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.
Sahadeo Gir Vs. Deo Dutt Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All188; (1915)ILR37All323
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an application in revision brought under peculiar circumstances. The petitioner was a prior mortgagee. He had brought a suit against the mortgagor and the subsequent mortgagees upon his mortgage and had obtained a decree. Later on, the subsequent mortgagees brought a suit impleading the mortgagor and the present petitioner, and asked for a decree for sale. The petitioner pleaded his prior mortgage. An issue was expressly struck on the point and was found in the petitioner's favour. The operative portion of the Judgment. directed that a decree for sale should be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, allowing six months for payment. In the absence of any express direction in the Judgment that this decree was to be for sale of the property in suit subject to the petitioner's prior mortgage, no order to that effect was embodied in the decree. The decree passed was, therefore, one for sale of the pr...
Radha Bai and anr. Vs. Parsotam Rao Tantia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All318
Henry Richard and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which related to property which at one time belonged to a man named Nana Narayan Rao. We do not for the moment specify the exact nature of the suit inasmuch as our decision upon a law point raised by the appellants depends to some extent upon the view we take of the nature of the suit. Nana Narayan Rao made a will in which he divided up his property between his three sons Ram Chander Rao, Vasudeva Rao and the defendant Parsotam Rao Tantia. Whilst dividing up the property he urged his family to continue to live together in an amicable and friendly way. There has been a good deal of litigation between the members of this family. In the first place a suit was brought by Ram Chander Rao, which was continued after his death in the name of his widow Janki Bai. Partition of the family property, or so much of it as had not already bean divided by the will was claimed. Madho Rao and Parsotam Rao were defendants to t...
Parsotam Rao Tantia and anr. Vs. Radha Bai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.953
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which related to property which at one time belonged to a man named Nana Narayan Rao. We do not for the moment specify the exact nature of the suit, inasmuch as our decision upon a law point raised by the appellants depends to some extent upon the view we take of the nature of the suit. Nana Narayan Rao made a Will in which he divided up his property between his three sons, Ram Chander Rao, Vasudeva Rao and the defendant, Parsotam Rao Tantia. Whilst dividing; up the property he urged his family to continue to live together in an amicable and friendly way, There has been a good deal of litigation between the members of this family. In the first plane a suit was brought by Ram Chander Rao, which was continued after his death in the name of his widow, Janki Bai. Partition of the family property, or so much of it as had not already been divided by the Will, was claimed. Madho Rao, and Parsotam Rao were defendants to that suit. It was pleaded by way of de...
Sahdeo Gir Vs. Deo Dutt Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.50
1. This is an application in revision brought under peculiar circumstances. The petitioner was a prior mortgagee. He had brought a suit against the mortgagor and the subsequent mortgagees upon his mortgage and had obtained a decree. Later on the subsequent mortgagees brought a suit impleading the mortgagor and the present petitioner, and asked for a decree for sale. The petitioner pleaded his prior mortgage An issue was expressly struck on the point and was found in the petitioner's favour. The operative portion of the judgment directed that a decree for sale should be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing six months for payment. In the absence of any express direction in the judgment that this decree was to be for sale of the property in suit subject to the petitioner's prior mortgage, no order to that effect was embodied in the decree. The decree passed was, therefore, one for sale of the property as it stood, with...
Murari Lal and anr. Vs. Badan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All309
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the respondents are entitled, as held by the lower appellate court, in execution of a decree on a mortgage to bring the property to sale free from a prior mortgage. The appellant mortgaged the property first to Umrao Singh and afterwards to Bhup Singh. Umrao Singh sued on his mortgage without impleading Bhup Singh and obtained a decree for sale which he transferred to the appellant's brother Bahal. Bhup Singh transferred his mortgage to the respondents who obtained a decree for sale subject to the prior mortgage. Bahal died leaving the appellant as his sole heir. The respondents have now applied for execution of their decree, and they claim to be entitled to bring the property to sale free from the prior mortgage, on the ground that, when Bahal died and the benefit of the prior mortgage passed to the appellant, that mortgage merged in the appellant's proprietary right and was extinguished. The appellant on t...
Musammat Munna Kunwar Vs. Venaik Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.861
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claims to be put into proprietary possession of one-third of certain property together with an account of what was due to her whilst she was wrongfully kept out of possession, and to he awarded the amount so found due. The main facts relevant to the present appeal are admitted. A decree was made on the 29th of February 1892 in favour of one Adit Ram, son of Fateh Ram, Mangal Ram and Madho Ram, sons of Gulub Ram, and Musammat Munna Kunwar (daughter of Daya Ram) under the guardianship of the aforesaid Mangal Ram. In part discharge of this decree certain properties were purchased but in the names only of Mangal Ram, Adit Ram and Madho Ram. The plaintiff says that she was entitled to one-third of the decree and that therefore the decree having been discharged in part by the transfer of the property, she is entitled to the property to the extent of her interest in the decree and that Mangal Ram, who was her guardian, must be deemed ...
Badan Vs. Murari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All242; 28Ind.Cas.973
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the respondents are entitled, as held by the lower Appellate Court, in execution of a decree on a mortgage to bring the property to sale free from a prior mortgage. The appellant mortgaged the property first to Umrao Singh and afterwards to Bhup Singh. Umrao Singh sued on his mortgage without impleading Bhup Singh and obtained a decree for sale, which he transferred to the appellant's brother Bahal. Bhup Singh transferred his mortgage to the respondents, who obtained a decree for sale subject to the prior mortgage, Bahal died leaving the appellant as his sole heir. The respondents have now applied for execution of their decree, and they claim to be entitled to bring the property to sale free from the prior mortgage, on the ground that, when Bahal died and the benefit of the prior mortgage passed to the appellant, that mortgage merged in the appellant's proprietary right and was extinguished. The appellant on the other hand contends...
Maharaj NaraIn Sheopuri and anr. Vs. Shashi Shekhareshwar Roy
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All197; 29Ind.Cas.53
1. In this case the plaintiff Raja Sashi Sekareshwar Roy, Rai Bahadur, describes himself as the Chief Secretary of the Board of Trustees, otherwise known as the Pratinidhi Sabha, of an Association known as the Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, registered under Act XXI of 1860. He complains in effect that the two defendants, who are members of the same Association, are seeking to remove him from the post of Chief Secretary and have endeavoured to do so by measures contrary to the rules of the Association itself. He asks for a declaration that a circular convening a meeting to be held on May 12th, 1912, was invalid and inoperative under the rules or constitution of the said Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal,' and that the meeting held in consequence of this notice and the resolutions passed at the said meeting are 'null and void.'2. The first Court held that the dispute was not one cognizable by the Civil Courts and that the plaintiff had no locus standi under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Ac...
Kishan Lal Vs. Juggi Lal, Mool Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All292
Tudball and Rafiq, JJ.1. This is an appeal by one set of defendants as against the plaintiff and the second set of defendants and arises out of a suit for the recovery of money brought in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff's father used to deposit sums of money on interest with the firm of Baij Nath Ram Nath until his death in August, 1897. He left him surviving his widow and the plaintiff his son, who was then a minor, and who at the date of the present suit in 1912 was about 19 1/2 years old. Payments of various sums on account were made by the firm to the plaintiff's mother from time to time up to the year 1905.3. In this year the firm of Baij Nath Ram Nath, which was a joint family concern, split up into two firms, owing to a separation of the family. These two now firms were Baij Nath Juggi Lal, represented by the present appellants, and Baldeo Das Kedar Nath, represented by the second set of defendants respondents.4. The two branches divided up not only their properties...
Juggi Lal and ors. Vs. Kishen Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All78; 28Ind.Cas.949
1. This is an appeal by one set of defendants as against the plaintiff and the second set of defendants and arises out of a suit for the recovery of money brought in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff's father used to deposit sums of money on interest with the firm of Baij Nath-Ram Nath until his death in August 1897. He left him surviving his widow and the plaintiff, his son, who was then a minor and who at the date of the present suit in 1912 was about 1912 years old. Payments of various sums on account were made by the firm to the plaintiff's mother from time to time up to the year 1905.2. In this year the 6rm of Baij Nath-Ram Nath which was a joint family concern, split up into two firms, owing to a separation of the family. These two new firms were Baij Nath-Juggi Lal, represented by the present appellants, and Baldeo Das-Kedar Nath, represented by the second set of defendants respondents.3. The two branches divided up not only their properties but also their liabilities...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »