Allahabad Court February 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.
Debi Prasad Vs. Sher Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All254
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of the learned District Judge of Aligarh passed under Order XLI, Rule 28, remanding to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, for decision on the merits, a suit which had been dismissed by that court. The learned Subordinate Judge had held that, on the facts stated in the plaint, the suit was not cognizable by him, being barred by Section 167 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901). This is the finding which ' the learned District Judge has reversed on appeal and his decision is now challenged before us. There was a mortgage of some zamindari property on which a suit was brought and a decree for sale was made. After the mortgage, but before the decree for sale, the mortgagors executed a perpetual lease in respect of certain lands appertaining to the share in question. In execution of the decree for sale the zamindari property was pub to sale and was purchased by the present plaintiff. He brought this suit...
The Collector of Benares in Charge of the Court of Wards and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All29(2); 28Ind.Cas.302
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the suit as brought was cognizable only by the Revenue Court. The only facts which need to be stated for our present purpose are that in 1869 the ancestors of some of the defendants made a simple mortgage of the property in favour of the ancestor of Rai Sheo Prasad and Rai Shambhu Prasad, who are represented in the present case by the Collector of Benares as Manager of the Court of Wards. A decree nisi for sale was obtained on the mortgage in February 1901. An order absolute for sale was passed in April 1904. The property was put up for sale in March 1907, when it was purchased by Sheo Prasad and Shambhu Prasad, and the sale was confirmed in May 1907. In the plaint it is slated that the plaintiffs endeavoured to obtain possession of the property in October 1907 but were resisted ...
Kishen Ballabh Vs. Chure Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All228; 28Ind.Cas.390
Rafique, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Ghure Mal, the plaintiff-respondent, for the recovery of Rs. 565-13-4 on the basis of a hundi dated August 23rd, 1910. It was alleged in the plaint that one Kanhaiya Lal had drawn the hundi in suit on a Bombay firm in favour of Kishen Ballabh and his son Baldeo for Rs. 500, who had sold it to the plaintiff for the same amount. Tim plaintiff presented the said hundi to the Bombay firm and it was dishonoured. Subsequent to the dishonour of the hundi by the Bombay firm the plaintiff called upon Kishen Ballabh and Baldeo to discharge it, who made promises from time to time but failed to pay the money; due on it. Hence the plaintiff sued both father and son for the recovery of Rs. 500 principal and Rs. 65-15-4 interest at six per cent per annum. The claim was decreed ex parte, on April 16th 1913, against Kishen Ballabh but was dismissed against Baldeo. On May 3rd, 1913, Kishen Ballabh applied to have the ex, parte, decree against him...
Ramjas Mal Vs. Zaharya Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All236; 28Ind.Cas.358
Rafique, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of possession of abadi plot No. 53/1 and the house, situate on it. The facts as found by the Courts below are that Sonehra, Hardeo and Musammat Indraoti were the owners of the house in suit and co-sharers in the village. In 1870 the ancestors of Sonehra, Hardeo and Musammat Indraoti mortgaged their zemindari as also the house in suit to Ram Lal, the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent. The mortgage was with possession, but the mortgagors took the house on lease from the mortgagee. In 1897 Sonehra and his father, Moti, sold their equity of redemption to the defendant-appellant in respect of their zemindari share, who redeemed the mortgage. In 1904 there was a partition effected through Court between the co-sharers of the village under which abadi plot No. 53/1 was allotted to the plaintiff-respondent. At the time of the partition Sonehra and Musammat Indraoti were occupying the house ...
Anand Sarup and ors. Vs. Asad Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All106; 28Ind.Cas.602
1. This is an appeal in a suit winch has been repeatedly before this Court and has given rise to considerable differences of opinion. As was pointed out by Mr. Justice Tudball in the first instance, the trouble began with the framing of the plaint, and it is really doubtful whether a plaint such as this, seeking possession by redemption of an alleged mortgage against one set of defendants, and possession by ejectment of another set of defendants as mere trespassers, should have been allowed to come to trial. However, the actual point for decision is a narrow one. The respondent, Syed Asad Ali, is in possession of only a portion of the property originally in dispute with which we are now concerned. He has throughout put the plaintiffs to proof of their entire case. The plaintiffs said that the property in possession of Syed Asad Ali formed part of a larger property which had originally belonged to them and had been mortgaged with possession to another set of defendants. Their case was t...
Sher Khan and ors. Vs. Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All84; 28Ind.Cas.552
Piggot, J.1. This is Jin appeal by the defendants against an order of the learned District Judge of Aligarh passed under Order XLF, Rule 23, remanding to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh for decision on the merits a suit which had been dismissed by that Court. The learned Subordinate Judge had hold that, on the facts stated in the plaint, the suit was not cognizable by him, being barred by Section 107 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act 11. of 1901). This is the finding which the learned District Judge has reversed on appeal and his decision is now challenged before us. There was a mortgage of some zemindari property on which a suit was brought and a decree for sale was made; after the mortgage, but before the decree for sale, the mortgagors executed a perpetual lease in respect of certain lands appertaining to the share in question. In execution of the decree for sale the zemindari property was put to sale and was purchased by the present plaintiff. He brought this suit in...
Mohammad HusaIn Vs. Mohammadi Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All67(1); 28Ind.Cas.600
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The parties to the suit out of which this appeal arises are near relatives. The plaintiff has brought this suit against the heirs of his brother, Ahmad Husain, for establishment of his right to recover rent for the site of the house occupied by the defendants at the rate of eight annas per mensem and for recovery of arrears of rent for nearly three years. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. They are of opinion that Article 120 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act applies to the suit and bars the claim. That Article would be applicable if there is no other Article in the Schedule which would govern a claim of this description. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Article which is applicable to this suit is Article 131, which 'provides' a limitation of twelve years for a suit to establish a periodically recurring right to be computed from the date when the plaintiff had first been refused the enjoyment of tha...
Pandit Sant Lal Vs. Lala Sri Newas Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.1005
Piggott, J.1.This is a judgment-debtor's appeal in an execution case; the decree is an old one, dated July 11th, 1902, and the present application for execution was made on the 13th of November 1914. The first point taken on behalf of the appellant is that execution is barred by the twelve years' rule of limitation, The Court below has found that the present application is not a fresh application, but is a petition to the Court made in continuation of a previous application of the 20th of June 1912. The matter has been discussed before us as a point of law, but it is really a question of fact. If the application of the 13th of November 1914 was a fresh application it was barred by the twelve years' rule, on the other hand, if it was in substance and in fact a petition to the Court to take up the previous application of the 20th June 1912 and to proceed with the same according to law, then it was within time. As a matter of fact the application of June the 12th, 1912, was for sale of ce...
Muhammad Abdul Karim Khan Vs. Afzul Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All232
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh setting aside a decree passed by the Munsif of Bulandshahr and remanding the suit to the Munsif's court to be disposed of according to law. The Munsif had held that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court and had on that ground dismissed it. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who transferred the appeal to the first Additional Subordinate Judge for disposal. The latter officer was of opinion that the suit had been rightly instituted in the Civil Court and remanded the case to the Munsif for trial on the merits. In appeal to this Court it is contended that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court and that the Subordinate Judge had no power to make the order of remand. It is conceded that if the order of remand had been made by the District Judge, the case would have been covered by Section 197 of the Tenancy Act and no objection could have been taken to the o...
Khushhali Ram Vs. Bholar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All252
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Additional Judge of Meerut in an insolvency proceeding. One Mutasaddi Lal applied to be ajudicated an insolvent, on the 10th of March, 1914. His application was opposed by one of his creditors, named Khushhali Ram, on various grounds, but he was so adjudicated by an order of the same date. On the 6th of April, 1914, Khushhali Ram, who was a creditor shown on the insolvent's schedule, presented an application to the court, the rejection of which has led to the present appeal. The application was badly drafted. It referred to no definite section of the Provincial Insolvency Act and alluded in a confused manner to two separate transactions, with one of which we are not now concerned. In substance, however, the application was one which deserved more consideration at the hands of the Additional Judge than it has received. The allegation was that a mortgage-deed executed by the insolvent on the 26th of November, 1913, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »