Allahabad Court November 1916 Judgments
Jhunku Lal Vs. Piaru Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All204
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The defendant third party mortgaged a cotton ginning factory to the plaintiff on the 14th of May, 1908. The plaintiff obtained the usual mortgage decree on the 10th of November, 1910. The property was about to be sold when an application was made by the judgement-debtor pointing out that if the factory was sold he would be ruined and asking that instead of selling the factory, the court would be pleased to appoint either the plaintiff himself or some other person to be receiver over the factory. The decree-holder, apparently with some reluctance, agreed to a receiver being appointed, and the court appointed Babu Ishwar Das, a pleader, to be the receiver. Under the order the receiver's duty was to enter into possession of the factory, work the same and hold the profits for one year for the benefit of the decree-holder. It obviously was the intention of the Judge that if this plan ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Islam Fatima and ors. Vs. Zainuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All148; 39Ind.Cas.951
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand, by the plaintiffs in a suit for partition, A preliminary decree had been drawn up which defined the rights of the parties in this way, that each party was entitled to a moiety share in the house in question and that the said house should be divided, as nearly as might be, into two equal parts, which would then be assigned by a final decree to their respective owners. When the question of preparing a final decree was entered into the Court of first instance issued first' one commission and then another, and eventually passed a final decree on the basis of the commission first issued. The lower Appellate Court has held that the commission first issued had in effect been withdrawn and superseded, so that it could no longer, appropriately be made the basis of a final decree. It is objected that under the 'circumstances the lower Appellate Court was not entitled to remand the case under Order XLI, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it...
Tag this Judgment!Jhunkoo Lal Vs. Peary Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All266; 38Ind.Cas.613
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The defendant third party mortgaged a Cotton Ginning Factory to the plaintiff on the 14th of May 1908. The plaintiff obtained the usual mortgage-decree on the 10th of November 1910. The property was about to be sold when an application was made by the judgment-debtor, pointing out that if the factory was sold he would be ruined and asking that instead of selling the factory, the Court would be pleased to appoint either the plaintiff himself or some other person to be Receiver over the factory. The decree-holder, apparently with some reluctance, agreed to a Receiver being appointed and the Court appointed Babu Ishwar Das, a Pleader, to be the Receiver. Under the order, the Receiver's duty was to enter into possession of the factory, work the same and hold the profits for one year for the benefit of the decree-holder. It obviously was the intention of the Judge that if this plan proved a success, the appointment...
Tag this Judgment!Rubab Bano Vs. Najabat Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All240; 38Ind.Cas.601
Piggott, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order of remand and arises out of the following facts. One Raja Baqar Ali Khan held a decree against the respondents now before us, which was a preliminary decree for sale on a mortgage. He died before a. decree, absolute was obtained. It is admitted that his heirs under the Muhammadan Law were his two sons and two daughters. The judgment-debtors went to one of these, daughters, Musammat Rubab Bano, the, original appellant before this Court, and/ they came to an arrangement with her. They, paid her a sum of Rs. 2,541-9-9 (which was, one-half of the amount due under the-decree) and they obtained from her what purported to be a complete discharge of their liability, under the same. Effect was given, to this arrangement by means of an, application to the Court under Section 258 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, by which Musamma, Rubab Bano, coming forward as representing the deceased decree-holder, asked the Court to certify the complete ...
Tag this Judgment!Jageshar Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All119(2); 40Ind.Cas.311
Tudball, J.The five applicants have been convicted of the offence of rioting- by a Magistrate who sentenced them to terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge maintained the convictions but set aside the sentences of imprisonment and replaced them by sentences of fines only. The applicants urge before this Court that on the findings of fact at which both the Courts below have arrived, they were not guilty of the offence of rioting, but they acted, as they all along pleaded that they did act, in the exercise of the right of private defence and they had no time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. The facts are simple. Jageshar Rai lawfully and legally obtained possession of certain land and he sowed on it certain crops, rabi of 1915-16. One Bal Kishen in bad faith and dishonestly with ft party of men went upon the land and commenced to cut the crops for the purpose of removing them or at least damaging them. Information of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Harpal Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All821(2); (1917)ILR39All200
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that a usufructuary mortgage had been made in favour of his predecessor in title in the year 1898, and that under this mortgage his predecessor in title entered into possession and remained in possession until he was wrongfully ousted by the defendant several years before the institution of the suit. He claimed possession of the properly and the sum of Rs. 360 damages for throe years prior to the institution of the suit. It seems to us that, if the plaintiff was able to establish the facts he alleged, his suit was a suit for possession together with a claim for mesne profits. Beyond all question this was the suit he ought to have brought and the relief ought to have been granted on the basis of the suit being one for possession and mesne profits. The facts as ascertained are that a usufructuary mortgage was made to the predecessor in title of the plaintiff in the year 1898, and that the mortgagee ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. Harpal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All294; 39Ind.Cas.663
1. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that a usufructuary mortgage had been made in favour of his predecessor-in-title in the year 1898, that under this mortgage his prodecessor-in-title entered into possession and remained in possession until he was wrongfully ousted by the defendant several years before the institution of the suit. He claimed possession of the property and the sum of Rs. 360 damages for three years prior to the institution of the suit. It seems to us that if the plaintiff was able to establish the facts he alleged, his suit was a suit for possession together with a claim. for mesne profits. Beyond all question this was the suit he ought to have brought and the relief ought to have been granted on the basis of the suit being one for possession and mesne profits. The facts as ascertained are that a usufructuary mortgage was made to the predecessor-in title of the plaintiff in the year 1898 and that mortgagee entered into possession, as he was entitled to do, and remai...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Indri Vs. Balkishen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All355(1); 39Ind.Cas.942
1. This is an application in revision against an order by the Subordinate Judge of Muttra rejecting an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. A preliminary objection was taken to the effect that an order of this nature is one which cannot be held to have decided the case, and, therefore, should not be treated as open to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It would seem that the authorities of this Court are conflicting on the point. We have, however, heard the application on the merits. We are of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge acted well within his jurisdiction in taking into consideration the matters set forth in his order refusing to grant the present application. We are not prepared to say that the order is open to interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This application, therefore, fails and we dismiss it with costs.2. We might add, what is fairly obvious, that this order does not deprive the applicant of any right she still has to ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagelu Salu and anr. Vs. Ram Autar Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All193
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree conditional upon his paying into court a certain sum of money within 'thirty days of the decree becoming final.' Thirty days is the time allowed for filing appeals. But this time is extended by Section 12 of the Limitation Act, which provides that the time necessary for obtaining a copy of the judgement shall be excluded in computing the thirty days. The plaintiff did not deposit the money within thirty days, but he did deposit the money before the time had expired within which the defendant might appeal. The question, therefore, which arises for decision is this: Was this money paid in within 30 days of the decree becoming 'final'? A learned Judge of this Court has decided in the affirmative. We think that his view is correct. There is no doubt a considerable conflict of authority and we are entitled therefore to deal with the case from the point of view we think to be correct. The whole...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Jai NaraIn Vs. Lala Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All153; 41Ind.Cas.89
1. This is a first appeal on the execution side against an order passed under the following circumstances. The appellant Lala Jai Narain was the truetee qt manager of a certain endowment and a suit was brought against him under the provision of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, This suit ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. One of the directions given by the decree was that Lala Jai Narain defendant should furnish accounts, within a stated period, showing his dealings with the trust property and hand over that property, together with any sum in his hands due to the endowment, to the committee of management appointed under the decree. The order for furnishing accounts was not complied with and has not yet been complied with. The plaintiffs decree-holders came to the Court below with an application purporting to be under the provisions of Order XXXVIII, Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They stated that they had information that Lala Jai Narain was preparin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »