Allahabad Court March 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.
Tilak Pandey and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All135; 29Ind.Cas.97
1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur, under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the procecution of the applicants on various charges in connection with pleadings verified, and evidence given by them, in two cases tried by the Subordinate Judge. It appears that one Musammat Mohra brought a suit to establish her right to certain property as the daughter of Shiv Narain. The applicants and others brought another suit against Musammat Mohra for possession of property, on the ground that she was not the daughter of Sheo Narain. The two cases were tried together, and the Subordinate Judge found that Miisammat Mohra was the daughter of Sheo Narain. He waited for a month probably to see whether appeals would be filed against his decision, and as soon as the month had expired he took proceedings against the applicants tinder Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the part of the applicants it is contended that th...
Janki Prasad Vs. Parmeshwar DIn Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All240; 29Ind.Cas.975
1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Munsif of Basti setting aside a decree passed ex parte against the respondent and restoring the case to the pending file. It appears that the ex parte decree against the respondent was passed as long ago as 1909 when the respondent was in jail. Two applications to set aside the decree were presented by his wife acting on a power-of-attorney from her husband. Both applications were rejected. The respondent was released from jail in September 1913, and on March the 18th, 1914, he presented a third application, which has resulted in the order against which this application for revision is directed. It is quite clear that as an application to set aside a decree passed ex parte it was barred by limitation under Article 164, Schedule I, to the Limitation Act. Possibly, however, it might have been treated as an application by the respondent for review of judgment. In that case it was prima facie barred by limitation; but it was open to...
Moti Lal Vs. Gangadhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All171; 29Ind.Cas.176
Chamier, J.1. This is an application by the defendant in a suit brought against him by the respondents for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. The application is for revision of an order dismissing the applicant's objections to a Receiver's report, because the applicant failed to deposit in Court Rs. 220 as directed by the Subordinate Judge. It appears that the applicant's objections were filed On December the 2nd, 1914, and that he had at the same time applied for the issue of summonses to witnesses to support his objections. The order passed on that was 'file with the record.' Seven days later the case was taken up by the Subordinate Judge, who proceeded to examine the objections. He evidently came to the conclusion that many of the objections had been put forward in order to gain time and to prolong the proceedings, and he ordered that the objector should deposit Rs. 10 for each objection, or Rs. 220 in all, to be awarded to the plaintiffs and the Receiver on account of cos...
Sunder Lal and ors. Vs. Dharam Pal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All75; 28Ind.Cas.878
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a plot of land No. 425 together with trees standing thereon and for damages for the value of a tree cut down by the defendants. The Courts of first instance found that the land belonged jointly to the parties but that under a partition which took place in 1906, it had been allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. It was, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the land. It, however, held that the trees had been planted by the defendants' ancestors and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to them. That Court whilst decreeing the claim for possession dismissed it in respect to the trees. The defendants submitted to the decree of the Court below, but the plaintiffs appealed. The lower Appellate Court has held and, I think rightly, that as under the partition of 1900 the land was allotted to the plaintiffs and the trees were not excluded from the plaintiffs share, they must be deemed to ...
Puran Nath Sadhak Vs. Atwargir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All255; 29Ind.Cas.217
1. This is an appeal arising out of the dismissal of an application in insolvency. The applicant was a creditor of the respondent, Atwargir. The applicant alleged that the said Atwargir was indebted to him in a sum far exceeding Rs. 500, and further, that Atwargir had committed an act of insolvency by transferring certain property with intent to defeat the applicant's claim. It was alleged that the transfer was effected in the following manner: that Atwargir brought a collusive suit claiming certain property from one Musammat Baldevi, which suit he proceeded to compromise in such a manner that a decree might be passed having the effect of leaving Musammat Balievi in possession of the property and preventing Atwargir from ever claiming the same from her. On notice being issued to Atwargir, the latter presented an application admitting the debts set forth by the applicant and asking for an enquiry by the Insolvency Court. The District Judge has dismissed the application, holding that the...
Bharat Indu and ors. Vs. Gobardhan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All201; 28Ind.Cas.901
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed to redeem a mortgage, dated the 18th of July 1898, and made by Hakim Wilayet Ali in favour of one Maharaj Gobardhan Das, the principal amount borrowed being the sum of Rs. 6,000. There is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the mortgage. The contest is that the plaintiffs say that they are entitled to redeem upon payment of the principal sum of Rs. 6,000, whilst on the other hand the defendants say that the amount due upon their mortgage has been duly and finally ascertained by a decree of this Court, dated the 1st of August 1910. This decree ascertains the amount due for principal, interest and costs at the sum of Rs. 20,270-11-0 with future interest at 1 per cent, per mensem. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs cannot redeem without paying this sum. The Court below has decided in favour of the defendants.2. The fasts are a little complicated, but may nevertheless be shortl...
Panna Lal Vs. Rameshar Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.403
Piggott, J.1. I have stated the facts of this case at some length in my remand order of July the 3rd 1914. The finding of the lower Appellate Court on the remanded issue puts it beyond question that the plaintiff is the successor-in-interest of the original mortgagor. The essential facts may, therefore, be recapitulated. On the 24th of January 1867 the predecessor-in-title of the present plaintiff mortgaged by conditipnal sale a house in the town of Chandausi to one Hazari Lal and put him in possession. On June the 15th, 1873, Hazari Lal sold this shop to Panna Lal, the defendant-appellant. There had been no foreclosure of the mortgage by conditional sale. In the deed of June the 5th, 1873, Hazari Lal recited that the shop in question had come into his possession under a mortgage by conditional sale, but that he was now in possession as a full owner. He did not say that he had foreclosed the mortgage. He undoubtedly purported to sell the shop itself and not any mortgagee rights in resp...
Jawahir Lal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All338
Henry Richard, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he has 'proprietary right in ten biswas of revenue-free grant in each of the three mahals, Nur Muhammad, Farhat Fatima and Intizam-ud-din, in Mauza Lakhanpur,' and that the name of the Government may be expunged. The claim does not appear to be accurately expressed. What the plaintiff really claims is that in the events which have happened, he is now entitled to be considered as the assignee of the Government revenue payable in respect of the 10 biswas. His real claim is that the last assignee of this Government revenue was one Dalpat Rai, who died leaving a daughter Musammat Ram Piari. He claims that now he is entitled, as the heir of Dalpat Rai, under Hindu Law, to have j the same rights as Dalpat Rai enjoyed.2. The court below granted the plaintiff a decree declaring that he is entitled by right of succession to Dalpat Rai, as the muaftdar assignee of the Governme...
Musammat Fatima Bibi Vs. Musammat Hamida Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All118; 28Ind.Cas.587
Chamier, J.1. The parties to this suit are tenants of several fields included in one and the same khata and they pay a lump sum as rent to the zemindar for all the fields. The rent having been realized from the plaintiff alone, she has sued the rest of the tenants for contribution. The plaint has been returned by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, on the ground that cognizance of the suit is barred by Article 41 of the second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as the suit is a suit for contribution by a sharer in joint property in respect of a payment made by him of money due from a co-sharer. It appears that the parties are all related to each other being descendants of the same person, and that they have for convenience' sake allotted to each party a separate field or fields. It is contended that the allotment of fields shows that the property is no longer joint property. I cannot accept this contention. Certainly as regards the zemindar all the parties to this suit ...
Musammat Phul Bibi Vs. Zahur Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All214; 28Ind.Cas.849
Chamier, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Phul Bibi, now represented by the appellant Bela Bibi, for possession of a house, bhusauli, cattle-trough, et cetera, on the allegation that one Kariman occupied them as appurtenances to his holding under the plaintiff and that Kariman died without issue; but Musammat Elaichi, a daughter of Kariman's wife, who had died, had set herself up as a daughter of Kariman. The defendants in the suit are the sons and husband of. Musammat Elaichi. The plaintiff, alleged that the defendants had entered into possession of the holding and of the house property in dispute though they were not entitled to do so as heirs of Kariman, and that they had been ejected from the holding by the Revenue Court. The defendants pleaded that on the death of Kariman, Mlaichi, who was his daughter, entered into possession of the house property. They also pleaded that they were tenants along with Ellaichi of other lands in the village and that they could not be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »