Allahabad Court July 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.
Pratap Singh and anr. Vs. Dhum Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.581
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Court. They come to Court as zemindars of a village in Dehra Dun. They say that the defendant, Dhum Singh, is a tenant of a certain plot of land in that village that the defendant, Dhum Singh, and his son, lialbir Singh, members of a joint Hindu family, have cut down a number of kokat trees which stood on the land belonging to the appellants. They prayed for a decree for Rs. 50 on account of the price of trees cut down, Rs. 25 as actual and deterrent damages and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any was in future with the jungle. The respondents plead that there is a custom whereby the tenants are authorized in this village to use the jungle of the zemindars. They say that they have all along cut wood from the said jungle for their own use and stored it. This cutting is confined to kokat trees which I understand to mean trees mainly used for firewood, Both the Courts have found the custom ...
Katwaroo Singh Vs. Dharam Deo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All318; 29Ind.Cas.926
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are very simple. The plaintiff in the year 1903 was a minor member of a joint Hindu family. There were three branches of this family in existence; that of the plaintiff, which was represented by the plaintiff's brother, Charitar Singh, and himself; that of Hanoman Singh and Sita Ham Singh, and the third branch of Chatursal Singh. In the year 1903 on the 16th of July, Hanuman Singh, Sita Ram Singh, Charitar Singh and Chatursal Singh, that is, all the then adult male members of the family, combined together to borrow the sum of Rs. 99-8-0 on a mortagage of some of the family property. In the deed it is set out that the money was taken for the purpose of purchasing bullocks. The family was a family which depended upon agriculture for its subsistence. The plaintiff's name does not appear in the bond. A suit was brought and a decree obtained on the 23rd of August 1912. The four executants of the bond, and all their sons and grandsons, in fact all the mem...
Banarsi Dass and Co. Vs. Lulla Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.950
Tudball, J.1. This is an application for revision arising out of a suit brought in the Court of Small Causes at Agra to recover the sum of Rs. 150 as damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff's case put briefly was, that the appellants had agreed to deliver to him certain goods at certain price in a certain month at Agra, that they had failed to fulfill their contract, that they had subsequently tendered the goods after considerable delay, and that these goods were not up to sample, and he, therefore, by reason of a breach of contract had suffered damage to the extent of Rs. 150. Many pleas were taken in defence. One raised the question of jurisdiction, namely, that the suit was not cognisable in the Court at Agra; another was that under the terms of the agreement made between the parties, the dispute had to be settled by arbitration and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court had been ousted; the third was that the plaintiff had suffered no damages. There were many other pleas w...
Bhuri Begam and anr. Vs. Ram Ratan Lal and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All7
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to set aside a decree which the defendants had obtained under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act on the allegation that the same was obtained by fraud, The material facts are practically undisputed. The defendants or their representatives brought a suit upon foot of a mortgage Hated the 25th of October, 1893, and obtained a decree. They had asked in that suit not only for a decree for sale of the mortgaged property but also for a personal decree. This latter part of their claim was disallowed, Some years afterwards the decree-holders applied to the court for a decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice of the application was duly served on all the judgement-debtors. They did not appear, and the court granted the decree, but limited it to the assets of the deceased mortgagor. This is the decree which it is sought in the present suit to set aside. Later on, in execution of ...
Ramratan Lal and ors. Vs. Bhuri Begum and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All397; 30Ind.Cas.792
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to set aside a decree, which the defenantshad obtained under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the allegation that the same was obtained by fraud. The material facts are practically undisputed. The defendants or their representatives brought a suit upon foot of a mortgage dated the 25th of October 1893 and obtained a decree. They had asked in that suit not only for a decree for sale of the mortgaged property but also for a personal decree. This latter part of their claim was disallowed. Some years afterwards the decree-holders applied to the Court for a decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice of the application was duly served on all the judgment-debtors.2. They did not appear and the Court granted the decree, but limited it to the assets of the deceased mortgagor. This is the decree which it is sought in the present suit to set aside. Later on in execution of thi...
Kishan Lal Vs. Sultan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All350; (1916)ILR38All5
Henry Richards, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover money alleged to be due on foot of four different mortgages. In the court of first instance the learned Munsif was strongly of opinion that the plaintiff had in his possession or power certain documents which would throw light on the matter in dispute. With the consent of the plaintiff a visit; was paid to the latter's house, and a number of books were found, but most of them likely to have a bearing on the case were not there.2. After examining the plaintiff, the court dismissed the suit, purporting to do so under the provisions of Order XI, Rule 21. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree of the court of first instance. On the real merits of the case we do not feel much sympathy with the plaintiff. There is strong ground for suspecting that he was keeping back books and documents which he ought to have produced. The question, however, which we have to decide is whether the court was enti...
Qasim Beg Vs. Muhammad Zia Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All212; (1915)ILR34All640
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought a declaration that a bond, dated the 5th of October, 1904, and executed by him mortgaging certain property being without valid consideration is ineffectual, and that the defendants had no right under it. The court of first instance decreed the claim. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff's own case is that the bond in question was executed in favour of the defendant, who was a relation of his, for the purpose of defeating actual or possible creditors. The present suit was not instituted until the 26th of July, 1913, that is to say, about nine years after the execution. The lower appellate court has dismissed the suit solely on the ground that it is barred by limitation.3. Article 91 provides that a 'suit to cancel or set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for shall be brought within three years from the time when the facts entitling the plaintiff ...
Mirza Qasim Beg Vs. Muhammad Zia Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.968
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought a declaration that a bond, dated the 5th of October 1904 and executed by him, mortgaging certain property being without valid consideration is ineffectual, and that the defendants had no right under it. The Court of first instance decreed the claim. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff's own case is that the bond in question was executed in favour of the defendant, who was a relation of his, for the purpose of defeating actual or possible creditors. The present suit wag not instituted until the 26th of July 1913, that is to say, about nine years after the execution. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit solely on the ground that it is barred by limitation.3. Article 91 provides that 'a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for shall be brought within three years from the time when the facts entitling the plaintiff, t...
Prem Nath Tiwari and anr. Vs. Chatarpal Man Tiwari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All638
Henry Richards, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is an execution appeal. It appears that a decree was obtained by minors on the 22nd of May, 1901. There were several applications for execution leading up to one on the 6th of February, 1912, which was dismissed on the 3rd of December, 1912. The present application for execution was made on the 27th of May, 1913. It thus appears that the last application for execution was more than 12 years from the date of the decree. The judgement-debtors resisted execution relying - on Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section provides that 'where an application to execute a decree, not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution, of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of 12 years' from the various dates specified in the section. It is admitted that had the decree-holders been parsons of full age the present application would be clearly barred. It is, howe...
Ram Nath Tewari Vs. Chatterpalman Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All349(2); 30Ind.Cas.521
1. This is an execution appeal. It appears that a decree was obtained by minors on the 22nd of May 1901. There were several applications for execution leading up to one on the 6th of February 1912, which was dismissed on the 3rd of December 1912. The present application for execution was made on May the 27th, 1913. It thus appears that the last application for execution was more than twelve years from the date of the decree. The judgment-debtors resisted execution relying on Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section provides that 'where an application to execute a decree, not being a decree granting an injunction, has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of twelve years' from the various dates specified in the section. It is admitted that had the decree-holders been persons of full age, the present application won d be clearly barred. It is, however, contended that being minors the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »