Allahabad Court June 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.
Jahangir and anr. Vs. Sheoraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All334; 30Ind.Cas.505
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that a certain deed of gift made by one Musammat Sanjia in favour of the defendant should be held to be null and void after her death. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower Appellate Court gave him a decree.2. Having regard to the fact that this is a second appeal, the learned Vakil on behalf of the defendant-appellant was bound to admit that the only question that could be argued, was the admissibility in evidence of a pedigree relied upon by the plaintiff, on the strength of which the lower Appellate Court decreed the plaintiff's claim. Objection to the admissibility of evidence taken at a late stage in litigation is not to be encouraged. The proper time to object to the admissibility of evidence is at the trial when the evidence is tendered and it is then that the Court should rule as to the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence. When the objection is taken at th...
Kulsum-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Dauru Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.552
Piggott, J.1. In this case the defendant appellant is the sole proprietor of Mauza Danpur in the Bulandshahr District. The plaintiffs-respondents are residents of that village. Their suit was for recovery of possession in respect of a particular plot of land, one bigha 15 biswas in area, situated in this village, from which they alleged themselves to have been wrongfully ejected by the defendant. The precise date of the alleged dispossession is not given in the plaint, but the plaintiffs dated their cause of action from an adverse decision of the Revenue Court on the question of mutation. The disssession clearly took place somewhere towards the close of the year 1909. The case as stated in the plaint may be summarised thus. The plot of land in question was originally owned by one Param Sukh, from whom it descended to his grandsons, Baldeo Das and Tula Ram. Tula Ram predeceased Baldeo Das and the latter died somewhere about the year 1885. The plaintiffs are distant cousins of Baldeo Das...
Jia Bibi Vs. Ilahi Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.573
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh, rejecting an application for setting aside a decree passed ex parte against the appellant in 1904. Her case was and is that she did not come to know of the decree in question until a proclamation of sale was brought to the village in December 1912, that is less than 30 days before she presented her application. The evidence shows that the plaintiffs in the suit made repeated efforts to serve her person as with notice of the suit and of subsequent proceedings Substituted service was effected and declared to be sufficient by the Court She has herself sworn that she did not come to know of the decree against her until a few days The fore she made her application. Evidence has been produced on behalf of the respondents, which has been accepted by the Court below, that she was aware of the suit at the time when it was pending and was anxious to enter into a compromise. It is almost inconceivable that she should have...
Shiva Chandar Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Chandar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All595
Henry Richards, C.J. and Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by co-sharers against the lambardar. The court of first instance held that the defendant had been guilty of negligence and decreed the plaintiffs claim on the basis of the gross rental. The lower appellate court varied the decree of the court below. In the course of his judgement the learned District Judge says : 'The next point urged is that the profits should be calculated on actual collections and not on the recorded rentals as has been done by the lower court. This plea in my opinion must be allowed, for in a suit under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act, profits must be allowed on actual collections, unless it is proved that the rents have remained uncollected owing to the negligence or misconduct of the lambardar. In this case as far as I can see there is nothing to show that the rents were not collected through the negligence or misconduct of the defendant.' The court of first instance had stated : 'The pa...
Shiva Chander Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Chander Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All330(2); 30Ind.Cas.550
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by co-sharers against the lambardar. The Court of first instance held that the defendant had been guilty of negligence and decreed the plaintiff?' claim on the basis of the gross rental. The lower Appellate Court varied the decree of the Court below. In the course of his judgment the learned District Judge says: The next point urged is that the profits should be calculated on actual collections and not on the recorded rentals as has been done by the lower Court. This pler, in my opinion, must be allowed, for in a suit under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act, profits must be allowed on actual collections, unless it is proved that the rents have remained uncollected owing to the negligence or misconduct of the lambardar. In this case as far as I can see, there is nothing to show that the rents were not collected through the negligence or misconduct of the defendant.' The Court of first instance had stated: The pativari further states that the amou...
Radha Kishan Vs. Munna Lal and Parbhu Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All591
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a judgement-debtor against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Muttra, refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of a decree. The sale took place on the 7th of August, 1914. As September 6th was a Sunday, the judgement-debtor was entitled to make an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, and pay the, sum specified in that rule on September 7th. The evidence shows that the judgement-debtor was not able to raise the money required for the purpose until about 2 o'clock on the afternoon of September 7th. According to the evidence, on September 7th he made an application to the court with a tender in the prescribed form No. 4(sic) filled in, and obtained thereon an order of the court that the money should be deposited in the Treasury. He took the money to the treasury shortly before 3 p.m., the hour at which the Treasury is closed so far as the public are concerned. The Treasury Officer looked at his watch and said that it was too late to...
Munna Lal Vs. Radha Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All414; 30Ind.Cas.186
1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Muttra, refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of a decree. The sale took place on August 7th, 1914. As September 6th was a Sunday the judgment-debtor was entitled to make an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, and pay the sum specified in that rule on September 7th. The evidence shows that the judgment-debtor was not able to raise the money required for the purpose until about 2 o'clock on the afternoon of September 7th. According to the evidence on September 7th he made an application to the Court with tender in the prescribed form No. 13 duly filled in, and obtained thereon an order of the Court that the money should be deposited in the Treasury. He took the money to the Treasury shortly before 3 p.m., the hour at which the Treasury is closed so far as the public are concerned. The Treasury Officer looked at his watch and said that it was too late to count the money (Rs. 12,735-9) on tha...
Kalyan Singh and ors. Vs. Jagan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All344(2); (1915)ILR37All589; 30Ind.Cas.523
Henry Richards, C.J. and Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution. The original decree was for Rs. 20,200, with proportionate costs and future interest at 6 per cent, per annum. It is now admitted that under the terms of the decree the decree-holder was only entitled to interest on the principal sum and not upon the costs. From time to time the decree-holder applied for execution. In the account of what he alleged to be due to him he included interest not only on the decretal amount, but also on the costs. At last the situation was as follows : If the decree-holder was not to get interest on his costs the decree was more than satisfied. If on the other hand he was to get interest upon his costs there would still remain something due to him. The sole question which has to be decided in the appeal is whether or not the judgment-debtor having neglected to take exception to the inclusion in the account of interest on costs, he is now prevented from saying that the...
Debi Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All357; 30Ind.Cas.151
Chamier, J.1. The four applicant and five others were convicted by a Magistrate of the first Class at Etawah on what is probably one of the most remarkable charges over framed under Sections 147 and 325, Indian Penal Code. The charge runs that you on or about September 20th, 1914. at Uhasan (or elsewhere) fought against Kallu Singh or Hulas Singh (and perhaps others) with latins and inflicted grievous hurt on the head of Kallu Singh'. It appears that the Police had reported as the result of an inquiry held under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, that there had been no riot at all but that there had been an affray with four men on each side. On the evidence recorded by him the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the facts were that when the complainant, Kallu Singh, was passing the door of one Mahindar Singh the latter challenged him; Kallu Singh maintained that he had a right to pass that way and was set upon and beaten to the ground; that Kallu's brother, Hulas Singh, who follo...
Ali Jafar Vs. Phulmanta Koer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All338; 30Ind.Cas.546
Piggott, J.1. This appeal raises a question of jurisdiction depending mainly on the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff alleges that he is the proprietor of certain land and that the defendants were in possession of the same as cultivators, but never had any proprietary right therein. In the course of certain Settlement proceedings the plaintiff tried to get an enhanced rent determined as payable by the defendants, and the defendants defeated his claim before the Settlement Court by pleading that they were in possession as proprietors. The plaintiff alleges that, whatever the defendants may once have been, they are now in wrongful possession of this land as trespassers. On this allegation he sues in the Civil Court for their ejectment. At the same time he claims an alternative relief; he says that, if it be found that the defendants are holding as tenants of the land in suit, the Court may make a declaration to that effect.2. I think the suit is maintainable. It has been thrown out...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »