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.
Gaya DIn and ors. Vs. Jhumman Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All400
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The only question, in this appeal, is whether the plaintiffs claim, which is one to enforce payment of the amount due on a simple mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property, is barred by limitation. The mortgage bond is dated the 16th of July, 1890, and the time fixed for repayment is ten years. Except for another provision in the bond, to which I shall presently refer, the amount secured by it was repayable on the 16th July, 1900, and as the present suit was instituted on the 12th June, 1912, it would be within time under Article 132 Schedule I to the Limitation Act, which has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council to be applicable to a suit of this kind. The defendants, however, rely on the following provision of the bond and urge that the amount of the mortgage became due when default was made in the payment of the first instalment and as more than twelve years have elapsed since the date of default the claim is time-barred. The provision is t...
Lahaso Kuar Vs. Mahabir Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All412
Henry Richard, C.J., Pramada Charan Benerji and Tudball, JJ.This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought a declaration that the share of the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 38 and 39 amounts to 3/8ths in a plot No. 703, and that she might have a decree for joint possession of the plot and for removal of a thatch and for the restoration of a ditch said to have been filled in. Notwithstanding the pleadings it is quite clear that the contesting defendants' contention was not that the plot in question did not form part of the joint property of the co-sharers, but that they for a very long time had been in possession and had sunk a well and made certain constructions. In the lower appellate court the defendants raised no controversy as to the proprietary title of the parties to the plot in question. All that they contended was that having regard to the long time they had been in possession, the plaintiff was not entitled to put them out or to have the constructions demol...
Gaya DIn and ors. Vs. Jhuman Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All189; 28Ind.Cas.910
Henry Richard, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000, principal and interest alleged to be due on foot of a mortgage, dated the 16th of July 1690, by sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgage-deed provided that the mortgagors should pay the principal amount secured in ton years by instalments of Rs. 625 yearly and that the interest should be paid monthly. There was this, further Clause: 'If we fail to pay the interest aforesaid in any month or the principal by the stipulated period, as specified above, or no payment is made in a year, the mortgagee shall, under all these circumstances, be at liberty to realize the entire amount with the interest aforesaid in a lump sum through Court by means of a suit from the mortgaged and other moveable and immoveable property and the person of us, the executants.' Later on the deed has a provision which has been translated as follows: 'If the mortgagee in order to get interest does not bring a suit in d...
Musammat Lahaso Kunwar Vs. Mahabir Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All330; 29Ind.Cas.15
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought a declaration that the share of the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 38 and 39 amounts to fths in a plot No. 703, and that she might have a decree for joint possession of the plot and for removal of a thatch and for the restoration of a ditch said to have been filled in. Notwithstanding the pleadings it is quite clear that the (contesting) defendants' contention was not that the plot in question did not form part of the joint property of the co-sharers, but that they for a very long time bad been in possession and had sunk a well and made certain constructions. In the lower Appellate Court the defendants raised no controversy as to the proprietary title of the parties to the plot in question. All that they contended was that having regard to the long time they had been in possession, the plaintiff was not entitled to puli them out or to have the constructions demolished. It is perfectly clear that in the event of a part...
Mulla Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All178; 29Ind.Cas.67
George Knox, J.1. The facts found in this case are as follows. Suraj Kumar, a Brahmin and cultivator left his house on the 26th of December 1914. His intention was to catch a train and go into Cawnpore. He took the precaution of having his house carefully closed for the night. He returned, having missed his train, somewhere about 2 A.M. He found the door which had been securely closed wide open. He says that somewhere inside his house, he caught hold of Mulla, a gadaria, who was trying to escape and that on Mulla's person were certain jewels, the property of Suraj Kumar. This portion of the evidence has apparently been discredited by both Courts and for the purpose of this case this alleged fact may be omitted from consideration altogether. The accused, when he was caught by Suraj Kumar, said that he had gone inside the house in connection with an illegal intimacy with Suraj Kumar's aunt, who is said to be a widow.2. The facts then that have to be faced are a complete stranger is found...
Emperor Vs. Mulla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All395
George Knox, J.1. The facts found in this case are as follows : Suraj Kumar, a Brahman and cultivator, left his house on the 26th of December, 1914. His intention was to catch a train and go to Cawnpore. He took the precaution of having his house carefully closed for the night. He returned, having missed his train, somewhere about 2 a.m. He found the door which had been securely closed wide open. He says that somewhere inside his house he caught hold of Mullo, a gadariya, who was trying to escape and that on Mullo's person were certain jewels, the property Of Suraj Kumar. This portion of the evidence has apparently been discredited by both courts and for the purpose of this case this alleged fact may be omitted from consideration altogether. The accused when he was caught by Suraj Kumar said that he had gone inside the house in connection with an illegal intimacy with Suraj Kumar's aunt, who is said to be a widow. The facts then that have to be faced are that a complete stranger is fou...
Ghasi Ram and anr. Vs. Musammat Debi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All168; 29Ind.Cas.190
1. The genaological tree which is set out in the judgment of the Court below will explain the relationship between the parties. The plaintiffs are some of the members of the family of Chiranji Lal. They sue as against Musammat Debi, the widow of Narain and mother of Gopal Das and they also implead other members of the family who have not joined them in the suit. Their case is that the family was joint family and that the property situated in the three villages Bai-anda, Marhakar and Garhi Chandraman is the joint family property, that Musammat Debi as widow of Narain and mother of Gopal Das had no title whatsoever to any share therein, that she only had a right of maintenance, that her name was entered in the Government records for the purpose of consolation only, that by reason of that entry she had sued for and obtained a decree for profits of a portion of the estate and that she had applied for partition of another portion. The plaintiffs, therefore, came into Court asking for a decl...
Dwarka Prasad Vs. Raja Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All272; 29Ind.Cas.980
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to enforce payment of money due upon a mortgage-executed on the 24th of July 1892. The question to be considered is whether the claim of the plaintiffs, which was instituted on the 19th of July 1912, is or is not time-barred. The bond provides that the amount secured by it should be paid in eight years 'in this way that we shall pay interest on the whole amount aforesaid at the rate of twelve annas per cent, per mensem and also Rs. 500 out of the principal on Puranmashi of Magh Sudi of each year. The first instalment of interest and that of principal shall be payable on Puranmashi of Magh Sudi 1949 Sambat. Similarly the instalment of principal and interest shall be payable each year on Puranmashi of Magh Sudi. We the debtors shall pay without objection interest on the whole of the remaining amount and Rs. 500 out of the principal year by year.' There is a further clause in the bond that in ease of default in the payment of t...
Allahabad Trading and Banking Corporation Limited Vs. Ghulam Muhammad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All279; (1915)ILR37All383
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant, the Allahabad Trading and Banking Corporation, Limited, is entitled to be regarded as a secured creditor of the respondent Ghulam Muhammad, who has been declared an insolvent. The appellant bank rests its claim to be regarded as a secured creditor (1) upon an agreement, dated the 18th of October, 1910, (2) upon Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, and (3) upon Section 221 of the same Act. The learned District Judge has held that all three grounds are untenable. As regards the second and third grounds we may content ourselves with saying that we agree with the court below that neither Section 171 nor Section 221 of the Contract Act gives the appellant any lien on the property in question.2. The first ground requires careful examination The agreement above mentioned was entered into between Ghulam Muhammad and his wife Musammat Shahzadi on the one hand and the appellant bank on the other...
The Bank of Upper India Limited Vs. Robert William Anderson
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All390
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramad Charan Banarji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Bank of Upper India claiming that they might be put into possession of the chattels, goods, stock-in-trade, book-debts, securities and moneys and the business belonging to a firm of merchants carrying on business under the style of Burton & Co., at Bareilly, or in the alternative that the Bank should have a decree for the sum of Rs. 18,839-5-6 against the defendants jointly and severally and that in default of payment, the business should be sold for the realization of their debt.2. The court below has given the plaintiff, Bank, a decree directing the defendants to pay the sum of Rs. 18,839-5-6 together with interest and costs, and further that in the event of the amount in the hands of the receiver (who had already been appointed) not being sufficient to pay the plaintiff's decree, the receiver should call for tenders and sell the business of Messrs, Burton & Co., with the 'good-will' ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »