Allahabad Court March 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.
M.J. Powell Vs. A.E. Hart
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.925
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 9,000. The Court below has awarded Rs. 3,000. What gave rise to the present suit was a complaint made by the defendant which will be found at page 7 of the appellant's book. It is as follows:The complaint states as follows:1. That your petitioner engaged the accused to supervise the work of her contractor and agreed to pay him for his remuneration at the rate of 10 per cent. on the contractor's bill.2. That the complainant went away to Saharanpur District after having given the accused charge of the work.3. That the accused turned the contractor away from the work before obtaining a formal sanction from your petitioner, which was obtained by misrepresenting the true facts. This the complainant did in a way under compulsion as she could not afford to come up and supervise the work herself.4. That the accused put in the contractors with whom he secretly arr...
Lajja Ram and anr. Vs. Gur Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.945
1. This is an appeal in a suit for sale upon a mortgage. On February 1st, 1890, two brothers, Har Mukh and Misri, who were the owners of the property, mortgaged it with possession to Het Singh and Ram Bukhsh for Rs. 3,500. Possession was to be retained on account of the interest on the sum advanced and on redemption the mortgagors were to pay, in addition to the mortgage money, the arrears of rent due from the tenants for the last three years. On February 1st, 1893, they made a simple mortgage of the property in favor of Ram Bukhsh for Rs. 300 promising to pay interest at 2 per cent, per mensem compoundable every six months. On January 10th, 1898, Har Mukh alone mortgaged the property to the plaintiff-respondent for Rs. 200. On May 30th, 1901, Har Mukh and the widow of Misri sold the property to the sons of Het Singh, (who were separate from their father), for Rs. 7,000, leaving in their hands a sum of Rs. 2,534 for (the redemption of Ram Bukhsh's interest in the first mortgage and Rs....
Muhammad Yahia Vs. Bhagwan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All292
Harry Griffin, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the zamindar of a patti in the town of Mariahu, where the defendants reside. The plaintiff brought this suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing a well in their house and for an order directing them to remove the materials and to restore the land to its original condition. The defendants are shop-keepers whose family has been in occupation of the premises for generations without paying any rent. They pleaded that they had a right to construct the well on their premises, that the well had been constructed for their own comfort and convenience, and that the suit was brought out of malice. The court of first instance dismissed the suit, holding that the construction of the well inside the house was not such a user as affected the zamindar's rights injuriously, and that the well was a necessary adjunct to the comfort of the occupants of the house. The lower appellate court on appeal held that the plaintiff zaminda...
Bhagwan Das and anr. Vs. Muhammad Yahia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.928
Henry Griffin, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the zemindar of a patti in the town of Mariahu where the defendants reside. The plaintiff brought this suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing a well in their house and for an order directing them to remove the materials and to restore the land to its original condition. The defendants are shopkeepers whose family has been in occupation of the premises for generations without paying any rent. They pleaded that they had a right to construct the well on their premises, that the well had been constructed for their own comfort and convenience and that the suit was brought out of malice. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, holding that the construction of the well inside the house was not, such a user as affected the zemindar's rights injuriously and that the well was a necessary adjunct to the comforts of the occupants of the house. The lower Appellate Court on appeal held that the plaintiff zemindar ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›