Allahabad Court November 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.
Bhagelu Sahai and anr. Vs. Ram Autar Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All325(1); 37Ind.Cas.144
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 judgment 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 upon the view that we think to be correct. The whole object of the provision in the decree giving the plaint...
Sukh Lal Vs. Bishambhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All115; 37Ind.Cas.661
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of an alleged mortgage. The mortgagor and the mortgagee were both Maha Brahmins. This is a sect which performs certain ceremonies and duties at funerals of Hindus. They generally carry out their duties at some place frequented for the purpose of cremations and other funeral ceremonies. It frequently happens that the Maha Brahmins between themselves arrive at some arrangement by which certain Maha Brahmins are allowed the exclusive right of taking offerings and remunerations on particular days. The mortgage in the present case took the form of a mortgage of the right to the dues and offerings on six days every two months. The defendants are the collateral heirs of the deceased mortgagors; but they themselves claim to have succeeded to the very rights (such as they were) which belonged to Niadar, the mortgagor. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim. The lower Appellate Court decreed the plaintiff's claim in part. The learned J...
Bharat Singh Vs. Jawali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All34; 37Ind.Cas.940
1. The facts connected with this appeal are shortly as follows: The plaintiffs claimed to be the purchasers of the equity of redemption under an alleged mortgage, dated about the year 1877. When they brought their suit they altogether failed to prove their mortgage. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on this ground. No application was made by the plaintiffs for permission to withdraw their suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. On the other hand they appealed alleging that there was sufficient evidence to prove the mortgage; secondly, that the Court ought to have allowed them time to produce evidence. Thirdly, that the Court had taken a wrong view as to the burden of proof. Fourthly, (the same as the second,) that they should have been allowed further time. The Court of first appeal after considering these grounds gave judgment stating that the plaintiffs had been guilty of great laches and that he saw no reason for allowing the appeal. The judgment goes on: However, in u...
Bishambhar Vs. Sukh Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All196
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of an alleged mortgage. The mortgagor and mortgagee were both Maha Brahmins. This is a sect which perform certain ceremonies and duties at funerals of Hindus. They generally carry out their duties at some place frequented for the purpose of cremations and other funeral ceremonies. It frequently happens that the Maha Brahmins between themselves arrive at some arrangement by which certain Maha Brahmins are allowed the exclusive right of taking offerings and remunerations on particular days. The mortgage in the present case took the form of a mortgage of the right to the dues and offerings on six days every two months. The defendants are the collateral heirs of the deceased mortgagors, but they themselves claim to have succeeded to the very rights (such as they are) which belonged to Niadar, the mortgagor. The court of first instance dismissed the claim. The lower appellate court decreed...
Sheo Mangal Singh Vs. Chhiddu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All186
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain properly which until recently at least formed an occupancy holding. The facts have been ascertained and may very shortly be stated. Prior to the passing of the present Tenancy Act one Faqira, father of Mithu, was an occupancy tenant. He purported to make a usufructuary mortgage of the occupancy holding in favour of Chhiddu or his predecessor in title. Some time afterwards the occupancy tenant purported to relinquish his occupancy holding in favour of the zamindar, the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly claims that the tenancy has come to an end and that he is entitled as zamindar to resume possession. It has been found that the mortgagee was 'responsible for the rent.' We take this to mean that as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, the mortgagor did not intend to pay the rent out of his own pocket. It cannot mean more than this, becaus...
Piari Lal Vs. Madan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All191
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. In this case an application was made in the Court executing the decree to set aside an auction sale on various grounds. The court refused to set aside the sale and dismissed the application. A first appeal from that order was preferred to this Court and heard by a Bench of two Judges, who took a somewhat different view of the evidence. The result was that the opinion of the Judge who concurred with the first court prevailed. The present matter purports to be an appeal under the Letters Patent against the order of this Court. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal based on the Full Bench decision in the case of Muhammad Naimullah Khan v. Ihsanullah Khan (1882) I.L.R. 14 All. 226. Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the cases in which an appeal shall lie against an 'order.' Clause (ii) provides that 'No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.' The contention...
Piare Lal Vs. Madan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All325(2); 39Ind.Cas.460
1. In this case an application was made in the Court executing the decree to set aside an auction-sale on various grounds. The Court refused to set aside the sale and dismissed the application, A first appeal from that order was preferred to this Court and heard by a Bench of two Judges, who took a somewhat different view of the evidence. The result was that the opinion of the Judge which concurred with the first Court prevailed. The present matter purports to be an appeal under the Letters Pantent against the order of this Court. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal based on the Full Bench decision in the case of Muhammad Naim-ul-lah Khan v. Ihsan-ul-lah Khan 14 A. 226 ; A.W.N. (1892) 14 ; 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 515. Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the cases in which an appeal shall lie against 'orders'. Clause (ii) provides that 'No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section.' The contention of the respondent...
Chhiiddu and anr. Vs. Raja Sheo Mangal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All216(2); 39Ind.Cas.585
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain property which until recently at least formed an occupancy holding. The facts have been ascertained and may very shortly be stated. Prior to the passing of the present Tenancy Act, one Fakira father of Mithu was an occupancy tenant. He purported to make an usufructuary mortgage of the occupancy holding in favour of Chhiddu or his predecessor-in-title. Sometime afterwards the occupancy tenant purported to relinquish his occupancy holding in favour of the zemindar, the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly claims that the tenancy has come to an end and that he is entitled as zemindar to resume possession. It has been found that the mortgagee was responsible for the rent'. We take this to mean that as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, the mortgagor did not intend to pay the rent out of his own pocket. It cannot mean more than this, because the zemindar was not legally bound to accept the mo...
Ambika Prasad and anr. Vs. Jag Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All295; 36Ind.Cas.958
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. It is common case that the plaintiffs were rent-free grantees of the land in dispute. The defendants are the zemindars. Some years ago the defendants brought a suit in the Revenue Court under Section 154 of the Tenancy Act, asking for the resumption of the land held by the plaintiffs in this suit under the rent-free grant. This suit failed and was dismissed. It does not appear that the question whether or not the grant was resumable was gone into. It was held that the plaintiffs had not served the preliminary notices and complied with the provisions of the Act. The next thing that happened was that the plaintiffs in the present suit brought suits for ejectment and suits for rent against the persons whom the defendants in this suit had put into possession of the land in dispute. Then the defendants made an application to correct the jamabandi and have the names of the plaintiffs in this suit expunged from the list of muafi-holders. Here...
Pachan Singh Vs. Jangjit Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All166
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 159 of the Tenancy Act by a lambardar alleging that the defendant is liable for his proportion of Government revenue paid by the lambardar. It appears that in the year 1872, the predecessors in title of the defendants sold the whole village, which included 196 bighas. These 196 bighas, it is alleged, were retained out of the sale 'for the maintenance of the vendor.' From the year 1872 right up to the present time it seems that the owner of the rest of the village has always paid the entire Government revenue. It is contended from this circumstance that there must have been an agreement that the 196 bighas should be held free of Government revenue as between the owners of the 196 bighas and the owners of the rest of the village. Of course, so far as Government were concerned, the entire village (including the 196 bighas) was liable for Government revenue. In the case of Sri Thaku...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »