Allahabad Court July 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.
Ganpat Malah Vs. Musammat Sundri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All423; 25Ind.Cas.192
Sunder Lal, J.1. This, is a suit by the husband: to eject his wile from the possession of, a portion of the house in which she is living now, on the allegations that she had become unchaste and left her husband's home and protection long ago and had been leading the life of a prostitute. She has now come back suddenly and taken, possession of a portion of the house. The defendant denies these charges and by way of counter charge alleges that the husband: is keeping another woman as his mistress and it is under her influence that he has instituted these proceeding. The Court of. first instance found that the defendant had become unchaste and had left her husband long ago. It decreed the claim. The learned Judge in appeal; is inclined to doubt the evidence as to unchastity. He is of opinion that Me defendant does not at present lead an immoral' life' and upon that ground has dismissed the suit.2. Apart from that question of unchastity and immorality, whether a Hindu wife can insist upon ...
Thakur Dharam Singh Vs. Ram Dial Singh Fuller
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All432; 25Ind.Cas.177
Sander Lal, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The parties to this suit were co-sharers of a village named Bhankra. In 1898 the village was partitioned and divided into several mahals. One of these mahals was assigned to Thakur Dharam Singh, the plaintiff-appellant, and was named after him. Another mahal known as Mahal Kalan Ghairkh wahindgar was formed. of the property owned by persons who had not applied for partition. In this mahal the defendant was a co-sharer. In Mahal Dharam Singh a plot of land,' No. 337, with an area of 2 bighas 7 biswas was assigned to the plaintiff and he held that land as part of his mahal. In the other mahal there were two plots of land, No. 336 and 417, the area of which was also 2 bighas 7 biswas, which formed part of a road, and one of them at least, No. 336, was shown as the property of the defendant. In 1900 a settlemant of the village took place. Plot No. 337 in Mahd Daram Singh was given a new number which if correctly stated ...
Firm Swarath Ram and anr. Through Jagmohan Ram Vs. Sarup Lal Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All474(1); 25Ind.Cas.131
Sunder Lal, J.1. This was a suit brought by a firm carrying on business in the name of Swarath Ram-Ram Saran Ram for the recovery of a sum of money said to be due to them. It is not denied that two or more persons are partners carrying on business under the said name. Under Order XXX, Rule 1, two or more persons interested in bringing a suit in their own name are permitted to bring a suit in the name of the firm itself. All that this portion of the section requires is that there must be two or more persons carrying on bussiness in that name. It excludes the case of one single owner carrying on business in the name of the firm see Mason & Son v. Mogridge (1892) 8 T.L.R. 805 . The suit, therefore, was properly instituted under this rule.2. The next question is, who should sign or verify the plaint in such cases? Under the law each partner is an agent for the other partners and he can sign the plaint for himself and as agent for the other co-partners. The plaint in this case is signed by ...
Mangali Prasad and Co. Vs. Babu Rakhpat Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All532; 25Ind.Cas.132
Sunder Lal, J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff to recover moneys due to him for the printing of certain papers which the plaintiff had printed on an order given by one Chatterji for and on behalf of Mangali Prasad and Co. The plaintiff could have recovered the amount in the first instance from Mangali Prasad and Co. failing which, if Chatterji was not an agent of Mangali Prasad and Co., from Chatterji himself. Only one of these two persons was liable. If the firm of Mangali Prasad was the principal, Chatterji as agent incurred no personal responsibility and if the agency had not been made out, Chatterji himself was alone responsible. The plaintiff asked for a decree against one or other only of these two persons. He was quite content with a decree against any one of them He does not ask for a decree against Mangali Prasad and Co. and failed to get it against Chatterji. The Court below found that Chatterji's agency had ceased, that the Company was not liable and gave a decree against...
Muhammad Nasir Vs. Ram Karan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All435; 25Ind.Cas.529
Rafique, J.1. It appears that plaintiff respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Mahmudabad on the 3rd of October 1912 for the recovery of possession of a grove and for damages, on the allegation that the said grove belonged to him from which he had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defendant-appellant. The latter resisted the suit on various grounds. It was alleged in defence that the plaintiff-respondent had not been in possession of the grove within limitation and that twelve trees only out of the said grove belonged to the defendant-appellant, half of which he owned as zemindar and the other six he had purchased. The first Court dismissed the claim on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title and his possession over the grove within limitation. On appeal the learned District Judge disagreed with the first Court and held that the plaintiff had proved his title as also his possession over the grove within limitation. The claim was accordingly dec...
Ram NaIn Shukul Vs. Ganga Shukul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All254; 25Ind.Cas.620
Sunder Lal, J.1. The circumstances under which this appeal arises are as follows: On 13th November 1898 one Bindeari Shukal executed a deed of mortgage of a 3-pie 5-khunis zemindari share in Mouza Panapur in favour of one Slieo Bakhsh Shukal, grandfather of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and the husband of defendant No. 5, On 23rd July 1902 the mortgagee brought a suit for sale on foot of the said mortgage. Bindesri Shukul was the principal defendant in the said suit, but his sons Ram Suchit and Ram Nain, who wore then minors, were also impleaded as defendants to that suit under the guardianship of their father. It was alleged in the suit that the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family of which the first defendant was the head and the managing member. The plaint went on to say that the father had borrowed the money for certain legal and necessary purposes and for the benefit of the family, and the suit was for the sale of the entire mortgaged property. No copies of the application mad...
Molvi Walayat HusaIn and ors. Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All402(1); 25Ind.Cas.643
Sunder Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption filed by one Khoda Bux. During the pendency of the suit Khoda Bux died. His heirs were not brought upon the record and the Court of first instance on August 13th, 1913, held that the suit had abated and made the order for the abatement of the suit under Rule 3 of Order XXII. It gave no cost to the defendant vendee. The defendant vendee preferred an appeal to the lower Appellate Court impleading the heirs of the deceased plaintiff as respondents to the appeal. An order directing the abatement of a suit is not a decree' within the meaning of that term as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been so ruled by this Court under Act XIV of 1882 in several cases and among them I may mention the case of Hamida Bibi v. Ali Husein Khan 17 A. 172 : A.W.N. (1895) 42. The order is not also appealable either under Section 104 or under Order XLIII of the new Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below, therefore, ought to have re...
Sheo Prasad Sonar Vs. Mangar Manitar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All531; 25Ind.Cas.185
Sunder Lal, J.1. The parties to the suit are neighbours. The plaintiff is the owner of a well marked yellow on the plan filed with the plaint. He also claimed to be the owner of a plot of land marked X. The defendants own a house adjacent to the well. According to the plaintiff they (the defendants) had recently opened a door at the point marked L in the said plan in wall belonging to themselves and are now using that door for entering upon the platform of the well and the land X, and use it for going to a dalan belonging to them shown to the right of the line B in the plan attached to the plaint. The plaintiff also complained of certain beams which have been put on the wall but as to which there is no controversy now. The plaintiff sues for an injunction directing the defendants to close he door L and a further injunction to restrain the defendant's dalan. The suit has been thrown out by the Court below on the ground that the door was opened nine years ago and the plaintiff not having...
Musammat Zaibunnissa and ors. Vs. Parichhat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All242; 25Ind.Cas.611
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for redemption. The facts of the case were somewhat complicated, and I must congratulate the learned Munsif of Jhansi on the exceedingly lucid and well-considered judgment in which he has set forth those facts and dealt with the issues arising therefrom. It is necessary, however, to disentangle the essential facts bearing on the single point which is now before me for consideration. On the 15th July 1871 a number of co-sharers in village Chumadwara executed a mortgage by conditional sale in favour of one Pakkri, who was the ancestor of most of the defendants respondents. The mortgage purported to be with possession and redeemable after a term of eight years. There was a special provision permitting any of the co-sharers concerned to redeem his own fractional share in the property mortgaged. On the 22nd of August 1879, when the period limited for payment of the mortgage-debt had expired, the mortgagee issued a notice for ...
Lala Kalyan Mal Vs. Samondu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.272
Sunder Lal, J.1. This-is a suit for ejectment under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiff sought for the ejectment of the defendant from three plots of land numbered 3181, 2841 and 3214. There was no contest about the last two. The dispute related only to plot No. 3181. It was the sir of the then zemindar Abdul Rahman. In 1892 Abdul Rahman mortgaged it with possession to a certain mortgagee who is now represented by the contesting defendants in this case. Later on in 1897 he mortgaged his entire zemindari share to the plaintiff who, having obtained a decree thereon, purchased the share in execution thereof. They took proceedings for the ejectment of Abdul Rahman and obtained orders for the ejectment of Abdul Rahman without impleading the defendants as a party. The mortgagees were thus no parties to these proceedings. The plaintiff now seeks to eject the mortgagees as tenants of some kind under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act. Both the Courts below have found that the defendants ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »