Allahabad Court December 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.
Jai Kishen Joshi Vs. Budhanand Joshi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.244
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the Local Government under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaon Division, 1894.2. One Debi Dat Joshi had four sons: (1) Krishna Nand, (2) Yangya Dat, (3) Narotain, (4) Jai Dat, defendant No. 2. The first is dead and his son Chandramani has also died without issue.3. The plaintiff, Jai Krishna, is the son of the second son. The third has died without issue. Jai Dat, defendant No. 2, is the fourth.4. The property now in suit is part of the family property. On 13th August 1860, Debi Dat Joshi gave a usufructuary mortgage of this and other property to one Debi Dat Panth for a sum of over Rs. 400.5. After the former's death, the defendant Jai Dat repaid Rs. 100 out of the mortgage-debt to the mortgagee, who thereupon released to him the property now in suit. Jai Dat, to obtain this sum, made a similar mortgage of this same property for the sum of Rs. 100 in favour of Jai Krishna Joshi (deceased), father of defendant No. 1, Buddhi Ballab...
Dujai Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All122
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated November, 1900, executed by one Nanku in favour of one Musammat Sumaria. The mortgage purported to be a mortgage of the whole house. In the events which have happened it is admitted that Nanku had no right be mortgage more than half the house and the plaintiffs in no event were entitled to a decree for sale of more than the half of the house which belonged to Nanku.2. The facts connected with the suit are somewhat complicated and are fully set forth in the Judgment of the learned District Judge. The court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim for sale of the whole house, though from the Judgment it is pretty clear that it only intended to give a decree for half. The lower appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. An appeal was filed in this Court and a learned Judge dismissed the appeal.3. It is only necessary for us to refer to so much of the facts as relate to t...
Lachmi NaraIn Prasad and ors. Vs. Kishan Kishore Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All356; (1916)ILR39All126; 33Ind.Cas.913
Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain immovable property and for cancellation of a sale-deed executed in respect of it on the 28th of April, 1881. The property belonged to one Bishcshar Prasad and his son Lachmi Narain Prasad, the first plaintiff, at the date of the sale. The sale-deed was executed by Bisheshar Prasad in favour of one Jhagga Ram, A suit for pre-emption in respect of the sale was brought by Debi Saran and Sarnam Singh, who are now represented by the defendants of the first party, and they obtained a decree on the 27th of June, 1882. The defendants, second and third parties, are transferees from Sarnam Singh and his successors in interest. The plaintiffs, other than Lachmi Narain Prasad, are the sons of the latter and grandsons of Bisheshar Prasad. They brought the present suit, on the allegation that one Hazari Sahu perpetrated a fraud on Bisheshar Prasad, who was of weak intellect, and obtained from him, firs...
Emperor Vs. Bhawani Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All170
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of a magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint filed by one Cheda Lal, against the applicant Bhawani Das. The offence alleged against the latter is abetment of the forgery of a sale-deed, dated the 27th of June, 1913, whereby Cheda Lal purported to convey certain property to one Het Ram. On the same date Het Ram executed a mortgage-deed, whereby he purported to borrow money from Bhawani Das on the security of this very property. Choda Lal's case is that he knew nothing about the sale-deed, and that his signature to the same was forged by one Babu Lal. The question was raised in two separate suits filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, one by Cheda Lal and one by Bhawani Das. The latter did not affirm the disputed sale-deed to be genuine, but on the contrary claimed damages from Babu Lal and Het Ram for having defrauded him, The Subordinate Judge held that the deed was a forgery and that Bhawani Das had been defr...
Bhawani Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All299; 35Ind.Cas.161
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of a Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint filed by one Cheda Lal against the applicant Bhawani Das. The offence alleged against the latter is abetment of the forgery of a sale-deed, dated 27th June 1913, whereby Cheda Lal purported to convey certain property to one Het Ram. On the same date Het Bam executed a mortgage-deed, whereby he purported to borrow money from Bhawani Das on the security of this very property. Cheda Lal's case is that he knew nothing about the sale-deed, and that his signature to the same was forged by one Babu Lal. The question was raised in two separate suits filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, one by Cheda Lal and one by Bhawani Das. The latter did not affirm the disputed sale-deed to be genuine, but on the contrary claimed damages from Babu Lal and Het Ram for having defrauded him. The Subordinate Judge held that the deed was a forgery and that Bhawani Das had been defrauded. He...
Dujai Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All36(2); 33Ind.Cas.954
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated November 1900, executed by one Nanku in favour of one Musammat Sumaria. The mortgage purported to be a mortgage of the whole house. In the events which have happened it is admitted that Nanku had no right to mortgage more than half the house and the plaintiffs in no event were entitled to a decree for sale of more than half of the house which belonged to Nanku.2. The facts connected with the suit are somewhat complicated and are fully set forth in the judgment of the learned District Judge. The Court of first instance decreed, the plaintiffs' claim for sale of the whole house, though from the judgment it is pretty clear that it only intended to give a decree for half. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. An appeal was filed in this Court and a learned Judge dismissed the appeal.3. It is only necessary for us to refer to so much of the facts as relate to the present letters patent a...
Musammat Bhani Vs. Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All117
Tudball and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division, 1894. The facts of the case are as follows. One Lachman Singh, Subedar, acquired the property now in suit. He died some fifteen or sixteen years prior to the suit leaving an idiot son, Ram Singh Thapa. Ram Singh had a wife, Musammat Tara. Ram Singh died subsequently to his father, leaving three daughters by his wife, Musammat Tara. He had what has been described as a dhanti wife, Musammat Yasuli, and by her a daughter, the plaintiff in the suit. After the death of Lachman Singh, Musammat Tara took possession of the estate and prior be her death in the end of 1906 she made certain transfers of the property, in favour of her throe daughters and of the contesting defendant, the husband of her third daughter, Musammat Debki. She retained a portion of the property, which on her death in 1906, was taken by one of her daughters. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegatio...
Ram Singh Vs. Musammat Bhani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All47; 32Ind.Cas.127
1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaon Division, 1894. The facts of the case are as follows. One Lachman Singh, Subedar, acquired the property now in suit. He died some fifteen or sixteen years prior to the suit leaving an idiot son, Ram Singh Thapa. Ram Singh had a wife Musammat Tara. Ram Singh died subsequently to his father, leaving three daughters by his wife, Musammat Tara. He had what has been described as a dhauti wife, Musammat Yasuli, and by her a daughter, the plaintiff in the suit. After the death of Lachman Singh, Musammat Tara took possession of the estate and prior to her death in the end of 1906 she made certain transfers of the property in favour of her three daughters and of the contesting defendant, the husband of her third daughter, Musammat Debki. She retained a portion of the property, which on her death in 1906 was taken by one of her daughters. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegation that she was the legiti...
Gobind Sahai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All183; 32Ind.Cas.335
1. The facts before us are as follows:2. The applicant Gobind Sahai was called upon by a Magistrate of the First Class to show cause why he should not be bound over to be of good behaviour. An order was passed against him and he was directed to furnish security. He appealed to the District Magistrate, but his appeal was dismissed. He then applied in revision to this Court on the 26th of June 1915. On the 22nd of July 1915 Mr. Justice Banerji, sitting singly after hearing Counsel on his behalf, passed an order rejecting the application. That order was signed by Mr. Justice Banerji but was not sealed. On the 6th of September 1915 the applicant presented an application to the learned. Chief Justice on which the following order was passed: 'Lay before Mr. Justice Banerji and let this man be informed of the date fixed for hearing.' On the 10th of November 1915 Mr. Justice Banerji passed an order referring the question to this Court as to whether or not an application for review can He in th...
Jagan Nath Prasad Vs. Ram NaraIn and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All115
Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.1. The plaintiff Jagan Nath is the son of one Sheo Dayal who had a brother named Mata Din. The defendants are the sons and grandsons of Mata Din. The appellant Ram Narain applied to the Revenue Court for a partition of his 1/10th share in the village upon notice being issued to the recorded co-sharers, the plaintiff Jagan Nath raised an objection to the effect that the village had already been privately partitioned, that a definite portion of it had been allotted to his share and that chat portion could not be partitioned again. He thus raised a question of proprietary title, and the Revenue Court was competent, under the provisions of Section 112 of the Land Revenue Act, either to try the question itself or to refer the parties to the Civil Court. It elected to adopt the latter course, and directed the plaintiff to bring a suit in the Civil Court to have the question of title raised by him determined. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »