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.
Kishan Lal Vs. Sultan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.525
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, 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, proporting 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 entitled under the circumstances to dismiss the...
Daya Kishen Vs. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All444; 30Ind.Cas.565
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a zemindar for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from cutting down trees of a grove or otherwise interfering with his (zemindar's) possession over it. It was alleged in the plaint that Moulvi Wazir Ahmad, the plaintiff, was the zemindar of the village of Shitabnagar, and that Bhopal and others were his tenants in respect of plots, among others, numbered 74, 81 and 89. There was a mango grove on the said plots, which was in the possession of Bhopal and others merely as his tenants whose sole right in the grove was that of taking fruit. They had no right of transfer in respect of the trees of the grove nor could the said trees be sold in execution of a decree against them. One Daya Kishen in execution of his decree against them had some of the trees of the said grove put up to auction and purchased them himself on the 28th of June 1911. The said sale was void at law and put an end to the rights of the tenants in the grove and ...
Parsotam Das and anr. Vs. E.V. David
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.779
1. These two appeals Nos. 70 and 71 of 1915 arise out of the same insolvency proceedings. The facts are simple. One George Edwards has been adjudicated an insolvent on the 5th of January 1915 by the District Judge of Cawnpore on an application made by him himself on the 16th of November 1914. Parsotam Das, one of the appellants before us, claims to be a person whose circumstances fall within the terms of Section 31 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and demands a right to certain money realised in execution of his decree against the insolvent by sale before the date of the order of adjudication. Beharilal, the other appellant, is a person who claims to be a secured creditor within the meaning of Section 31 of the Act in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,100. It appears that some two or three decrees had been obtained in the Court of the Munsif of Cawnpore against the insolvent early in the year 1914. Among these was that of Parsotam Das, the appellant, who obtained his decree on the 14th of J...
Kashi Ram Vs. Kesar Kunwar,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All634
Henry Richards, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to redeem certain property which was made the subject of a usufructuary mortgage, dated the 13th of February, 1880. The principal sum secured was Rs. 900, and the mortgage deed expressly provided that the usufruct was to go against the. interest and that the mortgagor should not be entitled to an account from the mortgagee of the profits. The defence to the suit was that there had been a subsequent mortgage, dated the 7th of July, 1882, and that under the terms of this mortgage plaintiff could not succeed in the present suit without first paying off the amount due for principal and interest under the last mentioned mortgage. The first court gave effect to the defence and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal.2. The second mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 95, repayable with interest at the rate of thirty per cent, per annum. The deed, after reciting the facts that the property had bee...
Raj Mangal Misir and ors. Vs. Mathura DubaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All1
Henry Richards, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 3rd of February, 1888. The original amount secured was Rs. 251. The amount claimed for principal and interest is Rs. 1,384. There is no allegation of any payment upon foot of principal or interest from the time of the execution of the deed, and the suit was not instituted until the 10th of August, 1909, that is to say, in or about twenty-one years after the alleged execution of the mortgage. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of the alleged original mortgagor, one Bandhu Dube. Defendant No. 2 is alleged to be a subsequent transferee at an auction sale held on foot of another mortgage alleged to be puisne to the mortgage in suit. An ex parte decree was obtained on the 30th of November, 1909. This ex parte decree was set aside on the 21st of January, 1913, on the application of Musammat Mathura, the defendant No. 1, who satisfied the court that she had not been served with the process. When...
Abdul Qayum Vs. Fida Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All463; 30Ind.Cas.551
Chamier, J.1. The appellant sued in a Revenue Court for the ejectment of the respondent from plots Nos. 659 and 661. The Assistant Collector decreed the claim as regards No. 661 but dismissed it as regards No. 659 on the ground that the respondent had acquired a right of occupancy therein. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner who, after holding that the land had been originally let at a light runt for pasturage, and had only recently been cultivated by the respondent, ruled that the suit did not lie in a Revenue Court for the ejectment of a tenant from such land, and that the appellant's proper course was to give the respondent notice to quit, and, if he did not comply with it, to sue him in the Civil Court. The appellant then brought in the Court of a Munsif the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The Munsif dismissed it on a ground which; I am unable to understand. His decision was confirmed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, who appears to have been of opin...
Rajmangal Misir and ors. Vs. Mathura DubaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All383; 30Ind.Cas.576
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 3rd of February 1888. The original amount secured was Rs. 251. The amount claimed for principal and interest is Rs. 1,384. There is no allegation of any payment upon foot of principal or interest from the time of the execution of the deed, and the suit was not instituted until the 10th of August 1909, that is to say, in or about twenty-one years after the alleged execution of the mortgage. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of the alleged original mortgagor, one Bandhu Dube. Defendant No. 2 is alleged to be a subsequent transferee at an auction-sale held on foot of another mortgage alleged to be puisne to the mortgage in suit. An ex parte decree was obtained on the 30th of November 1909. This ex parte decree was set aside on the 21st of January 1913 on the applications of Mttsammat Mathura, the plaintiff No. I, who satisfied the Court that she had not been served with the process. When the Court was granting the decree ex p...
Kesar Kunwar Vs. Kashi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All480; 30Ind.Cas.777
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to redeem certain property which was made the subject of a usufructuary mortgage, dated the 13th of February 1880. The principal sum secured was Rs. 900, and the mortgage-deed expressly provided that the usufruct was to go against the interest and that the mortgagor should not be entitled to an account from the mortgagee of the profits. The defence to the suit was that there had been a subsequent mortgage dated the 7th of July 1882, and that under the terms of this mortgage plaintiff could not succeed in the present suit without first paying off the amount due for principal and interest under the last-mentioned mortgage. The first Court gave effect to the defence and dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal.2. The second mortgage was for n sum of Rs. 95, re-payable with interest at the rate of thirty per cent, per annum. The deed after reciting the facts that the property had been previously mortgaged contains the foll...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›