in execution proceedings.2. The person seeking to execute the decree is the assignee of a simple money decree which was transferred to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut.The assignee of the decree attached two lots of property, (1) properly which was burdened with a mortgage in favour of her assignor ; (2) property which was not so mortgaged. Both sets of property were attached. The judgment-debtor objected that the mortgaged property could not be sold in execution without a suit being brought on the mortgage.3. The first court disallowed the objection. An appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtor to this Court, a Bench of which, on the 2nd of June, 1909, upheld the objection and passed a decree dismissing the application for execution in toto. In this order there was clearly an error, as some of the property attached was not mortgaged property.4. Accordingly, on the 10th of August...
Aziz Bux Vs. Kaniz Fatima Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.49
1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor from an order passed in execution proceedings.2. The person seeking to execute the decree is the assignee of a simple money-decree which was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut. The assignee of the decree attached two lots of property, (1) property which was burdened with a mortgage in favour of her assignor, (2) property which was not so mortgaged. Both sets of property were attached. The judgment-debtor objected that the mortgaged property could not be sold in execution without a suit being brought on the mortgage.3. The first Court disallowed the objection, an appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtor to this Court, a Bench of which on 2nd June 1909 upheld the objection and passed a decree dismissing the application for execution in toto. In this order there was clearly an error as some of the property attached was not mortgaged property.4. Accordingly, on 10th August 1909, the decree-holder applied for review of th...
Ganeshi Lal Vs. Nand Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All487; 15Ind.Cas.319
Karamat Husain, J.1. In this case and Kishore lodged a complaint against Ganeshi Lal. The substance of the complaint is as follows :-- The head office of the complainant is at Cawnpore. A branch of the firm was opened at Gauriganj, district Sultanpur, in Sambat 1964 The accused was appointed a gumashta and his share was fixed at four annas in the rupee. He worked till Sam-bat 1966 and was asked to come to Cawnpore. The accused seemed to have been guilty of criminal breach of trust. The complainant directed him to close the shop at Gauriganj and not to reopen it until the complainant had gone there and had checked the account. The complainant went to his home at Bhiwani in the Hissar district. When he returned in 1907, it came to his knowledge that the accused had opened the shop and misappropriated the money realized by him which he had to send to Cawnpore. A sum of about Rs. 1,583-14-6 has been misappropriated by him. When the complainant was examined, he distinctly stated that the ac...
Bhole Singh Vs. Bhagwant Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.10
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for recovery of possession over certain immoveable property and the only question for determination before me is one of limitation. In stating this question, I think it reasonable to accept everything which the Courts below have found against the conduct of the defendant upon the facts of the case. It appears that the defendant, holding three distinct mortgages on the property in suit, brought three distinct suits, one upon each mortgage. He obtained decrees and put the property up for sale three times, once upon each decree. He purchased himself at auction under two of his decrees on the 21st February 1898, and obtained formal possession on the 7th of September 1893 and again on the 30th of January 1899. In the meantime, the same property had been put up for sale a third time on April the 21st, 1898. The defendant appeared at that auction-sale, said nothing about his previous purchase, but actually bid for the property as if it still belonged to his judgm...
Hari Das Vs. Thakur DIn Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All482
Richards, C. J., Karamat Husain and Chamier, J.J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: The Munsif delivered judgment in this case on the evening of the 23rd of December, 1910, allowing the plaintiff's claim in full. The Christmas vacation began the next day and the court did not re-open till the 14th of January, 1911, after the Muharram holidays. The appellants applied for a copy of the judgment and decree on the 14th of January and obtained it on the 19th. On the evening of the 27th of January, they handed an appeal to the District Judge at his private residence. If this can be deemed a sufficient presentation of the appeal, the appeal is within time. The District Judge dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, on the strength of the ruling in Jai Kuur v. Heera Lal (1). In our opinion the appeal must be deemed to have been presented within time. No doubt, the learned District Judge might have refused to receive the appeal out of court hours, but he did not think fit to do so. ...
DIn Ram and anr. Vs. Hari Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.744
1. The facts of this case are as follows:The Munsif delivered judgment in this case on the evening of 23rd of December 1910 allowing the plaintiff's claim in full. The Christmas vacation began the next day and the Court did not reopen till the 14th of January 1911 after the Muharram holidays. The appellant applied for a copy of the judgment and decree on the 14th of January and obtained it on the 19th. On the evening of the 27th of January, he handed an appeal to the District Judge at his private residence. If this can be deemed a sufficient presentation of the appeal, the appeal is within time. The District Judge dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, on the strength of the ruling in Jai Kuar v. Heera Lal 7 N.W.P.H.C.R. 5. In our opinion, the appeal must be deemed to have been presented within time. No doubt, the learned District Judge might have refused to receive the appeal out of Court hours but he did not think fit to do so. He received the appeal and subsequently made an e...
Sheotahal and anr. Vs. Qasim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.34
Tudball, J.1. The circumstances out of which this application has arisen are briefly as follows: A suit was instituted within British territory and the jurisdiction of the British Courts over the subject-matter of the suit and the parties thereto was territorial. It was originally in the Court of the Munsif, but was transferred by the District Judge to his Court. He dismissed the suit, as the plaintiff failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing. On the 31st March 1911, the plaintiff applied under Order IX, Rule 9 for restoration of the suit and a re-hearing. Notice was issued and a date fixed. In the meantime on the 1st of April 1911, the territory, within which the parties resided and the cause of action arose, was transferred from the British territory and became part and parcel of a Native State and, therefore, was outside the jurisdiction of the British Court in Mirzapur. When the application came on for hearing, an objection was taken that the British Court had no jurisdiction...
Ganpat Singh Vs. Musammat Tohfa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.15
Piggott, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the occupancy tenant of a certain holding. By a deed, dated February the 16th, 1899, that is to say, before the Agra Tenancy Act (Act II of 1901) came into force, she mortgaged this holding with possession to the defendant. She now brings this suit for redemption upon tender of Rs. 90, the amount of the mortgage-debt. The defence is that the plaintiff is debarred from bringing this suit by reason of the result of a previous suit brought by her in the year 1909. It appears that this former suit was not framed precisely as a suit for redemption, but at any rate it ended in a decree dated November the 22nd, 1909, the effect of which was that the plaintiff might recover possession of the holding in question, subject to her first paying within thirty days the sum of Rs. 90 found to be due to the defendant. An appeal having been preferred against this decree, the plaintiff was foolish enough to neglect the fulfilment of the condition imposed upon h...
Brij Lal and anr. Vs. Suraj Bikram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All405
Macnaghten, J.1. This is a very simple case. The only question is whether the daughter took an absolute estate or an estate for life 2. In the first place, there is no estate at all given to the lady, in terms. The only direction is that she is to remain in possession and occupation of the property, and then she is invested with the power of appointing an heir either in her life-time or by will. It seems to their Lordships that the word 'heir' in that clause means heir to the testator and that the judgment of the Judicial Commissioners is perfectly right.3. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed, and with costs....
Balmakund Vs. Ashfaq Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All518; 16Ind.Cas.677
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. In this case one Jagannath obtained a decree against Ashfaq Husain from the court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. He made several applications for the transfer of that decree either to the court at Lucknow or that at Bareilly. The decree-holder, on the 18th of April, 1911, made an application for execution in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. The 8th of June was fixed for the hearing of objections raised by the judgment-debtor. Before that date the decree-holder assigned that decree to Balmakund on the 27th of April, 1911. Balmakund, on the 2nd of June, 1911, made an application under Order XXI, Rule 16, for the execution of that decree. The munsarim on that very date made the following report :--'This is an application under Order XXI, rules 11 and 16 of Act V of 1908, and an application in execution has been made on behalf of Jagannath Prasad, decree-holder, and the 8th of June, 1911, has been fixed for the disposal of the objecti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »