Allahabad Court December 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.
Musammat Bismillah Begam Vs. Hira Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All313(1); 37Ind.Cas.832
1. This application arises under the following circumstances, A suit Was brought on a mortgage. The defendants pleaded (inter alia) part payment of an amount below Rs. 10,000. The Court of first instance held that the part payment had not been proved. If it had been held otherwise the claim of the plaintiffs would have been reduced by a certain amount for principal and interest. The defendants preferred an appeal to the High Court. On the case being called on, the learned gentleman who appeared in the case stated that they had no instructions to proceed with the appeal and the same was accordingly dismissed on the 27th of January 1915. On the 25th of March 1916 Counsel, (not the same gentleman who had appeared on the previous occasion) applied for restoration under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 19, of the Code. This application was grounded on an affidavit. The Bench which heard this application considered that no sufficient cause had been shown for the non-appearance of the appell...
Cheda Lal Vs. Lachman Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All267
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Bareilly in the exercise of insolvency 'jurisdiction. One Kanhai Lal had been adjudicated insolvent. He owned a shop in the town of Bareilly. This shop became vested in the receiver appointed by the court, one Babu Sri Ram. Under the direction of the court the receiver proceeded to sell the shop by auction. Cheda Lal, who is the appellant before us, bid up to Rs. 8,700; but on being called upon to deposit one-fourth of the purchase money, failed immediately to do so, The receiver then put up the property for sale again and it was purchased by another person for Rs. 7,320. These matters having been reported to the court, the learned District Judge has ordered execution to issue against Cheda Lal for the sum of Rs. 1,380. His order purports to have been passed under Order XXI, Rule 71, of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 47 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It is contended before us in appeal t...
Pandit Cheda Lal Vs. Lachman Parshad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.830
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Bareilly, in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. One Kanhai Lal had been adjudicated insolvent. He owned a shop in the town of Bareilly. This shop became vested in the Receiver appointed by the Court, one Babu Sri Ram. Under the direction of the Court the Receiver proceeded to sell the shop by auction. Cheda Lal, who is the appellant before us, bid up to Rs 8,700; but on being called upon to deposit one-fourth of the purchase-money failed immediately to do so. The Receiver then put up the property for sale again and it was purchased by another Person for Rs. 7,320. These matters having been reported to the Court, the learned District Judge has ordered execution to issue against Cheda Lal for the sum of Rs. 1,380. His order purports to have been passed under Order XXI, Rule 71 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 47 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It is contended before us in appeal that...
Gokul Singh and anr. Vs. Saheb Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All7; 38Ind.Cas.162
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem a mortgage said to have been made so far back as the year 1849. A mortgage of this date would, of course, have been barred long before. the institution of the present suit, which was in the year 1914. The original amount said to have been secured by the mortgage was Rs. 100. The plaintiffs now claim not only that they are entitled to get possession of the property, but they claim a large sum as surplus mesne-profits. The case is a somewhat peculiar one, because no doubt a number of entries are in favour of the plaintiffs' contention that there was a mortgage. As far back as the year 1896 steps were actually taken to redeem the property and Rs. 100 was paid into Court. It is said that Bhoom Singh, who paid the money into Court, died and that the defendants refused to take it, and that the money has remained in Court, until (accordingly to the rules) it lapsed to Government. It is strange on the one side how these entries continued and it is ...
Dhandei Kunwar Vs. Chotu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All254
Piggott, J.1. I have arrived, though not without hesitation, at the conclusion that we ought not to interfere in this matter. The application is one moving this Court to interfere, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, with an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, who has applied the provisions of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901), to the facts of a certain suit pending before him. The application, as drafted, purports to be under Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1915, which reproduces Section 15 of the former High Courts Act. We allowed the applicant, nevertheless, to argue his case on the assumption that he was entitled to claim relief either under this section or, in the alternative, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908). As I concurred in permitting the argument to proceed on these lines, I do not feel justified in pressing the point now; but it must be clearly understood that I am not committed to th...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. Indomati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All4; (1917)ILR39All244
Tudball, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs, arising out of a suit for sale brought upon the basis of a document, dated the 12th of May, 1884, executed by Chaudhri Raj Kumar, which the plaintiffs put forward as a deed of simple mortgage. The learned Judges who constituted the Bench before whom the appeal came, have differed in opinion, hence the present appeal. The question which we have to decide is whether or not the deed of the 12th of May, 1884, constitutes a deed of simple mortgage. If it does, then the suit, having been brought within the period allowed by Section 31 of the Limitation Act, is within time, and the case will have to go back to the court below for trial on the merits. If, however, it does not, the suit must fail and this appeal must also be dismissed. On the date in question Chaudhri Raj Kumar borrowed Rs. 1,000 from Baldeo Das and Sheo Dat Rai, and executed the document in suit. The suit is to recover the amount due including interest...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. Rani Indomati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.18
Tudball, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs, arising out of a suit for sale brought upon the basis of a document, dated the 12th of May 1884, executed by Chaudhri Raj Kunwar, which the plaintiffs put forward as a deed of simple mortgage. The learned Judges who constituted the Bench before whom the appeal came, have differed in opinion, hence the present appeal. The question which we have to decide is whether or not the deed of the 12th of May 1884 constitutes a deed of simple mortgage. If it does, then the suit, having been brought within the period allowed by Section 31 of the Limitation Act, is within time, and the case will have to go back to the Court below for trial on the merits. If, however, it does not, the suit must fail and this appeal must also be dismissed. On the date in question Chaudhri Raj Kunwar borrowed Rs. 1,000 from Baldeo Das and Sheo Dat Rai, and executed the document in suit. The suit is to recover the amount due including interest....
Jwala Ram and anr. Vs. Buchi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All315(1); 38Ind.Cas.533
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. The mortgage provided that interest should be payable at 14 annas 6 pies per cant, per mensem. It also provided that if the interest was not paid at the end of every six months, the unpaid interest should be added to the principal and that interest would run upon it and that the interest in that event would be Re. 1 per cent, per mensem instead of 14 annas 6 pies. The Court below has held that the whole provision as to compound interest as well as the provision for the increase of the rate of interest from 14 annas 6 pies to Re. 1 was a penalty and has disallowed it. The only matter with which we are concerned in the present appeal is the question of interest, in our opinion the provision as to compound interest was not a penalty but the provision to increase the rate of the interest from 14 annas 6 pies to Re. 1 per cent, per mensem was a penalty. We think that the decree of the Court below must be varied accordingly. We direct the ...
Dhan Dei Kunwar Vs. Chotu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All140; 38Ind.Cas.828
Piggott, J.1. I have arrived, though not without hesitation, at the conclusion that we ought not to interfere in this matter. The application is one moving this Court to interfere, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, with an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, who has applied the provisions of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901) to the facts of a certain suit pending before him. The application, as drafted, purports to be under Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1915, which reproduces Section 15 of the former High Courts Act. We allowed the applicant, nevertheless, to argue his case on the assumption that he was entitled to claim relief either under this section or, in the alternative, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908). As I concurred in permitting the argument to proceed on these lines, I do not feel justified in pressing the point now; but it must be clearly understood that I am not committed to the...
Daulata ShuklaIn Vs. Debi Saran Shukul and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All234
Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against her husband to recover maintenance. The defence to the claim was that the plaintiff was unchaste and was not therefore entitled to any maintenance from her husband. It has been found that the plaintiff gave birth to an illegitimate child, and it has also been found upon an issue referred by us to the court below that at the time of the institution of the suit she was living an unchaste life. Under these circumstances the question we have to consider is whether the plaintiff is entitled to any maintenance. The case of Subhayya v. Bhavani (1907) 24 Indian Cases 390 was cited at the hearing. In that case it was held that a wife is not entitled to maintenance from her husband if at the time of the suit she is living in adultery and persists in her vicious course of life. This view seems to us to be in consonance with the Hindu Law. As in the present case it has been found that the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »