Allahabad Court June 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.
Bhawani Prasad Vs. Subhagi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All308; 25Ind.Cas.728
Rafique, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur for restitution of conjugal rights. The claim was brought against four persons, i.e., Musammat Subhagi, Ajudhia, Jageshar and Basawan. It was alleged in the plaint that Musammat Subhagi was the lawfully married wife of the plaintiff and that she had been taken away from his house by the other defendants, who were her near relatives, a short time before the institution of the suit under the promise of sending her back to the plaintiff in a few days. She did not return to him either of her own accord or under the advises of the other defendants inspite of his repeated requests.2. It was further alleged in the plaint that Musammat Subhagi had gone away with ornaments worth Rs. 100.3. The plaintiff, therefore, sued for the restitution of conjugal rights and for the recovery of the ornaments or the value thereof.4. The chief contesting defendant in the case...
Maulvi Mohamad Maqbul-ul-rahman Vs. Saiyed Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All325; 25Ind.Cas.18
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order dismissing an application made by him under Order XXI, Rule 90,' of the Code of Civil Procedure - to have the sale at auction of certain villages belonging to him set aside. The fourth paragraph of the memorandum of appeal to this Court gives succinctly the grounds upon which relief is sought. It is there pleaded that the evidence on the record proves that there was both material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale, with the result that property worth at least eight lakhs of rupees was sold for less than one lakh.2. The plea of 'fraud', in so far as it can be said to rest on any evidence at all, seems to be, based upon the allegation that the notice of the sale was not duly proclaimed by beat of drum, and by the affixing of a copy of the proclamation on a conspicuous part of the property to be sold, as required by Order XXI, Rule 67, read with Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order ...
Abdul Hamid Vs. Masit-ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All573
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale dates back to the year 1910, and the present suit was instituted the same year. The plaintiff based his suit on Muhammadan law. When the suit had been pending for some time (apparently as a reply to paragraph 2 of the written statement), the plaintiff applied to the Court for leave to amend the plaint by claiming pre-emption under Muhammadan law and in the alternative under the wajib-ul-arz. The Court refused to grant this amendment on the ground that it would alter the nature of the cause of action. The Court then proceeded to try the case as a case based on Muhammadan law. It found that the conditions of Muhammadan law had not been fulfilled and dismissed the plaintiffsuit. The plaintiff appealed. The learned District Judge held that an application for amendment might have been made, but it was made altogether too late. It seems to hare assumed that a custom of pre-emption did prevail, a...
Nandan Singh and ors. Vs. Debi Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.975
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is a suit for the ejectment of tenants under Section 57, Clause (6), of the Tenancy Act of 1901. The plaintiff is the zemindar of the village and the defendants are ex-proprietary tenants, whose holding consists of seven plots of land for which a rent of Rs. 44 per annum is payable. The suit was filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector of the first class who decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants preferred an appeal against the decree of the Assistant Collector to the District Judge under Section 177 of the Tenancy Act. Under that section an appeal lies from decrees of Assistant Collectors of the first class in suite included in group B of the Schedule attached to the Rent Act, when the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds Rs. 100.' This was a suit falling under group B and if the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 100, the defendants had an appeal under that section to the District Judge. When the appeal came up for hearing be...
Dewan and ors. Vs. Buddhu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All521; 25Ind.Cas.30
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution in respect of a charge made by defendant No. 1 against the plaintiffs under Section 347, Indian Penal Code. The other defendants are said to be the instigators and abettors of the charge. The claim was laid at Rs. 1,142. The Court of first instance found that the charge was false and groundless and made maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. It decreed the claim for Rs. 305 on account of damages.2. The learned Judge in appeal reversed the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge and has dismissed the suit.3. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court. The first ground raised in the appeal is that the appeal filed by the defendants in the Court below was filed long after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed by law for the institution of appeals and that no explanation was given for the delay in the institution thereof which in law could be regarded as sufficient...
Chaudhri Umrao Singh and anr. Vs. Umrao Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All352; 25Ind.Cas.61
Piggott, J.1. These are nine connected second appeals which may be disposed of together, as they have been by the lower Appellate Court, the essential facts being the same in each of the nine suits out of which they arise.2. The plaintiffs, Chaudhri Umrao Singh, Risal Singh and Mnmmmat Kisar, together with the first and principal defendant, Chaudhri Shibba Singh, are co-sharers in each of two mahals, one situated in a village called Bahadurpur and the other in a village called Abdullah-pur. Of each of these mahals the defendant Shibba Singh is the lambarlar. In the year 1908 Shibba Singh, in his capacity as lambardar, granted to a number of tenants in both these mahals registered leases for periods of seven years; perhaps this was not the precise period in each case; but the point is not material. Apparently these leases covered a great bulk of the cultivable land in both mahals which was, not already in the hands of occupancy tenants, or held by Shibba Singh himself as his sir or khud...
Mathura Kalwar Vs. Ambika Dat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All318(2); 25Ind.Cas.725
Chamier, J.1. In August 1900 Mata Badal, tenant of a fixed-rate holding mortgaged it to the appellant. On June 1st, 1909, Mata Badal sold all his rights in the holding to the plaintiffs-respondents. The sale-deed was presented for registration on June 18th, 1909, but owing to obstruction offered by the vendor the document was not registered till the following February. In the meantime Mata Badal again sold his rights in the holding to the appellant by a deed of sale, dated the 11th of June 1909 and registered on the same date. This was a: suit for redemption of the mortgage and possession of the holding by the respondents. It was-resisted by the appellant on the strength of the document of June 11th, 1909, It has been found that the respondents are bona fide purchasers of the property and that the deed of sale in their favour was really executed on June 1st, 1909, and that the deed relied upon by the appellant did not come into existence till ten days later. Prima facie the later deed ...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Ali Muhammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.807
1. This is an application in revision and arises out of the following circumstance. The opposite party obtained a mortgage decree against certain property. The decree was put into execution and the property sold. The present applicant, Ram Narain, filed an application to have the sale set aside. It was disallowed. He appealed to this Court which dismissed the appeal on the 12th of May 1913. The decree-holder purchased the property at the sale. He applied to the Court to be placed in possession of the property. An order was issued to the Amin. Ram Narain tiled an application under Order XXI, Rule 100. On the date, fixed the decree-holder failed to appear. The Court found that the objection filed by Ram Narain was valid and that he was in possession' of the property to which his objection related, and it passed an order dismissing the application for delivery of possession with costs for want of prosecution. The proper order which the Court ought to have passed on this application was an...
Chatterpal Vs. Gajadhar Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All430(1); 25Ind.Cas.59
Sunder Lal, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are the zemindars of the village. The defendant is a tenant occupying a house in the abadi. Near his house is a plot of open land No. 17 which has been found by the Court below to have been in the use of the tenant for a considerable time. The tenant now proposes to enclose the plot and construct a house on it. To this the zemindars do not consent and they have brought a suit for possession and an injunction restraining the defendant from constructing on the land. The question is whether the tenant can, as of right, build on the said land. At most the tenant has a right to use the open land for various purposes.2. There was either a license to use the land on an easement enjoyed by him, if such a position were legally possible. As a tenant he could not acquire an easement over his zemindar's land and a licensee is not entitled to impose any additional burden or construct a building upon the land used by him without his landlord's consent.3. ...
Dan Dayal Vs. Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All564
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed that it might be declared that a decree obtained by the defendant No. 1 in the Calcutta High Court was fraudulent and false, and that it might be set aside as against the plaintiff, and his father and an injunction to restrain the said defendant from taking out execution of the decree and directing him to release attached property from attachment.2. The court below held that the cause of action did not arise in Mainpuri and accordingly returned the plaint for presentation in the proper court. The plaintiff comes here complaining of this order. The foundation of the plaintiff's case is the granting of a decree is Calcutta, which is said to have been obtained by fraud-It appears that the decree was obtained in the year 1903, in the court of first instance and was confirmed by the appellate court-in the year 1908. The present suit was not instituted until the year 1911. It is stated that the allegation ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »