Allahabad Court April 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.
Mathra Pershad and anr. Vs. Cheddi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All254; 29Ind.Cas.363
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to realise the amount of a bond, dated the 23rd of August 1910, alleged to have been executed by one Ramdhan Lal in favour of the plaintiff and his deceased father, Ramadhan. Ramdhan Lal is dead. The suit was brought against the appellants who are in possession of Ramdhan Lal's property under a Will. The bond on the face of it purported to be a mortgage bond and the suit was brought in the Court of first instance to enforce the mortgage. That Court was of opinion that the document had not been duly attested as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and could not be treated as a mortgage. For that reason alone the Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed and in the Appellate Court he abandoned the claim for sale of the mortgaged property and asked for a simple money decree in respect of the debt. The learned Judge found that the document had been duly executed by Ramdhan Lal a...
Jai Debi Kuar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All162; 29Ind.Cas.322
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for the revision of the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad, affirming the conviction of the applicant for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicant, Musammat Jai Debi, presented an application to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in which she charged the complainant, Mr. Krishna Chandra Joshi, Deputy Collector, with instigating her opponent, Kaliyan Rai, to bring false charges against her. An inquiry was ordered and Mr. Nanavati, the Collector of Budaun, sent for the applicant and she appeared before him and repeated what she had said in her memorial, and added that Mr. Krishna Chandra Joshi had asked for a bribe from her which she had refused to pay. A further inquiry was held by Mr. Ingram, the successor of Mr. Nanavati, and before him also she apparently repeated what she had stated in her memorial to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. It was in regard to these statements that she wa...
Talaimand Singh and ors. Vs. Gobind Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All143(2); 29Ind.Cas.247
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision, and the only ground pressed is that the suit was not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes in which it was instituted, so that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In my opinion the plea raised is a valid one. There was a decree obtained against the parties to this suit upon a mortgage of 1891, which directed the mortgaged property to be sold. The plaintiffs' case was that this property belonged to both the parties and that as it was advertised for sale, they (the plaintiffs) had to discharge the amount of the decree in order to save the property from auction-sale; that they paid on account of defendants' share of the property a sum of Rs. 353-2-11 and that they were entitled to recover this sum from the defendants. The suit was to recover this sum of Rs. 353-2-11, and a further amount. The case is clearly one covered by Article 41 of Schedule II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It was a suit for contri...
Sheo Prasad and anr. Vs. Lala Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.205
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This application for revision arises out of a suit for contribution brought in the Court of Small Causes at Allahabad so far back as the year 1911. The case came up to this Court once before and after certain issues had been sent down to the Court below, it was finally remanded to that Court for re-trial in accordance with the judgment of Mr. Justice Tudball reported as Lola Ram v. Sheo Prasad 20 Ind. Cas. 176 : 11 A.L.J. 657. The facts are these:2. The plaintiff and the two defendants jointly took a lease from the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway Company for cutting grass. The rent reserved by the lease was Rs. 2,000. The Railway received on account of rent the total sum of Rs. 1,533-5-6; for the balance, namely Rs. 466-10-6, a suit was instituted on behalf of the Secretary of State against the three defendants and a decree was obtained on the 28th of May 1909. The amount of the decree was realised from the plaintiff 9 lone and thereupon he brought the suit, out of which...
Sheikh Raza HusaIn Vs. Musammat Hasan Jan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.245
Chamier, J.1. I admitted this application for revision, because it appeared to me that the suit was by one of several joint mortgagors of immoveable property for contribution in respect of money paid by her for the redemption of the mortgaged property and was, therefore, excluded from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, being a suit of the kind described in Article 42 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. On examination of the record which has now arrived, I find that the suit is not of the description which I had supposed. It appears that one Muhammad Razi, who held a general power-of-attorney from the plaintiff, joined with the defendant Raza Husain in borrowing Rs. 300 from a man called Lalta Prasad. As security for payment of the money they purported to mortgage certain property belonging to the plaintiff. Muhammad Razi, without reference to the plaintiff took advantage of the power-of-attorney in his favour to mortgage his employer's property and he actua...
Raghubir and ors. Vs. Tulshi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All194; 29Ind.Cas.222
Chamier, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants for a declaration, that they are entitled to a one-sixth share in a certain patti. The prayer for relief is riot worded in this way but this is the meaning of it. The lower Appellate Court has declined to make such a declaration, but has made a declaration of another description intended to limit the rights of the respondents in a certain way, On the facts as found by the lower Appellate Court the appellants are entitled to the share which they claimed and the only question is whether they are entitled to obtain a declaration to that effect in the Civil Court. It appears that in the khewat of 1305 Fasli the plaintiffs were shown as entitled to a three-eighteenths, share and the respondent Tulshi Ram was shown as entitled to an eight-eithteenths share. At the recent Settlement by some mistake a record was prepared showing that the appellants are entitled to no more than a one-sixteenth share while the respondent Tu...
Sital Prasad Ghosh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All288; 29Ind.Cas.830
Tudball, J.1. This application arises out of a conviction under Section 46 of the Water Works Act. The facts on which the conviction is based are as follows:2. The applicant, Mr. Sital Prasad Ghosh, has a house and a garden. In the garden there is a well, attached to it there is a pucoa reservoir and a pucca channel. Part of the garden is used for the purposes of growing vegetables. The Chairman and Assistant Secretary of the Municipal Board visited the premises on the 5th December 1914. They saw that the vegetable garden was well watered and found the reservoir dry and the channel containing a large amount of leaves. They saw a pair of bullocks entering the compound. Half an hour before this the Chairman and Assistant Secretary had been visiting the other houses in the neighbourhood.3. The Court below has drawn, on these facts, the inference that the water which was supplied for domestic purposes had been used for the purpose of watering the garden. The Assistant Secretary stated that...
Kamta Prasad Vs. Indomati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All264; (1915)ILR37All414
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. These are appeals against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, rejecting an application presented by the appellants for an order absolute under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. A decree nisi was passed in favour of two persons, Sheo Prasad and Tulsi Ram, on December, 24th, 1900, and was confirmed on appeal by this Court with a slight modification on the 19th January, 1914. That decree was passed against Musammat Indomati and others. The business of the decree-holders failed and their rights under the decree were put up for sale in execution of a decree held against them by Moti Lal and Fateh Lai. At the execution sale the share of the decree-holder Sheo Prasad was sold to one Ram Bharose and the appellants assert that on the 27th September, 1905, the rights of Ram Bharose were transferred to Bisheshar Nath and that on the 3rd May, 1906, Bisheshar Nath transferred his rights to Kamta Prasad the appellant in appeal No. 331. At the same exec...
Kamta Prasad Vs. Indomati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.593
1. These are appeals against amorder of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, rejecting an application presented by the appellants for an order absolute under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. A decree nisi was passed in favour of two persons, Sheo Prasad and Tulshi Ram, on December 24th, 1900, and was confirmed on appeal by this Court with a slight modification on January 19th, 1914. That decree was passed against Musammat Indomati and others. The business of the decree-holders failed and their rights under the decree were put up for sale in execution of a decree held against them by Moti Lal and Fateh Lal. At the execution sale the share of the decree-holder, Sheo Prasad, was sold to one Ram Bharose and the appellants assert that on September 27th, 1905, the rights of Ram Bharose were transferred to Bisheshar Nath and that on May 3rd, 1906, Bisheshau Nath transferred his rights to Kamta Prasad, the appellant in Appeal No. 331. At the same execution sale the share of the decree...
Hansraj Vs. Ratni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All259; 29Ind.Cas.986
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff prayed for an account of certain income which the defendant is alleged to have received as her agent and for a decree for the amount of such income when ascertained, and also for the recovery of papers and books containing the names of jajmans. The plaintiff's case was that her husband was a Ganga-purohit at Hardwar; that on his death she handed ovar the books, etc., to the defendant, who undertook to make use of them as her agent and to pay her over the income which was derived from pilgrims. There had been previous litigation between the parties commencing in the year 1905 and finally decided by the High Court in 1910. The decision was altogether favourable to the plaintiff, who was held to be entitled to the books and to the amount received by the defendant. The present suit was instituted on the 10th of February 1911. The relief claimed is substantially the same as that claimed in the previous suit, the difference being tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »