Allahabad Court January 1915 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.
Muhammad Masihullah Khan and anr. Vs. Jarao Bai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All88; (1915)ILR37All226
Chamier and Piggott, J.1. Musammat Maminna Khatun, on the 22nd of December, 1908, obtained a preliminary decree for redemption. On appeal to this Court the decision was upheld by a decree dated the 19th of May, 1910, which allowed the plaintiff six months from that date to redeem the property. On the 12th of October, 1912, Musammat Maminna Khatun sold the mortgaged property to the present appellants, leaving in their hands a sum of money sufficient to enable them to redeem the property in accordance with the decree. On the 6th of April, 1914, the appellants applied to the court below to be made plaintiffs in the suit in the place of Maminna Khatun, and on the same day they applied to the court to extend the time for redemption and to allow them to pay the mortgage money into court. Both applications were dismissed. This is an appeal against the order dismissing the appellant's application to be made plaintiffs in the suit. The Subordinate Judge seems to have dismissed the application o...
Durga Prasad and anr. Vs. Kanhai Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All223
Henry Richards and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought under the following circumstances. The defendant in the present suit brought a suit in the Revenue Court against the plaintiff in the present suit alleging that he was his sub-tenant and seeking to eject him. The Revenue Court granted him a decree. The defendant in the Revenue Court then brought the present suit in which he claimed that he was entitled to a certain occupancy holding and for possession if he was found not to be in possession. There are other claims which may be disregarded for the purpose of our present judgement. Both the courts below dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the suit was not maintainable. It was contended that the decision of the Revenue Court operated as res judicata and that in any event the present suit was one which could not be maintained in a Civil Court.2. On second appeal a learned Judge of this Court held with some reluctance that havin...
Jagannath Gir Vs. Tirguna Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All104; (1915)ILR37All185
Henry Richards and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was entitled to certain math property as the mahant thereof in succession to the last mahant. It appears that the last mahant, one Narain Gir, was a minor and that the property was taken over by the Court of Wards. After his death the plaintiff made claim, as did certain other persons who are the defendants to the present suit. The Court of Wards, which is in possession of the property, declined to hand over possession until some one should establish his title to the mahantship.2. The lower court without going into the merits has dismissed the plaintiffs suit upon two grounds, namely, that the Court of Wards was not made party to the suit, and that the plaintiff did not claim possession.3. It seems to m that the suit ought not to have been dismissed on either of these grounds. The Court of Wards made no claim to the property. If the Court of Wards wished...
Jagarnath Gir Vs. Tirguna Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.139
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was entitled to certain mutt property as the mahant thereof in succession to the last mahant. It appears that the last mahant, one Narain Gir, was a minor and that the property was taken over by the Court of Wards. After his death the plaintiff made claim as did certain other persons who are the defendants to the present suit. The Court of Wards, which is in possession of the property, declined to hand over possession until some one should establish his title to the mahantship.2. The lower Court without going into the merits has dismissed the plaintiff's suit upon two grounds, namely, that the Court of Wards was not made party to the suit and that the plaintiff did not claim possession.3. It seems to us that the suit ought not to have been dismissed on either of these grounds. The Court of Wards made no claim to the property, if the Court of Wards wished to be made a party to the suit, it could app...
The Imperlal Bank Vs. Indar Pal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All214
Tudball, J.1. The respondent in this appeal is the Official Liquidator of the Imperial Bank of Aligarh and this appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken under a decree obtained by the Bank, on the 24thof April, 1910, against one Moti Lal, the father of the two appellants, on the basis of a promissory note, executed by Moti Lal alone. The sons were also impleaded as defendants to the suit, but as they were not parties to the promissory note, the suit as against them was withdrawn.2. The family to which Moti Lal belonged consisted of himself and the two sons and his brother, and thus Moti Lal on partition would have been entitled to a one-sixth share. When the decree was obtained it was put into execution and the interest of Moti Lal, i.e., a one-sixth share in certain property was put to sale. It was again put into execution, as this did not satisfy the decree against Moti Lal and the decree-holder sought to put the remaining fire-sixths share to pale. The brother Babu Lal and t...
Kifayatullah Vs. Municipal Board of Ajmere
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All220
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Ajmere-Merwara, under Section 18 of the Ajmere Courts Regulation I of 1877. The facts stated in the reference are that one Kifayatullah on the 23rd of July, 1907, gave the Municipal Committee of Ajmere notice in writing of his intention to re-erect-a certain building within the limits of the Ajmere Municipality and with his application submitted a certain plan. On the 2nd of October, 1907, the Municipal Committee issued a notice to Kifayatullah to the effect that he had contravened the provisions of Section 85 of the Municipal Regulation by beginning to re-erect without permission, and required him to stop the work at once and submit an application for permission to build along with a plan. He was further told not to resume building until he received the orders of the Committee, for, if the Committee found that the proposed building was objectionable, it would have to be removed. On receipt of this notice Kifayatulla...
The Municipal Committee of Ajmere Vs. Kifayatullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All10(2); 28Ind.Cas.143
1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Ajmere-Merwara under Section 18 of the Ajmere Courts Regulation, I of 1877. The facts stated in the reference are that one Kifayatullah on July 23rd, 1907, gave the Municipal Committee of Ajmere notice in writing of his intention to re-erect a certain building within the limits of the Ajmere Municipality and with his application submitted a certain plan. On October 2nd, 1907, the Municipal Committee issued a notice to Kifayatullah to the effect that he had contravened the provisions of Section 85 of the Municipal Regulation by beginning to correct without permission, and required him to stop the work at once and submit an application for permission to build along with a plan. He was further told not to resume building until he received the orders of the Committee, for if the Committee found that the proposed building was objectionable it would have to be removed. On receipt of this notice Kifayatullah stopped the work. On March 10th, 1908, ...
indar Pal and anr. Vs. the Imperial Bank
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All126; 28Ind.Cas.593
Tudball, J.1. The respondent, in this appeal is the Official Liquidator of the Imperial Bank of Aligarh and this appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken under a decree obtained by the Bank, on 24th April 1910, against one Moti Lal, the father of the two appellants, on the basis of a pro-note executed by Moti Lal alone.2. The sons were also impleaded as defendants to the suit but as they were not parties to the pro-note, the suit as against them was withdrawn.3. The family to which Moti Lal belonged consisted of himself and the two sons and his brother and thus Moti Lal on partition would have been entitled to a 1/6th share. When the decree was obtained it was put into execution and the interest of Moti Lal, i.e., 1/6th share in certain property was put to sale.4. It was again put into execution as this did not satisfy the decree against Moti Lal and the decree-holder sought to put the remaining five-sixth share to sale. The brother, Babu Lal, and the two sons both tiled object...
Musammat Dulari and anr. Vs. Lal Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All136; 28Ind.Cas.129
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, dated March 14th, 1898. The suit was instituted on the 19th of July 1912. It has been dismissed by the District Judge, on the ground that it was premature as the terms of the deed provided for redemption only after the expiration of a period of 59 years. The first point taken in appeal is that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem before the expiry of the term, because the defendant had himself broken an important stipulation in the contract by neglecting to pay the sum of Rs. 75 due to one Before, who was a usufructuary mortgagee of a portion of the land in suit. This plea was not very clearly taken in the memorandum of appeal, but it was based in argument on the case of Chhatku Rai v. Baldeo Shukul 17 Ind. Cas. 340 : 10 A.L.J. 330 : 34 A. 659. I so far accepted this contention as to remand two issues to the Court below in regard to the position of Before and to the paying off of his prior mortgage. The findings...
Bachcha and ors. Vs. Shiam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All87; 28Ind.Cas.622
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed that they were the Muhammadan residents of a hamlet known as Rasulabad and that they had a right to place, their tazias on a particular platform in front of the house once owned by one Mohan. It appears that for many years the Mussulman population and the Hindus had a perfectly friendly arrangement as to where the tazias should be placed and that by mutual consent the tazias were placed on the platform referred to in the plaint. This land has now become the land of the Government. Close by a Hindu temple has been built. There is nothing whatever to show that the building of this temple was in any way a hostile act on the part of the Hindus. A new place was agreed to by the majority of the residents as to whore the tazias should be placed. But the change seems to have been objected to by a few persons. They seem to have called to their assistance the Mussulman residents of other neighbouring villages, who had nothing to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »