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.
Bhagwan Dayal and anr. Vs. Param Sukh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1917All477; (1915)ILR37All179
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that a decree obtained against them ex parte on the 30th of August, 1911, was null and void as against them. The decree in question was a decree obtained on foot of a mortgage alleged to have been executed by the father of the plaintiffs and their uncle Raghubir Sahai. The facts are as follows. The plaintiffs were at the time of the institution of the mortgage suit and still are minors. The plaintiffs in the previous suit sought to implead them as defendants through the said Raghubir Sahai as their guardian ad litem. Raghubir Sahai refused to be the guardian ad litem and informed the court that the minors lived with their mother and not with him. Eventually the court appointed the Amin as the guardian ad litem of the minors. This order was made without any notice having been given to the minors, or to their mother in whose care they were. There was no app...
Bhola Nath Vs. Renka and anr. and Nannhu Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All177
Henry Richards and Pramada Charan Benerji, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff is the alleged reversioner to the estate of one Sewa Ram, upon the death of his widow Musammat Renka, the defendant of the first party. The defendants of the second party are alleged to be the nephews of the Musammat on whom she has conferred certain benefits as tenants. The defendant of the third party is a lessee from the defendant of the first party. The defendants of the fourth party are other reversioners, who apparently do not join in the suit. The claim seems to us a most extraordinary one. The plaintiff alleges that a large amount of property has been given to Jwala Prasad and his brother as their agricultural holding at a very low rent. It is also alleged that the lease granted by the Musammat is at a low rent and that a premium was taken. Paragraph 9 states that Rs. 600 or Rs. 700 per annum would be quite sufficient for the expenses of the Musammat and that the rest of th...
Gaya Prasad Tewari and ors. Vs. Ram Phal Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All5(2); 28Ind.Cas.21
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 19th of May 1899. The principal amount was Rs. 722. The interest was 1-8, per cent, per month, compound interest, with annual rests. The claim has now swelled to the large sum of Rs. 6,207-6-0. The Court below has held that the full amount was borrowed and that there was family necessity and has granted a decree. The mortgage was executed by Lachmi Prasad Tewari and Gaya Prasad Tewari. The defendants are the entire joint family of Lachmi Tewari and Gaya Prasad Tewari, who are brothers. One of the defendants, Badri Prasad Tewari, is the brother of Lachmi Prasad and Gaya Prasad, who was a minor at the time the bond was executed. Lachmi Prasad, in his written statement, admitted that he executed the bond, hut said as to Rs. 300-5-0, part of the consideration, that he had never received it. Gaya Prasad Tewari pleaded that he was a minor at the time that the bond was executed and that he knew nothing about it. The other de...
Renka and anr. and Bhola Nath Vs. Nannhu Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.896
1. In the suit out of winch this appeal arises the plaintiff is the alleged reversioner to the estate of one Sewa Ram, upon the death of his widow, Musammat Renka, the defendant of the first party. The defendants of the second party are alleged to be the nephews of the Musammat on whom she has conferred certain benefits as tenants. The defendant of the third party is a lessee from the defendant of the first party. The defendant of the fourth party are other reversioners, who apparently do not join in the suit. The claim seems to us a most extraordinary one. The plaintiff alleges that a large amount of property has been given to Jwala Prasad and his brother as their agricultural holding at a very low rent. It is also alleged that the lease granted by the Musammat is at a low rent and that a premium was taken. Paragraph 9 states that Rs. 600 or Rs. 700 per annum would be quite suffcient for the expenses of the Musammat and that the rest of the income of the property should be accumulated...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Ram Charan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All208
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dismissing an application presented by the appellant to have a decree passed against him ex parte set aside on the ground that he received no notice of the institution of the suit. It appears that the suit was one on a mortgage and that there were several defendants including the present appellant. The case was decided by the court of first instance on the 20th of September, 1911. On the 30th of November, 1911, the present appellant presented his application to have the decree set aside as against him. When the application was called on for hearing it was discovered that the file of the original suit had been sent to this Court in consequence of an appeal which had been filed by other defendants. The hearing of the application was put off from time to time, the court apparently being of opinion that it was unnecessary or impossible to take up the application until after the ap...
islam Fatima and ors. Vs. Pothi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All212
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. The question raised by this appeal is the applicability of the principle laid down in Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872) to the circumstances of this particular case. It is alleged that the defendants, who are land-holders, had entered into a contract with certain neighbouring land-holders, as to the holding of markets on their respective lands. The plaintiffs sued for enforcement of this contract and for damages. The first court threw out the case on the finding that the agreement' was void, in that it was an agreement restraining the defendants from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business, and that, consequently, it was not necessary to go into any of the other questions raised by the pleadings. The lower appellate court has reversed this decision and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The question is whether the owner of land entering into an agreement with the owner of neighbouring land, to the effect that a market for sa...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Ramcharan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.261
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dismissing an application presented by the appellant to have a decree passed against him ex parte set aside, on the ground that he received no notice of the institution of the suit. It appears that the suit was one on a mortgage and that there were several defendants, including the present appellant. The case was decided by the Court of first instance on September 20th 1911. On November 30th, 1911, the present appellant presented his application to have the decree set aside as against him. When the application was called on for hearing, it was discovered that the file of the original suit had been sent to this Court in consequence of an appeal which had been filed by other defendants. The hearing of the application was put off from time to time, the Court apparently being of opinion that it was unnecessary or impossible to take up the application until after the appeal had been disposed of by this Co...
Abharan Singh and ors. Vs. Lal Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All165
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The material facts connected with this appeal are as follows : - On the 11th of June, 1881, Amir Singh and Musammat Dulra Kunwar executed a usufructuary mortgage of certain zamindari property in favour of Rani Dharam Raj Kuunwar. The real mortgagor was the said Amir Singh. Possession of the sir land was not given in accordance with the provisions of the mortgage deed and the Rani brought a suit against the mortgagors for possession and mesne profits. She obtained a decree, and in execution, for mesne profits and costs, the mortgaged property was attached, put up to sale and purchased by the Rani. The sale was subsequently confirmed and the usual certificate issued. Lal Bahadur Singh now represents the estate of Rani Dharam Raj Kunwar. The plaintiffs are the grandsons and great grandsons of Amir Singh and they have brought the present suit for a declaration that the auction sale mentioned above is null and void and that they are still entitled to redeem the mortga...
Chhajju Vs. Ayub Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All112; 28Ind.Cas.132
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision from the decree of the Additional Judge of Meerut. It appears that the opposite party sued in the Court of the Munsif of Muzaffarnagar on the basis of a pro-note and the applicant denied the execution of the said pro-note. Both parties gave evidence and the Munsif disbelieving the evidence of the plaintiff-opposite party dismissed his claim. On appeal the learned Additional Judge could not make up his mind as to which of the two sets of witnesses were to be believed. After hearing the argument in the appeal he sent the pro-note to the Thumb Impression Bureau at Allahabad and on receipt of the report of the said bureau he accepted the appeal. It is said on behalf of the defendant-applicant that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge was unwarranted by law. I think that the contention for the applicant is correct. The learned Judge, if he wanted to take additional evidence, should have done so according to law. The decree of the lower ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›