Allahabad Court May 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.
NaraIn Dikshit Vs. Benaik Bhat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All74; 24Ind.Cas.439
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. The plaintiff was the son of the mortgagee. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the nephew and grand-nephew of the mortgagor, defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were representatives of the late Maharajah of Ajudhia to whom part of the mortgaged property was transferred by the mortgagor after the mortgage. Defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 were impleaded as trustees of part of the property under a deed of endowment executed by the Maharajah.2. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that there was no legal necessity for the mortgage, the same plea among many other was put forward by defendants Nos. 6 and 10.3. The Subordinate Judge decreed the claim holding that legal necessity for the mortgage had been proved.4. Defendants-Nos. 5 and 10 appealed separately to the District Judge who allowed both appeals holding that legal necessity for the mortgage had not been established. The learned Judge dismisssed the suit with costs so far as it related to the property in possessio...
Gur Prasad and anr. Vs. the Gorakhpur Bank, Ltd., and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.385
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the first respondent, the Gorakhpur Bank, Limited, for a declaration that it has a charge on the amount of a fixed deposit standing to the credit of the second respondent, Majid Husain Khan, in the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation, Limited. The facts are that in May 1910 Majid Husain Khan deposited Rs. 8,700 with the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation for three years to bear interest at the rate of Rs. 7 per cent per annum : . A receipt in the ordinary form was issued to him containing in the margin the words 'not transferable'. Majid Husain Khan in 1911 borrowed Rs. 4,650 from the Gorakhpur Bank, Limited, and on that occasion wrote to the Manager of that Bank a letter which is set out in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. It purports to authorise the Bank in case the loan was not re-paid to recover the amount from the sum for the time being standing in Majid Husain Khan's name in fixed deposit account with the Kayast...
LachmIn NaraIn Singh Vs. Dhondu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.480
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiffs in the Court of first instance are now the respondents in this Court. They brought a suit in a Revenue Court for the recovery of Rs. 537-1-9 taking that as being the amount of profits of the plaintiffs' share in Mauza Sedhuna, taraf Raghu Ram, mahal Padarath Singh. The profits claimed were for the years 1316 to 1318 Fasli. The defendant, now appellant, in his written statement set out as the first plea that the claim was barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of the plea of res judicata he has filed a decision dated December 12th, 1910, and he says that, as the claim of the plaintiffs was not proved in that suit it must be held that in the present suit also their claim for profits was heard and tried out, found wanting and dismissed on the merits. The lower Appellate Court considered this point which was also raised before it, and regarding the previous case it writes as follows : 'The burden of proof with respect to both these ...
Jageshra Vs. Durga Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All72; (1914)ILR36All500
Tudball, J.1. This is a question as to the amount of court fee which the plaintiff appellant in bound to pay both upon the memorandum of appeal in this Court and on her plaint in the court below, The plaintiff is the subsequent mortgagee of certain property, A final decree for sale was obtained by a prior mortgagee of certain property including that which had been mortgaged to the plaintiff. To that suit the plaintiff was not a party. She has now brought a suit against the prior mortgagee and has asked for .the following two reliefs; first, that it may be declared by the court that the defendant No. 1 has no right to bring to sale the property mortgaged to the plaintiff, detailed in the plaint, in execution of a final decree obtained on the 3rd of August, 1912, and that the said decree hi not binding upon the plaintiff; secondly, that an injunction may be issued to the defendant No. 1 prohibiting him from taking out execution of the final decree against the property mentioned in the pl...
Musammat Umrao Kunwari and ors. Vs. Sheo Mangal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All209; 24Ind.Cas.435
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration for a certain deed of gift dated 2nd of June 1905 as null and void after the death of one Musammat Rukmini Kunwar and for possession of the property. In the plaint it was alleged that the property in question belonged to one Harnath Singh, that upon his death it came into the possession of Musammat Rukmini Kunwar for widow's estate and that she in conjunction with Bandhan Singh and Musammat Surjan Kunwar had made the deed of gift in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. It was contended that the gift being made by a widow was invalid. The defence was that the property really belonged to Bandhan Singh and that it was within his power to make the deed of gift. The finding of the Court below is that the property was the property of Harnath Singh who was a separated Hindu and that the gift in question was made whilst the property was in the possession of his widow, Musammat Rukmini Kunwnr. On these findings the C...
Mehdi Hassan Vs. Jai Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All115; 24Ind.Cas.630
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The zemindari property was sold for Rs. 1,300. On the same day the vendor executed, a so called deed of relinquishment of his sir rights for Rs. 400. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the Court of first instance with a modification which is immaterial for the purpose of the present appeal. It is contended here that the pre-emptor is bound to pay not only, the Rs. 1,300 for the zemindari but also Rs. 400 for the sir rights. Both the Courts below have disallowed this claim, and we think correctly. The so-called relinquish merit of the sir rights was under the circumstances of the present case neither more nor less than the transfer of the ex-proprietary rights of the vendor. By the provisions of Section 20 of the Tenancy Act the interest of an ex-proprietary tenant is not transferable. The very moment the vendor executed the sale-deed ho became possessed of his ex-proprietary rights. The appellant cannot force the pro-e...
Enayat HussaIn Vs. Bilkis Fatma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All863(2); 24Ind.Cas.683
George Knox, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has found, as a fact, that the right of privacy enjoyed by the plaintiffs has undoubtedly been interferred with by the construction made by the defendant. The learned Vakil who appears for the appellant lays great stress upon the fact that between the plaintiffs and defendant's house there runs a lane and contends that where a lane comes between two houses like this no right of privacy exists. I am unable to follow this contention. It does not seem to me to matter one whit whether the houses are on the same side of the street or the houses are on the opposite side of the street, indeed it seems to me that a right of privacy needs more protection from invasion when the person who invades it is opposite to the person whose right of privacy is invaded.2. In support of his contention the learned Vakil cites a case of this Court, Joogul Lal v. Musammat Jasoda Bibee 3 N.W.P. R, 311. With all respect to the learned Judges who decided that case the v...
Musammat Jageshra Vs. Durga Prashad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.679
Tudball, J.1. This is a question as to the amount of Court-fee which the plaintiff appellant is bound to pay both upon the memorandum of appeal in this Court and on her plaint in the Court below. The plaintiff is the subsequent mortgagee of certain property. A final decree for sale was obtained by a prior mortgagee of certain property including that which had been mortgaged to the plaintiff. To that suit the plaintiff was not a party. She has now brought a suit against the prior mortgagee and has asked for the following two reliefs, first, that it may be declared by Court that the defendant No. 1 has no right to bring to sale the property mortgaged to the plaintiff, detailed in the plaint, in execution of a final decree obtained on the 3rd of August 1912, and that the said decree is not binding upon the plaintiff secondly, that an injunction may be issued to the defendant No. 1 prohibiting him from taking out execution of the final decree against the property mentioned in the plaint Th...
Kundan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.600
Piggott, J.1. In this case a complaint was laid before a Magistrate of the third class in which six persons were accused of having committed criminal trespass under Section 447, Indian Penal Code. The complainant's case was that he had just been put in possession of certain land by the Civil Court in execution of a decree passed against two of the persons accused, and that, therefore, the six accused, persons acting in concert had forcibly re-entered into possession of the land in question and had placed certain stacks and manure heaps upon it with a view to assert their possession against the complainant in the teeth of the Civil Court decree. The Magistrate issued, process against three persons only and in a somewhat curious judgment eventually found two of them, not guilty. He convicted one man Kundan apparently on the ground that the stacks-and manure heaps placed on the disputed laud were admitted by Kundan to belong to himself or to members of his family so that on this admission...
Emperor Vs. Kundan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All495
Chamier, J.1. In this case the Magistrate passed an order under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and when the security demanded was not forthcoming directed that the persons concerned should be rigorously imprisoned for one year, of which two months would be spent in solitary confinement. He had no power to order solitary confinement in a case of this kind. So much of his order as directs that Kundan, Sumer Singh and Kalian Shah be kept in solitary confinement for two months is set aside....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »