Allahabad Court May 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.
Musammat Phul Koer Vs. Hashmat Ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.553
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to entertain an application under Order IX, Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are as follows. The suit was a suit to recover a large sum alleged to be due on foot of two mortgages. One of the pleas raised by the defendant was that the plaintiff had not obtained a Succession Certificate to collect the debts. There seems to have been unavoidable delay in obtaining the certificate for which the plaintiff was not responsible, and the Court after hearing witnesses had allowed the plaintiff time to obtain a certificate on a number of occasions. Finally the 17th of July 1914 was fixed. On that day neither the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's Pleaders appeared. The Court proceeded to decide the case on the merits. It found that the bond was duly executed, that the amount was due but that the Succession Certificate not having been obtained, the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed, The Court made a decree dismissing the suit with cost...
Phul Kuar Vs. Hashmatullah Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All460
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to entertain an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are as follows : The suit was a suit to recover a large sum of money alleged to be due on foot of two mortgages. One of the pleas raised by the defendant was that the plaintiff had not obtained a succession certificate to collect the debts. There seems to have been some unavoidable delay in obtaining the certificate for which the plaintiff was not responsible and the court after hearing witnesses had allowed the plaintiff time to obtain a certificate on a number of occasions. Finally the 17th of July, 1914, was fixed. On that day neither the plaintiff nor the plaintiff's pleader appeared. The court proceeded to decide the case on the merits. It found that the bond was duly executed that the amount was due, but that the succession certificate, not having been obtained, the plaintiff was not entitled...
F.S. Old Vs. J.A. Shail
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All251; 29Ind.Cas.437
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claims possession of a house at Mussoorie, called 'Oak Bush.' The Courts below have given the plaintiff a decree. The defendant appeals. In the plaint the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was his tenant during the season of 1913 either from month to month or for the season, and that on the 14th of October 1913 he gave him notice to vacate the house on the 31st of October 1913 as the tenancy would expire on that date. The suit was instituted on the 19th of November 1913. It is said that the defendant had a lease from the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title covering this very period, that this document could not be given in evidence because it was unregistered; the defendant is said to have another lease which will entitle him to possession of the house from the 1st of January 1915. It seems to us that the defendant must be deemed to have been at least a tenant for the season. Having regard to the way in which the rent is paid, ...
Gati Vs. Rachla Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All310(2); 29Ind.Cas.1003
1. The decision of the Court below, against which the present appeal has been preferred, was passed on the 29th of March 1913. On the 30th Jane 1913 the present appeal was filed. The appellant put upon his petition of appeal a Court-fee of Rs. 10. The office reported that there was a considerable deficiency in Court-fees, that the proper fee ought to have been Rs. 475 and that there was a corresponding deficiency in the Court below. The appellant asked for time to make good the deficiency. Time was given to him on several occasions, but he failed to make good the deficiency. Finally on the 17th of January 1914 lie fled a petition alleging that he was a pauper, that he was unable to make good the deficiency, that his regular appeal, which was presented within time as such, might be continued as a pauper appeal under Order XLIV of the Code of Civil Procedure and might be proceeded with according to law. His petition was granted by an er parte order of the 24th March 1914. Now it is clear...
Deoki Tewari Vs. Ram Autar Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All456
Tudball and Chamier, JJ.1. This application for revision arises out of a suit filed in the court of a Munsif. The parties agreed to refer the matters in difference between them to arbitration and an order of reference was made accordingly. The time for completing the award was extended from time to time up to December find, 1912. On the case being called on on that date it was found that the award had not been filed. The Munsif then made an order superseding the arbitration and fixed December 10th for the hearing of evidence. On December 5th the arbitrators filed an award purporting to have been made on December 2nd; but the Munsif held that the award had not been made in time, and he declined to recall his order superseding the arbitration. Ultimately he tried the case out and dismissed it. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, and one of his grounds of appeal was that the award had been made in time, and therefore the arbitration should not have been superseded. The Additiona...
Durga Prasad and ors. Vs. Yakub Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All518
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. The respondents on August 27th, 1908, obtained a decree absolute for sale of certain property. On December 1st, 1908, they applied for execution of the decree by sale of the property of the appellant judgment-debtor and also of the share of Musammat Qulsum Bibi and two ladies named Jafri Begum and Askari Begum. The share of Musammat Qulsum Bibi had been definitely excluded from the decree for sale by the decree of au appellate court. When the fact was brought to notice that the decree-holders wished to sell the share of Musammat Qulsum Bibi an order was passed exempting her share from sale. Later on the Collector, to whom the proceedings had been transferred, discovered that the decree-holders had applied for the sale of the shares of Musammat Jafri - Begum and Askari Begum also, and in January, 1911, he sent the record back to the Subordinate Judge for orders. On February 2nd, 1911, the Subordinate Judge called upon the pleader for the decree-holders to make...
Dambar Singh Vs. Munawar Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All420; (1915)ILR37All531
Chamier, J.1. One Sri Krishan Das obtained a decree for possession of property and for costs against several persons including the respondents. When execution was taken out in 1905 the respondents protested that they had never been anything but pro forma defendants and that the decree should not be interpreted as making them jointly liable for costs along with other defendants who had contested the suit. A petition of compromise was filed on April 20fch, 1906, in which the decree-holder admitted in express terms that he had no claim against the respondents under the decree, and this compromise was made the basis of an order of the court releasing the property of the respondents from attachment. Shortly after that the decree-holder sold the decree to the appellant who in 1907 took out execution against the respondents. They put in an objection and the court decided that the respondents were no longer liable under the decree. The appellant brought the case before this Court on appeal, an...
Yakub Ali Vs. Durga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All410; 30Ind.Cas.877
1. The respondents on August 27th, 1908, obtained a decree absolute for sale of certain property. On December 1st, 1908, they applied for execution of the decree by sale of the property of the appellant judgment-debtor and also of the share of Musammat Qulsum Bibi and two ladies named Jafri Begum and Askari Begum. The share of Musammat Qulsum Bibi had been definitely excluded from the decree for sale by the decree of an Appellate Court. When the fact was brought to notice that the decree-holders wished to sell the share of Musammat Qulsum Bibi, an order was passed exempting her share from sale. Later on the Collector to whom the proceedings had been transferred discovered that the decree-holders had applied for the sale of the shares of Musammat Jafri Begum and Askari Begum also, and in January 1911 he sent the record back to the Subordinate Judge for orders. On February 2nd, 1911, the Subordinate Judge called upon the Pleader for the decree-holders to make a statement regarding the sh...
Ram Autar Tewari Vs. Deoki Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All247; 29Ind.Cas.411
1. This application for revision arises out of a suit filed in the Court of a Munsif. The parties agreed to refer the matters in difference between them to arbitration and an order of reference was made accordingly. The time for completing the award was extended from time to time up to December 2nd, 1912. On the case being called on on that date, it was found that the award had not been filed. The Munsif then made an order superseding the arbitration and fixed December 10th for the hearing of evidence. On December 5th the arbitrators filed an award purporting to have been made on December 2nd, but the Munsif held that the award had not been made in time and he declined to re-call his order superseding the arbitration. Ultimately he tried the case out and dismissed it, The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, and one of his grounds of appeal was that the award had been made in time, and, therefore, the arbitration should not have been superseded. The Additional Judge held that the ...
Utma Kuar Vs. Bhagwanta Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All199; (1915)ILR37All515
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a guardian lawfully appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act No. VIII of 1890. The facts are peculiar. Musammat Utma Kuar applied to the District Judge of Azamgarh to be appointed guardian of the person and property of her minor daughter, Chandra Kuar. She stated in her application that the minor had been removed from her care and custody by her married daughter, Musammat Bhagwanta Kuar, sister of the said minor; but she did not ask the court to take action under Section 12 of Act VIII of 1890, Notice was issued to Musammat Bhagwanta Kuar, and certain matters having been enquired into by the court, an order was passed on the 26th of August, 1914, appointing Musammat Utma Kuar guardian of the person of her minor daughter and a formal certificate of guardianship was issued to her, dated the 31st of August, 1914. On thel5th of September, 1914,MusammatUtmaKuar presented an application to the court, alleging that she was still unable to obt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »