Allahabad Court March 1914 Judgments
Chatarbhuj Vs. Raghubar Payal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All354
Piggott, J.1. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked by a plaintiff whose claim for a sum of Rs. 1,200 plus interest has been dismissed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra, under somewhat peculiar circumstances. The suit having been duly instituted was referred to arbitration by an agreement under paragraph 1 of the second schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The arbitrator had been directed to submit his award by the 8th of August, 1911. On the 20th of July, 1911, the defendant presented to the court an application supported by affidavit, asking the court to supersede the arbitration, on the ground that he had lost confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the arbitrator. The court directed that this application should come up for orders on the 28th of July, 1911, after notice to the plaintiff's pleader. It did not take the precaution of issuing orders to the arbitrator to suspend his proceedings pending the disposal of the said application. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmadunnissa Vs. Gulzari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All83(1); 24Ind.Cas.36
1. This is an execution appeal which has arisen out of the following circumstances : On the 19th May 1903 Gulzari Lal and Anr. obtained a decree for possession of certain immoveable property and the right to recover mesne profits which were to be determined in the execution department. On the 26th February 1906, an application was made on behalf of the decree-holders to the Court of first instance for the ascertainment of the amount of mesne. profits recoverable for the years 1307, 1308, 1309 and 1310, Fasli. On the 8th June 1908 the Court of first instance passed an order fixing the amount due for 1307, 1308 and 1310. As to the mesne profit for 1309 it was held, that there was no data before the Court to. determine the amount for that year. On appeal by the decree-holders to this Court the decree of the first Court was confirmed on the 25th June 1910. On the 24th September 1911 one of the decree-holders, viz., Gulzari Lai, alone applied for the execution of the decree as regards the m...
Tag this Judgment!Asghar Ali Vs. Amina Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All541; (1914)ILR36All280
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. The two appeals Nos. 159 and 215 of 1913 are connected and have arisen out of the following circumstances. One Abdul Ghafur died some time ago leaving six daughters, namely, Anwari, Hasina, Akbari, Asgbari, Masiha and Amina. Hasina died leaving two children, Aziz-ur-Rahman, and Musammat Habib Fatima. Musammat Anwari and the two children of Hasina are minors. Ob the 14th of March, 1913, Asghar Ali applied to the District Judge of Moradabad to be appointed guardian of the person and property of the said three minors. No one objected to the application of Asghar Ali with regard to the minors, Aziz-ur-Rahman and Musammat Habib Fatima. But as regards the application relating to Musammat Anwari Begam, her two married sisters, Akbari Begam and Amina Begam, filed objections and stated that Musammat Anwari was living then and had all along since the death of their mother lived with Musammat Akbari Begam. It was further stated in their objection that the persona...
Tag this Judgment!Manbhari Vs. Sumer Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All457; 25Ind.Cas.175
Rafique, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present application for revision are as follows: The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Saharanpur for the recovery of certain, property on the allegation that he was the adopted son of the last owner of the property, viz., Niadar Mull. The allegation of adoption was denied on behalf of the defendant-applicant, who is the widow of the brother of Niadar Mull. Before the oral evidence was begun for the parties the plaintiff filed an application in the Court of the Munsif under Order XXLII, Rule 1, praying that he may be allowed to withdraw, his suit with leave to bring a fresh one. In his application the plaintiff stated that he had a right to succeed to the property of Niadar Mull, not only on the ground of adoption but on other grounds also. But as he thought adoption to be the strongest reason for succession he mentioned that only in his suit; but finding that the question of adoption had been put i...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdul Ghafur Khan Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All325
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The facts are these. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, claiming a declaration of his title to certain property. The suit was dismissed by the court of first instance upon various grounds. The applicant presented an appeal to this Court which was admitted. Subsequently an application was made on behalf of one of the respondents that the appellant should be ordered be give security for the costs of the appeal and also of the court below. By an order, dated the 28th of June, 1913, this Court was pleased to order that the plaintiff should furnish security within one month. Security not having been furnished, this Court, on the 30th of July, 1913, dismissed the appeal on the ground that security had not been furnished in compliance with its order. This order was passed under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 10, Sub-rule...
Tag this Judgment!Gulzar Bano Vs. Haidari Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All322
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer. The defendant appellant is the widow of a deceased Muhammadan, Syed Qurban Husain. The plaintiff respondent is the own sister of the deceased. She brought a suit to obtain possession of certain property and a declaration that the defendant had no title thereto. She added that if she were held liable for payment of any dower debt due to the defendant she was ready to pay the same. In the court below the defendant appellant denied the plaintiff's title to the property, and further contended that her own dower debt amounted to Rs. 80,000 and that she was entitled to remain in possession of the entire property at least until her dower debt had been satisfied. The court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit. It did not go into the question of the amount of the defendant's dower, being of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession even if the dower debt remained unpaid. The defendant appellant has now prefer...
Tag this Judgment!Mul Chand Vs. Juggi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All176(1); 25Ind.Cas.207
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision against what is really an interlocutory order of the Court below, under which it granted an application by the present applicant for an adjournment conditional on payment of Rs. 500 as costs thereof to the opposite party. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is quite clear that this objection is based on good grounds. The order is merely an interlocutory order and is certainly not one of those revision of which is contemplated under Section 115. After all it is a question of costs, and the Court which finally decides the case will have full power to do justice in all matters of costs. The application fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Haidari Begam Vs. Gular Bano
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.395
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer. The defendant-appellant is the widow of a deceased Muhammadan Saiyed Qurban Husain. The plaintiff-respondent is the own sister of the deceased. She brought a suit to obtain possession of certain property and a declaration that the defendant had no title thereto. She added that if she were held liable for payment of any dower-debt due to the defendant, she was ready to pay the same. In the Court below the defendant-appellant denied the plaintiff's title to the property and further contended that her own dower-debt amounted to Rs. 80,000 and that she was entitled to remain in possession of the entire property, at least until herd own-debt had been satisfied. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit. It did not go into the question of the amount of the defendant's dower, being of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession even if the dower-debt remained unpaid. The defendant-appellant has now prefe...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Singh Vs. Subhag Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All282
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Act VIII of 1890 from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Ghazipur, appointing one Raghunandan Singh guardian of the person and property of his minor son-in-law, named Padam Deo Narain Singh. It appears that in addition to Raghunandan Singh there were two other persons who moved the lower court for their appointment, viz. Har Shankar Singh and Babu Subhag Singh. Har Shankar Singh described himself as the paternal uncle of the minor. The learned Judge as appears from the serial order, dated the 21st of February, 1913, asked the Collector of the district whether he was inclined to take the property of the minor under the management of the Court of Wards, and if not, to say which one of the three persons, viz. Raghunandan Singh, Hat Shankar Singh and Subhag Singh was the fittest person for appointment as guardian of the person and property of the minor. A report was presumably called for by the Collector from the girda...
Tag this Judgment!Kaniz Fatima Begam Vs. Sakina Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All475; (1914)ILR36All318; 25Ind.Cas.120
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. These two appeals, Execution First Appeal No. 24 and No. 25 of 1918 are connected. The appellant in both the cases is Musammat Kaniz Fatima Begam, the widow of one Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Ashraf Khan. She obtained a decree against the estate of her husband for her dower. In execution of her decree she applied for the attachment of certain landed property, alleging it to have belonged to her deceased husband. She sought execution by two separate applications, one for costs and the other for the recovery of the dower debt, and in both the applications she sought to attach the landed property of her deceased husband. The applications were opposed by some of the legal representatives of Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, who were in possession with others of his property. The main objection was that the said property was granted to an ancestor of Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, called Karim Khan, a Pindari Chief, for political considerations, and, therefore, constituted a 'political pens...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »