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.
Rajwant Prasad Pande and ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Gir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All485
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the 23rd of February, 1911, of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces (Allahabad), which reversed a decree dated the 17th of August, 1909, of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur. The court of first instance allowed the plaintiffs' claim, On appeal the claim was dismissed.2. The object of the present suit is, by its terms, declared to be three-fold. But upon examination the substantial and only object is for a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiffs are no party to a certain order which was passed ex facie against them on the 22nd of September, 1902. Further declarations are asked that the decree is ineffectual, and null and void against them, and so forth. In substance, as has been said, the object of the present suit is for a declaration that a decree pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction on the 22nd of September, 1902, and beari...
Sundar Lal Vs. Malthu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All321; 29Ind.Cas.710
Piggott, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff, who is the appellant here, sought a decree for the resumption of certain rent-free land, consisting of five specified plots with a total area of 5 bighas 4 liiswas, in the possession of the defendant-respondent. The suit was filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the first Class. He came to the conclusion that the grant in question was assnmable at the pleasure of the grantor, and he gave the plaintiff a decree accordingly. The defendant appealed to the District Judge. It would not appear from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court that any objection was taken in that Court with regard to the proper form of appeal. The learned District Judge found on the evidence, and principally on the interpretation of a particular clause in the wajib-ul-arz of 1872, that the grant in question was not resumable at the pleasure of the grantor. It does not seem that it was ever suggested, or was ever part of the plaintiff's case, that the grant was ...
Jia Bibi Vs. Ilahi Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All392; (1915)ILR37All597
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.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 thirty days before she presented her application. The evidence shows that the plaintiffs in the suit made repeated efforts to serve her personally 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 before 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 inc...
Kalyan Das and ors. Vs. Ashraf Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All585
Henry Richards, C.J., Tudball and Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of two mortgages, the first, dated the 7th of August, 1907, for Rs. 6,500, and the second, dated the 11th of February, 1909, for Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff claims Rs. 10,794, on foot of the two mortgages.2. The estate of the mortgagors vas taken over by the Court of Wards and a notification was duly issued, with effect from the 29th of July, 1911, under Section 16 of the Court of Wards Act, III of 1899. The mortgagees did not, in compliance with the provisions of Section 16, notify their claim under the two mortgages against the estate.3. It appears that there was some notification of one of the mortgages in October, 1912. This, however, may, for the purposes of our judgment, be disregarded. The estate is not now and was not at the time of the institution of this suit under the management of the Court of Wards. The management was given up in November, 1912. The court below has given the plaintiffs a d...
Ashraf Ali Vs. Kalyan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All326; 30Ind.Cas.945
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of two mortgages, the 4rst, dated the 7th of August 1907, for Rs. 6,500 and the second, dated the 11th of February 1909, for Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff claims Rs. 10,794 on foot of the two mortgages. The estate of the mortgagors was taken over by the Court of Wards and a notification was duly issued, with effect from the 29th of July 1911, under Section 16 of the Court of Wards Act, III of 1899. The mortgagees did not, in compliance with the provisions of Section 16, notify their claim under the two mortgages against the estate. It appears that there was some notification of one of the mortgages in October 1912. This, however, may, for the purposes of our judgment, be disregarded. The estate is not now and was not at the time of the institution of this suit under the management of the Court of Wards. The management was given up in November 1912. The Court below has given the plaintiffs a decree for the full amount of the claim.2. In appeal it i...
Shib Sahai and ors. Vs. Saraswati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All409; (1915)ILR37All583
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of the property of one Khairati Rai. The plaintiff claims as transferee from Bulaki, who is alleged to be the bandhu of Khairati Rai, and thus to have inherited his property. According to the pedigree put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint, the relationship between Bulaki and Khairati Rai is this that Bulaki is the son of the daughter of a grandson of the paternal uncle of Khairati's father. The question, therefore, is whether the grandfather's great-grandson's daughter's son is a bandhu under the Mitakshara law. The court of first instance was of opinion that the plaintiff's vendor Bulaki was Khairati's bandhu 'ex parte maternd.' The learned Subordinate Judge clearly misunderstood what was meant by a 'bandhu ex parte materna.' According to the Mitakshara, bandhus are of three descriptions, namely, the owner's own bandhus, his father's bandhus, that is, 'bandhus ex parte paternd' a...
Daud Ali and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All542
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title obtained a decree for mesne profits against Hayat Ali Shah and others on the 28th of August, 1905, On the 11th of June, 1906, he applied for execution of the decree and on the 23rd of July, 1906, certain property of the judgment-debtors was attached. The execution case was struck off on the 18th of April, 1907, by reason of the decree-holder's default in paying certain requisite fees. Meanwhile an appeal from the decree was pending in the High Court. After the disposal of the appeal the decree-holders applied for the revival of the execution proceedings on the 16th of July, 1909, and they prayed for the sale of the property which had already been attached. On the 18th of August, 1908, Hayat Ali Shah made a gift of the attached property in favour of his mother who, on the 16th of February, 1909, sold the said property to the principal respondents. Upon the objection of those respondents the court ...
Agha Syed Daud Ali Shah and ors. Vs. Pandit Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All371; 30Ind.Cas.787
1. The plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title obtained a decree for mesne profits against Hayat Ali Shah and others on the 28th of August 1905. On the 11th of June 1906, he applied for execution of the decree and on the 23rd of July 1906, certain property of the judgment-debtors was attached. The execution case was struck off on the 18th of April 1907 by reason of the decree-holder's default in paying certain requisite fees. Meanwhile an appeal from the decree was pending in the High Court. After the disposal of the appeal the decree-holders applied for the revival of the execution proceedings on the 16th of July 1909 and they prayed for the sale of the property which had already been attached. On the 18th of August 1908, Hayat Ali Shah made a gift of the attracted property in favour of his mother who, on the 16th of February 1909, sold the said property to the principal respondents. Upon the objection of those respondents the Court released the attachment and thereupon the suit, out of whic...
Shohrat Singh Vs. Jhagru and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.782
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiff in the Court of first instance is, admittedly, the zemindar of Mauza Kataila. According to him the defendants were non-occupancy tenants who have been recently ejected from their cultivatory holdings in Mauza Kataila. Pie says that the defendants in the time of his predecessor and with the permission of his predecessor built a dwelling house and a cattle-shed for the purpose of agriculture. As the defendants have been ejected from all the cultivatory holdings, he contends that they have no longer any right of residence on the land in dispute. He asked them on several occasions to quit but they have failed to do so. His prayer to the Court was that he might be given a decree for possession of 5 biswas of pukhta land as set out in the plaint and the defendants be directed to remove their materials from the land.2. The defendants in their written reply took up the position that the house built by them was built for all purposes for which a house could be us...
Sheikh Mahmud Ali and ors. Vs. Mirza Yawar Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All263; 29Ind.Cas.628
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell a house. The house belonged to Sheikh Muhammad Ali and Sheikh Muksud Ali, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 on behalf of himself and as agent of defendant No. 2 agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff, that then in breach of the agreement the house was sold to defendant No. 3, the sale being taken fictitiously in the name of his wife, defendant No. 4.2. The Court below has found that the contract was entered into but that defendant No. 1 had no authority to sell his brother's share of the house. The Court accordingly made a decree for specific performance in respect of the half of the house which belonged to defendant No. 1, at half the price agreed upon.3. In second appeal it is contended on behalf of the defendants that the Court ought not to have decreed specific performance of half the house. Section. 15 of the Specific Relief Act is relied upon, and it is contende...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »