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.
ikram Ullah Khan Vs. Muhammad Yunis Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All440; 30Ind.Cas.33
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent, in which he asked the Court for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his building a certain wall. The parties are owners of adjoining houses. The plaintiff wished to build an upper storey on the room which is marked (A) in the plan attached to the plaint. The defendant objected. Hence the suit. The plaintiff was desirous of building on the two walls running west and east and north and south which divide the two houses. There were other reliefs and other matters in the suit with which, however, we are not concerned on appeal. The question before me is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to raise the party walls in dispute without interference on the part of the defendant. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed. His case was that the party walls belonged entirely to himself and that he had a right to build upon them. The lower Appellat...
Allahabad Trading and Banking Corporation, Ltd. Vs. Ghulam Muhammad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.263
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 October the 18th 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. The first ground requires careful examination. The agreement iibove mentioned was entered into between Ghulam Muhammad and his wife, Musammat Shahzadi, on the one hand and the appellant Bank on the other. It begins by appointing...
Robert William Anderson Vs. the Bank of Upper India, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All257; 29Ind.Cas.984
1. This appeal arises but 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 and 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 realisation 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 and Co. with the 'good-will', etc., as a going concern.3. We are informed that i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›