Allahabad Court November 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.
ishar Dutt and anr. Vs. Musai Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All367; 31Ind.Cas.886
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession over immoveable property. In the array of parties originally impleaded there were five defendants of the first party, seven defendants of the second party and one defendant of the third party. Of this last it is sufficient to say that she was alleged to have a joint right with the plaintiffs to the property in suit, and was impleaded because she declined to join in the suit The plaint does not disclose any difference in the position of the defendants first party and the defendants second party except in so far as it alleges that the defendants first party have filed a collusive suit against the defendants second party. On the question of the existing possession over the property in suit the plaint merely says that the possession of the defendants first party and second party is wrongful. The Court of first instance decreed the suit on the 20th of September 1912. Separate appeals were filed by the def...
Gauri Rai and ors. Vs. Musammat Bhaggina
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All476; 31Ind.Cas.873
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent. The only question is as to the rate of rent payable by the said defendants to the plaintiff-respondent. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree based upon a rate of Rs. 4-9-6 per bigha per annum. On appeal by the plaintiff the District Judge found the rate of rent payable to be Rs. 8 per bigha per annum arid amended the decree of 'the' first Court accordingly. In second appeal it is contended that the decision of the 'District' Judge was arrived at after an improper' use of the powers of the Court under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that is to say, after improperly permitting the plaintiff to produce additional evidence. Secondly, it is contended that the decision is liable to interference in second appeal because it was based on a misinterpretation of the documentary evidence before the Court. These are the only pleas with which I am concerned. I may note that there was a good dea...
Har Prasad Vs. Mukand Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All376; 31Ind.Cas.882
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. Mukand Lal presented an application in the Revenue Court against Har Prasad, alleging that he was entitled to 3/4ths of the recorded property and claiming partition. Har Prasad filed an objection that Mukand Lal's share was only one-half and the other half belonged to him. This matter having come before the Collector he made an order under Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act requiring Har Prasad to bring a suit in the Civil Court within three months to determine the question. Har Prasad never brought any such suit. He alleges, however, that there was pending in the Civil Court a suit for partition brought by Mukand Lal in respect of non-revenue paying property, and that it was decided in that suit that they constituted a joint Hindu family and were, therefore, on partition entitled to all the joint property half and half. After the expiry of three months when the case again came before the Collector, it was found that Har Prasad ...
Nirbhai Sinha and ors. Vs. Tulsi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All393(1); 31Ind.Cas.804
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit by a usufructuary mortgagee to recover possession on the allegation that the defendants-mortgagors had never given, him possession over the mortgaged property in accordance with the terms of the contract. The suit was; brought within six years of the date from which the mortgagee was to have received possession. Profits were claimed for the entire period of six years. The only question discussed in the Courts below was as to the amount of the said profits. A point of limitation is raised in second appeal to this Court it being contended that the suit was governed; so far as the claim for profits was concerned, by Article 109 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908). The mortgage-deed is registered and in my opinion, the claim for profits was in substance one for compensation for breach of a contract in writing registered and subject to the period of limitation prescribed by Article 116. I can find no authority to the contrary and the vi...
Mukha and anr. Vs. Qabza and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All343; 31Ind.Cas.553
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought to realise the amount of a mortgage, dated the 7th of February 1910. The mortgage was made by one Musammat Thakuri, the widow of Pat Ram. The defendants to the suit were Qabza, Dalla, Rasalu and Musammat Parsanni. Musammat Parsanni and Rasalu were pro forma defendants, vendors of the defendants Qabza and Dalla. The defence was that there was no legal necessity. The plaintiffs replied that there was legal necessity and that even if there was no legal necessity, the defendants claiming under Rasalu had no locus standi to contest the legality of the mortgage, in that Rasalu had no right of inheritance to the estate of Pat Ram, the husband of Musammat Thakuri. The Court below has decreed the suit in part. It has held that there was legal necessity to the extent of Rs. 498-8-0, principal and interest. Two appeals have been preferred. The plaintiffs have appealed in regard to so much of their suit as was dismissed, whilst the defendant Qa...
Sohan Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All380; 31Ind.Cas.651
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Sohan Lal. The applicant was tried and convicted by a Magistrate on a composite charge purporting to be laid under Sections 403/417, Indian Penal Code, and received concurrent sentences of imprisonment. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has maintained the convictions as recorded, but has set aside the sentences of imprisonment and imposed in lieu thereof cumulative sentences of fine aggregating Rs. 250. The essential facts may be stated as follows: Sohan Lal was the servant of a landholder named Musammat Sarvi Begam. There had been disputes between this lady and another co-sharer in her mahal, culminating in a partition which had finally been settled by the Revenue Courts and ordered to take effect from the month of July 1915. In order to avoid disputes between the parties in the interval before the partition was to take effect, the Collector had exercised his powers under Section 45 of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, I...
Bharat Indu and ors. Vs. Muhammad Mahbub Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All353; 31Ind.Cas.586
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was the outcome of another suit which was brought as far back as the year 1896. This last-mentioned suit was a suit to realise the amount of a mortgage by sale of mortgaged property including the property now in dispute. On the 26th of March 1896 a decree was passed in favour of one Rai Bahadur Babu Durga Prasad for the sum of Rs. 85,665. The present plaintiffs are the sons of the said Babu Durga Prasad. In execution of the above-mentioned decree the property (the subject-matter of the present suit) was put up for sale and purchased in the names of Musammat Bigga Begam and a man named Ahsan Ali. The sale took place on the 20th of July 1898, and the sale certificate is dated the 12th of August 1899. On the 20th of December 1899 Ahsan Ali executed a deed in which he admitted that the entire purchase-money of the property mentioned in the plaint in the present suit, as also the purchase-money of an indigo factory which was so...
NaraIn Das and ors. Vs. Harakh NaraIn Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All396; 31Ind.Cas.797
Piggott, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to this appeal, on the ground that the suit is one of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and could not properly be brought before this Court in second appeal. On behalf of the defendants-appellants reference is made to Article 31 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act IX of 1887). The question is whether the suit as framed, was one for profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiffs alleged to have been wrongfully received by the defendants. The case seems to me very much on the boundary line. It is almost covered by the ruling in Rameshar Singh v. Durga Das 23 A. 437 : A.W.N. (1901) 128 but there remains a doubt to my mind whether the money claimed in the present case was alleged in the plaint to have been 'wrongfully received' by the defendants. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants caught and sold certain fish under such circumstances that the plaintiffs were entitled t...
Sheo Mangal Singh Vs. Chedu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All447; 31Ind.Cas.914
Piggott, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal in a suit for ejectment originally filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector. The plaintiff is admittedly the zemindar of the land in suit. In his plaint, he describes the two defendants, Chedu son of Dan and Chiddu son of Matru, Kunjras, as non-occupancy tenants of the land in suit. The defendants filed a written statement in which they described themselves as mortgagees in possession on behalf of the tenant-in-chief who was a tenant with occupancy rights. On their plea Mithu son of Faqira was added as a defendant. The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that there had been a mortgage by Faqira father of Mithu in favour of the original defendants and that this fact alone was sufficient to oust his jurisdiction. He dismissed the suit according. The District Judge was obviously inclined to the opinion that the Assistant Collector was wrong on the question of jurisdiction. He has, however, rightly remarked that the question was one which...
Kidha Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All345; 31Ind.Cas.993
George Knox, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Moradabad, whereby he has granted sanction for the prosecution of one Kidha Singh under Section 193 or Section 465/114 of the Indian Penal Code. With reference to the prosecution, the learned Judge has in his judgment said: 'in this case alternative charges under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 465/114 of the Indian Penal Code, may have to be framed. If the receipt was really written the same day as he sold the bullock, it was not written on December 9th the date it bears. Signing the receipt was fabricating false evidence or forgery.' The ground on which I am asked to interfere in appeal with this order of sanction is 'because the evidence given by the appellants on behalf of Jahana was inconclusive, and even if believed, was insufficient to secure his acquittal. It would be impossible to prove that their statements were demonstrably false, and there would, in consequence, be no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »