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.
Deokinahdan Prasad Vs. the Municipal Board of Ghazipur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All555
Chamier and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the respondent for recovery of Rs, 689-5-3 paid by him to the appellant Board on account of octroi upon some logs of wood imported by him into the municipality.2. The first court dismissed the suit as barred fry limitation under article 62, schedule I, to the Limitation Act. On appeal the District; Judge held that the suit was governed, not by article 62, but by article 120, and, having been brought within six years of the accrual of the cause of action, was within time, Accordingly he remanded the suit for trial on the merits. The Board has appealed, contending that the suit is barred by limitation, either under article 2 or under article 62.3. No evidence having been taken the question must be decided for the present on the plaint.4. In paragraph 3 of the plaint the respondent says that the Board's officials demanded octroi on the logs; in paragraph 4 that he informed them that the logs were being imported for. the...
The Municipal Board of Ghazipur Vs. Deokinandan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All338; 25Ind.Cas.943
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 689-5-3 paid by him to the appellant Board on account of octroi upon some logs of wood imported by him into the Municipality.2. The first Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Article 62, Schedule I to the Limitation Act. On appeal the District Judge held that the suit was governed, not by Article 62, but by article 120 and having been brought within six years of the accrual of the cause of action, was within time. Accordingly he remanded the suit for trial on the merits. The Board has appealed, contending that the suit is barred by limitation either under Artricle 2 or under Article 62.3. No evidence having been taken the question must be decided for the present on the plaint.4. In paragraph 3 of- the plaint the respondent says that the Board's officials demanded octroi on the logs, in paragraph 4 that he informed them that the logs were being imported for the use of the Government at the opium ...
Prayag Sonar and anr. Vs. Motar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All160; 24Ind.Cas.624
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the two defendants against whom the Courts below have given the plaintiff, Motar Singh, a decree for possession of a certain house by ejectment of the defendants. The parties were at issue in the Courts below upon a number of questions of fact and it is important to note precisely what the findings of the lower Appellate Court have been on those questions. Those findings I take to be as follows : that the house in suit belonged to one Saheb Dutt Singh, who died about 20 years before the institution of the suit leaving him surviving a widow, Musammat Jiachha, who entered into possession of this house along with other party of her late husband having a limited interest therein as a Hindu widow. Musammat Jiaehha let this house to the defendants-appellants, not for any specified cash rent, but upon the understanding that the defendants were to maintain her while they occupied the house. The lady died about ten years before the institution of the suit, and...
Jagannath and ors. Vs. Lachman Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All549
Chamier and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. Lachman Das was adjudicated insolvent on the 6th of December, 1912. He appears to have made a mortgage of his property on the 11th of April, 1912. The receiver appointed in the insolvency proceedings made a report to the District Judge suggesting that this mortgage should be annulled under Section 36 of the Act, On the 23rd of January, 1913, the District Judge asked the Munsif of Pilibhit to hold an inquiry and report whether the mortgage was made bona fide or not. The Munsif after taking evidence reported that the mortgage had been made bond fide. The District Judge accepted his finding and held that the mortgage must stand. The Act makes no provision for the reference of such a matter to a subordinate court. The District Judge alone had jurisdiction in the matter and should himself decide upon such evidence as may be available whether or not action should be taken to have the mortgage set aside. The District Judge should give the receiver and the cre...
Bijai Singh and anr. and Vs. Sarbdawan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All551
Chamier and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is an appeal in a suit brought for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage made on the 4th of February, 1871, by the father of the respondent Bijai Singh in favour of Ram Din Singh, father of the four appellants. The mortgage was for a term of forty years and was to be redeemed on the day following the completion of that term, hut if the mortgagor failed to redeem on that day the mortgage was to hold good for a second term of forty years. It was also provided that the mortgagor should not be entitled to redeem the mortgage with borrowed money. The mortgage money was paid into court, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the 10th of June, 1911, but the appellants refused to accept it. The present suit was filed on 9th of the September, 1911. The defence was that the representative of the mortgagor was not entitled to claim redemption of the mortgage except on the day following the expiry of the term of forty years. The Subordinate Judg...
Sita Ram Vs. Subheda Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All551(2); 24Ind.Cas.695
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are these. One Musammat Subachani obtained a decree in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore against one Baldeo Singh. After the death of Baldeo Singh she applied for execution of the decree and prayed that the present plaintiff, Musammat Subheda Kuar, be declared to be the legal representative of the deceased. Subheda Kuar objected denying that she was such legal representative. Her objection was allowed on February 2, 1902, and the Court held that she was not the legal representative of the deceased Baldeo Singh. Tin's order became final, but inspite of it the present appellant applied for execution of the decree in 1905 and in his application named the plaintiff as the legal representative of the deceased. I am informed that he made the application for execution not as the legal representative of Subachan Kuar who had in the meantime died, but on the allegation that he was the real owner of the decree. Executio...
Prem Vs. Muhammad Habibullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All284; 24Ind.Cas.795
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows : Paras Ram, Khiali, and Jawahir obtained a decree against Habiballah, the respondent in the present case, on the 12th of October 1904. (sic) Lal, the father of the appellant, obtained a decree against Paras Ram and Khiali on the 21st of November 1906. The decree against Habiballah was a decree for costs and the decree of Panna Lal was a simple money decree. On the 7th of February 1903, Panna Lal applied for attachment of the decree dated October the 12th, 1904. This application was allowed under Section 273 of Act XIV of 1832 and prohibitory orders were issued to both parties to the decree of 12th October 1904. On the 2nd of April 1903 the Court, which had passed the decree in favour of Parma Lal, directed him to execute the decree which he had attached and consigned the execution case to the records. Panna Lal obtained a transfer certificate to the Court of Aligarh. In July 1908 he made an application for execution of t...
Sarabdawan Singh and ors. Vs. Bijai Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All334; 24Ind.Cas.705
1. This is an appeal in a suit brought for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage made on February 4th 1871 by the father of the respondent Bijai Singh in favour of Ramdin Singh, father of the four appellants.2. The mortgage was for a term of 40 years and was to be redeemed on the day following the completion of that term, but if the mortgagor failed to redeem on that day the mortgage was to hold good for a second terms of 40 years. It was also provided that the mortgagor should not be entitled to redeem the mortgage with borrowed money.3. The mortgage money was paid into Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property-Act on June 10th, 1911, but the appellants refused to accept it. The present suit was filed on September 9th, 1911.4. The defence was that the representative of the mortgagor was not entitled to claim redemption of the mortgage except on the day following the expiry of the term of 40 years. The Subordinate Judge accepted this plea and dismissed the suit. On appeal the...
Chuni Bibi Vs. Basanti Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.661
Chamier, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by the respondents for an alleged balance of purchase money and interest thereon.2. On July 21st, 1909, the respondents sold some zemindari property to the appellant for Rs. 15,000. Part of the property had been sold in execution of a decree and it was intended that the appellant should get the execution sale set aside. But it was discovered that according to Order XXI, Rule 89, as then interpreted neither the vendors nor the purchaser could get the sale set aside. Accordingly the appellant relinquished her interest in the property by a registered deed. The respondents then raised on a mortgage of the property in favour of one Parsotam Das a sum sufficient to pay off the decree-holder and in one course the sale was set aside. On October 28th, 1909, the respondents executed in favour of the appellant a deed whereby they sold to her the property which had been the subject of the earlier sale together with some other property for the stat...
Munna Lal Vs. Maiku Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All484; 24Ind.Cas.723
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for possession of property or in the alternative for a decree for sale thereof on the basis of the mortgage of the 12th of February 1878 The facts of the case are as follows--Shib Din and Bhup, two brothers, owned a certain property, the name of one of them only being recorded in the Government, papers. They created five mortgages upon their property. On the 27th of June 1873, a usufructuary mortgage to secure the sum of Rs. 1,000 was created in favour of one Baldeo Ahir. On the 12th of February 1878 a second mortgage, which is the basis of the present suit, was created by them also in favour of Baldeo Ahir to secure a sum of Rs. 1,422. On the 21st of March 1880 they gave a simple unregistered mortgage to Cheda Lal to cover the sum of Rs. 90. On the 14th October. 1882they gave a registered simple mortgage to one Edel, son of Baldeo, to cover a sum of Rs. 120. On the 11th of January 1885 they gave a registered sim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »