Allahabad Court April 1914 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.
Chhittar Mal and anr. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.84
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 23rd August 1898. A number of defences were taken and amongst others was the defence that there was no legal necessity for the mortgage. The mortgage, we may mention, was made by a Hindu widow of the name of Musammat Parbati. The Court of first instance found that the mortgage was duly executed and that the consideration was paid. That Court did not expressly go into the question of legal necessity, nor was it necessary for it to do so if the view which it took on the question of res judicata was correct. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the Court of first instance. The defendants, Chhitar Mal and Debi Ram, have appealed.. They are the purchasers of a part of the mortgaged property. It is contended on their behalf that the Court below was wrong in holding that the question of legal necessity or the amount due upon the bond was res judicata. In our opinion their contention is well founded. It appears t...
DakhnidIn Vs. Bhawani Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.88
1. The facts of this case are stated fully in the judgment of the Court below. A short summary of them will be sufficient to explain the question which we have to decide.2. One Rahat Husain in 1883 and 1890 mortgaged some property to Bhawani Prasad (respondent) and his step-brother, Raja Ram. Rabat Husain died leaving four sons and three daughters. In 1895 two of the sons mortgaged the same property to the same two persons and in 1905 the same two sons and another son sold the property to the appellant's mother, Nidhao Koer, leaving in her hands so much of the price as was required to discharge the vendor's proportionate liability under the mortgages of 1883 and 1890 and the mortgage of 1895 made by two of them. In August 1905 Nidhao Koer through the appellant, her son and agent, paid to Bhawani Prasad Rs. 23,453-14-3 in satisfaction of the claims of Bhawani Prasad and Raja Ram under the three mortgages of 1883, 1890, and 1895. Rs. 9,000 odd being paid in cash and a village being trans...
Balkaran Upadhya Vs. Gaya DIn Kalwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All80; 24Ind.Cas.255
1. This is a second appeal by certain defendants in a suit for sale upon a mortgage. The mortgage was one dated May the 24th, 1893, and it was somewhat peculiar in its provisions. The mortgagors, Bhole Khan and Faulad Khan, were said to be the proprietors of a certain share in a mahal known as that of Bhole Khan in Mourn Chak English Zorawar Khan.2. There was a further recital to the effect that the sir and khudkasht lands in this mahal were divided by private arrangement amongst the co-sharers and that certain specified plots had been assigned under this arrangement to the mortgagors. The deed purported, in the first place, simply to mortgage specified plots of sir and kkudkasht land with possession in return for the money advanced as consideration for the deed. There was, however, a stipulation to the effect that, if the mortgagees failed to obtain possession under the deed or were disturbed in their possession, they were to be entitled to sue the mortgagors for the recovery of their...
Lal Singh and ors. Vs. the Collector of Etah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All331; 25Ind.Cas.398
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises oat of the following circumstances. The Court of Wards as representing the estate of the minor Raja Surajpal Singh were putting into execution a decree which admittedly is the property of the ward. In execution certain property was attached. The appellants objected to the attachment, but their objection was overruled. Whereupon the present suit was brought for a declaration that the property was not liable to attachment in execution of the decree. The court of first instance dismissed the claim on the ground that no, notice was given as provided by Section 48 of the Court of Wards Act (No. III of 1899) which was then in force. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree of the court of first instance. Section 48 is as follows: 'No suit relating to the person or property of any ward shall be instituted in any Civil Court until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at ...
Ghafur-un-nissa Vs. Maqbul Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All333
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises in a brought by the plaintiff foe possession of certain property and revocation of a deed of gift in respect of it executed by her in favour of the defendant appellant. Her case as set forth in the plaint was that she had no counsellor or adviser except the defendant, and that the defendant had induced her to make the deed, or gift in his favour having led her to believe that he would always remain obedient and faithful to her and would defray all her expenses. It has been found by both the courts below that the plaintiff was aware of the terms of the deed of gift and that no fraud has been proved. We cannot, however, overlook the fact that by the gift she divested herself of everything she had and left herself completely at the mercy of the defendant. Under such circumstances very clear and cogent evidence should have been given to show that she understood the nature of the transaction and its effect upon her int...
Musammat Mahaginia Vs. Ram Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All368; 25Ind.Cas.327a
Chamier, J.1. Musammat Mahaginia applied to the Joint Magistrate of Allahabad, under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an order directing one Ram Charan to provide for the maintenance of her child aged three years and also for a child about to be born, alleging that Ram Charan was their father. Mahaginia has since been delivered of a second child. The Joint Magistrate rejected her petition. She then applied to the District Magistrate who examined several more witnesses and has sent the case to this Court with a recommendation that the finding of the Joint. Magistrate be reversed and that Mahaginia be awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3 per mensem for her two children against Ram Charan. The District Magistrate's recommendation cannot be accepted in its entirety; for it appears to me that he had no power to take evidence Under, Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, and if he had power to take evidence it was only for the purpose of a recommendation to this Court...
Maqbul HusaIn Vs. Ghaffur-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.34
1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by the plaintiff for possession of certain property and for revocation of a deed of gift in respect of it executed by her in favour of the defendant-appellant. Her case as set forth in the plaint was that she had no counsellor or adviser except the defendant, that the defendant had induced her to make the deed of gift in his favour, having led her to believe that he would always remain obedient and faithful to her and would defray all her expenses. It has been found by both the Courts below that the plaintiff was a ware of the terms of the deed of gift and that no fraud has been proved. We cannot, however, overlook the fact that by the gift she denuded herself of everything she had and left herself completely at the mercy of the defendant. Under such circumstances very clear and cogent evidence should have boon given to show that she understood the nature of the transaction and its effect upon her interests. Under the Muhammadan Law, by which the...
Abdus Samad Vs. the Chairman, Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All329
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the municipal board of Meerut. The circumstances are as follows. The plaintiff has been found to be the owner of certain shops on both sides of a public road in the city of Meerut. In the past there was some sort of gallery resting on arches which connected the shops on both sides of the road. The gallery had got out of repair and the plaintiff applied to the municipal board for leave to repair the arches and gallery and also to build on the top of the gallery. The municipal board refused permission. Thereupon the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted, the plaintiff claiming a perpetual injunction restraining the municipal board J from interfering with what he wanted to do and damages. On the facts as found, so far as the plaintiff sought to repair an existing structure, the case came within the provisions of Section 87 of the Municipalities Act; so ...
Abdul Majid Vs. Jawahir Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All350
1. An order of His Majesty in Council dismissing an appeal of want of prosecution does not deal judicially with the matter of the suit, and can in no sense be regarded as an order adopting or confirming the decision appealed from. It merely recognizes authoritatively that the appellant has not complied with the conditions under which the appeal was open to him, and that therefore he it in the same position us if he had not appealed at all.2. Where, therefore, in a suit to enforce a mortgage a preliminary decree for sale was made by the Subordinate Judge on the 12th of May, 1890, which was confirmed by the High Court on the 8th of April, 1893, and an appeal to the Privy Council was admitted, but was dismissed for want of prosecution on the 13th of May, 1901. Held (reversing the decisions of the Courts in India) that the period of limitation for an application under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1832) to make absolute the decree for sale was not 12 years under Article...
Abdul Samad Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All551(1); 25Ind.Cas.207A
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Municipal Board, of Meerut. The circumstances are as follows : The plaintiff has been found to be the owner of certain shops on both sides of a public road in the city of Meerut. In the past there was some sort of gallery resting on arches Which connected the shops on both sides of the road. The gallery had got out of repair and the plaintiff applied to the Municipal Board for leave to repair the arches and gallery and also to build on the top of the gallery. The Municipal Beard refused permission. Thereupon the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted, the plaintiff claiming a perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Board from interfering with what he wanted to do and damages. On the facts as found so far as the plaintiff sought to repair an existing structure the case came within the provisions of Section 87 of the Municipalities Act; so far as he sought to make a new structure the case cam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »