Allahabad Court October 1916 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.
Aziz-ud-dIn Vs. Hummi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All143
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows. The suit was one for possession of a house. The 10th of September, 1914, was fixed for the hearing. On that day the case was adjourned for the convenience of the Court. The 3rd of December was fixed for the adjourned hearing. On that day the plaintiff was not ready and asked for an adjournment. This application was granted and the 19th of January, 1915, was fixed. Upon that day the plaintiff appeared with his witnesses. Some witnesses for the defence had been summoned, bull neither the defendants nor their pleader attended. The court thereupon heard evidence on behalf of the plaintiff sufficient in his opinion to justify a decree being granted. Later on in the afternoon an application was made on behalf of the defendants for restoration of the case. On the 6th of February this application was refused, the Munsif being of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to restore the case. The defendants prefer...
Chirunji Lal and ors. Vs. Ajodhia Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All243(2); 37Ind.Cas.391
Walsh, J.1. This case is by no means easy to deal with and raises several questions of some importance. Not for the first time in this Court within my short experience questions are raised which show what, I think, has been recognised for sometime by the legal profession, that there is a real necessity for a rigorous amendment of the existing insolvency law in these Provinces. It is a question of some public importance which calls for the attention of the Government. Now there was one preliminary question, which it is desirable to dispose of which was mentioned by Dr. Sundar Lal on behalf of the appellant at the opening of the appeal, namely, where the debtor has petitioned on bis own behalf for an order of adjudication and his petition has been dismissed and he desires to appeal, whom he ought to make parties as respondents to his appeal. There is no provision in the Act dealing specifically with the matter. If there was a Receiver, then in the rare event of a debtor appealing from an...
Musammat Hummi and anr. Vs. Aziz-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All475; 36Ind.Cas.277
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows. The suit was one for possession of a house. The 15th of September 1914 was fixed for the hearing. On that day the case was adjourned for the convenience of the Court. The 3rd of December was fixed for the adjourned hearing. On that day the plaintiff was not ready and asked for an adjournment. This application was granted and the 19th of January 1915 was fixed. Upon that day the plaintiff appeared with his witnesses. Some witnesses for the defence had been summoned, but neither the defendants nor their Pleader attended. The Court thereupon heard evidence on behalf of the plaintiff sufficient in its opinion to justify a decree being granted. Later on in the afternoon an application was made on behalf of the defendants for restoration of the case. On the 6th of February this application was refused, the Munsif being of opinion that lie had no jurisdiction to restore the case. The defendants preferred ...
Jagdeo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All80; 38Ind.Cas.740
Walsh, J.1. This case .has been well argued and has given us considerable trouble. It is not necessary to review all the facts. It is impossible to accept in its entirety the statement which the accused himself made as to his treatment by the Police leading up to his confession. On the other hand we are satisfied that the accused was detained in custody, although not in the thana, for a considerable period, and that some inducement or pressure sufficient to produce the desired result (and probably nobody will ever know what it was) was used to obtain a statement from him. That statement in substance he repeated before the Joint Magistrate under circumstances which make it admissible in law, provided the provisions of Section 28 are satisfied. It appears to us, as it appeared to the Joint Magistrate, that at the time the accused made the statement, he had been induced to do so by a promise of pardon. Without expressing, any opinion on the point which Mr Malcomson urged, namely, that th6...
Hansraj Vs. Bijai Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All144; 40Ind.Cas.621
1. In this case it is not necessary for us to decide the question as to whether this suit was cognisable in the district of Agra or not. That is a point on which there appears to be a considerable difference of opinion, so recently as 1914 and 1915 in this Court, and one day no doubt it will be necessary to set the question finally at rest, but, in our opinion, this appeal must be allowed upon another ground. The suit is brought to set aside a decree which it is alleged that the defendant fraudulently obtained ex parte against the plaintiff in the Court of Howrah in Bengal and which he has endeavoured to enforce by execution against the plaintiff in the district where the plaintiff resides and has property. The suit has had a somewhat varied career. It was originally heard in May 1912 upon a preliminary point when the Munsif decided that he had jurisdiction to determine the suit. That fact is not unimportant because it is perfectly clear that the point was present to the mind of those ...
Jhamman Lal Vs. Manni Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All215(1); 39Ind.Cas.570
Walsh, J.1. As has always been said revision is a privilege and not a right. In my view it corresponds speaking generally to the remedies in England known as certiorari and mandamu Section The invariable rule in these cases is that a party aggrieved must come to the High Court for relief at the earliest possible moment and also must come with no ulterior purpose. In this case the order complained of was made on the 22nd of December 1915. It was an order directing a new trial. The trial was held on the 6th of March 1916. The applicant attended and took part in it and lost. On the 28th of March he applied to this Court for the first time complaining of the order of which he had sought to take advantage by attending the hearing on the 6th of March. In our view the application was made by him much too late and ought not to be entertained for one moment on that account alone. It further appears that it was made in the hope of having a second attempt to get rid of the order passed against hi...
Miss Isabella Jackson Vs. Sarjit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All66; 37Ind.Cas.771
Walsh, J.1. It is unfortunate that there is nobody here to argue this question on behalf of the respondent or to support the view of the learned Commissioner. We must, therefore, deal with the case without that assistance.2. These two cases (I will adopt the enumeration of the original suits, namely Nos. 543 and 544 in the Revenue Court of Meerut) have been referred to the High Court under Section 195, Sub-section (1), of the Tenancy Act of 1901 by the learned Commissioner. In form the matter comes before us as one of reference. In substance there are two distinct cases, and although the question which arises in each case is precisely the same, it is desirable to keep them distinct for the purpose of this judgment. I, therefore, propose to deal with suit No. 544 and the decision in this case will govern suit No. 543. Suit No. 544 was brought by Miss Isabella Jackson against one Sarjit, the plaintiff claiming to be the landlord and also lambardar of certain property specified in the sui...
Lala Balmukand Vs. Seth Birj Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All319; 36Ind.Cas.1004
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A number of persons had mortgages or alleged that they had mortgages on the property of one Kanbaiya Lal who is defendant No. 5 to the present suit. Kanbaiya Lal became an insolvent and Babu Sri Ram was appointed Receiver over his estate Some form of notice was served by the Receiver on the plaintiff and other mortgagees to show cause why the property should not be sold free from incumbrances or why they should not consent to the property being sold. It is unnecessary for us to consider or express any opinion as to the regularity of this notice The plaintiff raised an objection to the property being sold contending that his mortgage of the 23rd of August 1913 had priority over the other mortgages by reason of the fact that out of the money advanced by him an earlier mortgage of the 21st of June 1912 due to one Santi Prasad, had been paid off Apparently but for this question of alleged priority all parties were prepared that the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›