Allahabad Court January 1913 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.
Gulab Chand Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.711
1. The appellant, in this case, was the defendant in a suit, in the Court below, which was decreed ex parte against him. He applied under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the ex parte decree set aside on the ground that summons had not been served on him and, therefore, he was unable to appear and defend the suit. The suit was against the appellant and his minor brother, Harbilas, as owners of the firm Gulab Chand Har Bilas. Harbilas was a minor and when the plaint was filed, there was an application by the plaintiff asking the Court to appoint Gulab Chand as guardian of the minor. Notice of this application was issued to Gulab Chand. On the 27th of July 1911, he filed a vakalatnama and objected to his appointment as guardian of the minor. His objection was allowed and finally on the 1st of September, one Musammat Champo was appointed guardian. On the same day, the suit was registered and summons was ordered to issue. Summons was issued to Gulab Chand, but it wa...
Pearey Lall Vs. Kokla Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.766
Henry Griffin, J.1. One Mohan Singh died in 1903 leaving a brother, Ram Prasad Singh, and a widow, Musammat Kokla. A dispute arose between these two on the death of Mohan Singh as to the property of the latter. Ram Prasad, alleging that the property was the joint family property and that Kokla Kunwar was unchaste, claimed the entire property. Kokla Kunwar, on the other hand, alleged that as the widow of Mohan Singh, who had acquired the property for himself, she was entitled to succeed. They put in an application in the Revenue Court before whom proceedings in mutation were being held. In this application, they stated that the family being a joint one they had agreed that each be recorded in respect of one half of Mohan Singh's property. After the mutation proceedings, Ram Prasad Singh sold his one-half of the property and Kokla Kunwar also sold hers. Kokla Kunwar instituted this suit in May 1911, claiming possession of the one-half of the property, which had been sold by Ram Prasad Si...
Baldeo Prasad Vs. Pragdas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.533
George Knox, J.1. Pandit Prag Das instituted a suit for specific performance of a contract. The suit was instituted against one Ram Dial the person who had entered into an oral contract according to the plaintiff and Pandit Baldeo Parsad defendant transferee from the said Ram Dial. The property in dispute was a share in a certain mahal. It is found by the lower Appellate Court upon the questions of fact, based upon evidence, that Ram Dial did agree on the 2nd of April to sell the share in dispute to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 100 which the plaintiff was to pay on the proposed sale-deed being executed, also that Ram Dial did receive from the plaintiff Rs. 15 as an advance in cash as earnest money, also that the plaintiff did on the 18th of April inform the defendant, Baldeo Prasad, of all these facts, lastly that Baldeo Prasad persuaded Ram Dial to sell the share to himself and not to Prag Das. On these findings, the lower Appellate Court gave the plaintiff a decree ...
Lachmi Bai and anr. Vs. Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.463
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit for possession of several plots of land. The plaintiffs' case was that at the last Settlement, the plots in question were by mistake included in the defendants' village Surkha, and were recorded accordingly, bat as a matter of fact they lay within the plaintiffs' village, Saidpur. In paragraph 12 of their plaint, the plaintiffs said that the entries in the Settlement papers were calculated to damage them, although their actual possession had not been disturbed, but they went on to say that the erroneous entries amounted to the dispossession of the plaintiffs. Hence they claimed a decree for possession. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs had been in possession within 12 years of the suit. They also pleaded that the suit was barred by six years' limitation. The Munsif, dealing with the question of limitation, said that it had not been shown how the six years' rule could be applied to the suit and he gave the plaintiffs a decree for possession of so mu...
Sheo Bharose and ors. Vs. Pandohi Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.220
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the appellants for a declaration that they are occupancy tenants of certain land and that the respondents are trespassers. There was also a prayer for possession in cage the Court held that the appellants had lost possession.2. It appears that the respondents, alleging themselves to be occupancy tenants of the land, sued in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the appellants alleging that they were the respondents' shikmi tenants. The appellants resisted that suit on the ground that they and not the respondents were occupancy tenants of the land. The Revenue Court found against the appellants and ejected them. The appellants then brought the present suit which has been dismissed on the ground that the matter decided by the Revenue Court was one within the exclusive jurisdiction of that Court and the decision could not be disturbed by the Civil Court. My own view is that the decisions of the Courts below are correct. But it was held, in Niranjan ...
Ganga Prashad Vs. Kunwar Dig Bijai Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.288
1. This and the connected appeal arise out of suits for arrears of rent brought by the zemindar against his lessee. The defence was that there had been a prior suit by the plaintiff against the same defendants for rent and that the present rent had then become due and might have been claimed, and that, consequently, a second suit was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff meets this plea by contending that he could not have claimed the rent now sued for in the previous suit because there had been a suspension of revenue and a corresponding suspension of rent under the provisions of Section 51 of the Tenancy Act. It has been contended here that it is only tenants in actual occupation whose rents can be affected by the provisions of Section 51. In our opinion, this contention is not sound. In the ordinary course of events, if the Government suspended the payment of revenue, the Collector would make the corresponding order suspending the payment of the re...
Musammat Abadi Bibi Vs. Sheikh Ilahi Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.336
Chamier, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sold some immoveable property to the defendant for a stated consideration of Rs. 910. The sale deed shows that Rs. 343-1 were paid in cash to the plaintiff and that Rs. 556 15 were left in the hands of the defendant for payment to certain creditors of the plaintiff. The expression used in the deed is waste adai mahajenan Rs. 566-15 amanat chhor dia and the deed went on to provide that the defendant should pay off the creditors mentioned at the foot of the document, receive back certain documents from their possession and obtain receipts from them. In the present case, the plaintiff comes into Court setting out the above facts and saying that the defendant had paid no more than Rs. 448-15-0, that she had not paid the balance and that she had rendered no account to the plaintiff of the money left in her hands notwithstanding that she had been repeatedly called upon to give such an account and the plaintiff prayed for a decree for the sum which he ...
Sripat Mal Vs. Harduar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.490
1. The question in this case is whether under the Hindu Law, leprosy, unless it be of a virulent type, can exclude a person from inheritance. The learned Vakil for the appellant had cited to us a number of texts in which it is laid down that a person afflicted with an incurable disease is so excluded, and in some of these texts mention is made of leprosy. The question has been considered in a number of cases by the different High Courts, and it has been held that it is only in the case of leprosy of a virulent type that the disease is a ground of exclusion from inheritance. We may refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Bhagaban Ramanuj Das v. Rum Proparna Ramanuj 22 C. 843; 22 I.A. 94; Rangayya Chetti v. Thanikachalla Mudali 19 M. 74; Helan Dasi v. Durga Das Mundal 4 C.L.J. 323; Ranchhod Narain v. Ajoobai 9 Bom. L.R. 1149. In view of these rulings, we ate unable to accept the contention of the learned Vakil for the appellant that every person suffe...
Gendan Lal Vs. Shahzadi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.765
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit on a mortgage, dated June 29th, 1890. The sum secured was Rs. 20. The mortgagor agreed to pay interest at Rs. 5 per cent. per mensem. More than twenty years after the mortgagee brought this suit for Rs. 262 on account of principal and interest, The first Court cut the interest down to simple interest at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent. per mensem up to the date of the suit and allowed interest at Rs. 6 per cent. on the sum due on the date of the suit. That decree was affirmed by the District Judge. In second appeal, it is contended that there was no ground on which the contractual rate of interest could be cut down. It seems that the defendants in the first instance denied the genuineness of the bond. When they saw that this plea would not be accepted, they put in a petition, after all the evidence had been recorded, alleging that the contractual rate of interest was too high and should not be allowed. The defendants never pleaded undue influence at any stags o...
Natwar and ors. Vs. Alkhu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.752
Chamier, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, relates to two plots of land known in the case as the 'upper' and the 'lower' plots. These plots were put for sale as being the property of the first defendant and the plaintiffs then brought this suit for a declaration of their title. As regards the lower plot, the Munsif found that from 1897 up to the date of the present suit, brought in 1910, it was under the control of the defendant, and on appeal the District Judge said in 1897, that is, more than twelve years before the institution of this suit, the defendant explicitly objected to the plaintiffs' application for permission to the Municipal Board and he set up a title of his own and, thereafter, enjoyed possession. I am asked to read this as a finding that the defendant held possession from time to time only. But it appears to me that the District Judge intended to hold that the defendant had continuous possession over the lower plot. Although he may not have been right...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »