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.
Amir and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All104; (1917)ILR39All225; 38Ind.Cas.33
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The facts connected with the suit out of which this appeal arises are as follows : A decree was obtained against one Suraj Din for some money due by him. Before decree Jagannath, his father, went security for the due payment of any amount that might be decreed against Suraj Din. In the bond he agreed that he would as surety be responsible for the amount of the decree, and by way of further security he hypothecated certain property. The decree-holder, after he had obtained his decree, sought to execute the same against Jagannath by selling one of the properties which Jagannath had mortgaged by way of security. In the meanwhile, however, Jagannath had sold his equity of redemption to Amir and Ramzan, the plaintiffs in the present suit. They objected to the sale of the property on the ground that they were the purchasers of all the interest of Jagannath. Notwithstanding their objection, the property was sold and was purchased by Mahadeo Prasad, the defendant. The pr...
Kashi and ors. Vs. Sheonandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All223
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The facts of the litigation out of which this appeal arises are complicated; but the appeal before us raises a single and a simple point. One Bipat was declared insolvent on the 1st of October, 1910. In his schedule he appears to have recorded among his assets his mortgagee rights under a certain mortgage of the year 1907. The receiver, however, considered those rights worthless, and after making such efforts as he thought proper to realize the insolvent's assets for the benefit of his creditors, the said receiver reported to the District Judge that there were no other assets of the insolvent which in his opinion were capable of realization. Upon this Bipat was discharged by an order of the 24th of June, 1913. Since that date, that is to say, on the 20th of October, 1914, Bipat has found one Kashi who was willing to pay him Rs. 500 for his rights under the mortgage of 1907. The present suit was by Kashi to enforce the rights, if any, acquired by him under this ...
In Re: E. E. W. Meik
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All279
Henry Richards, C.J.1. A question has arisen as to the proper court fee payable in respect of this estate. It is admitted that the assets of the deceased, if no deductions are to be made for the debts or funeral expenses of the deceased, exceed Rs. 1,000 in value. On the other hand, it is admitted that if the debts and funeral expenses of the deceased are deducted, the assets are less in value than Rs. 1,000. The administratrix contends that no court fee is payable. On the other hand, the Board of Revenue contend that duty is payable either on the gross assets or on the Opt assets after deducting debts and funeral expenses. Section 19 of the Court Fees Act provides, inter alia, as follows:---'Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents charge.able with any fee.' Amongst the documents set forth is 'Letters of administration, where the amount or value of the property in respect of which the letters shall be granted does not exceed one thousand rupees.' It is admitt...
Mohammad Fasahat Ullah Vs. Musammat Tahira Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.136
1. This is an appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act. The appellant before us, Muhammad Fasahat Ullah, is the father's brother of a certain minor girl. The respondent Musammat Tahira Bibi is the mother's mother of the same girl. In a previous proceeding, with which we are not now concerned, the District Judge had appointed Fasahat Ullah to be the guardian of the property and Tahira Bibi to be the guardian of the person of the aforesaid girl. It is evident that these two persons are not on good terms and the record before us shows that the District Court has been frequently-asked to adjudicate upon disputes between them. The dispute out of which this appeal has arisen was as to the right of disposing of the hand of this girl in marriage. The position was a somewhat curious one, inasmuch as the paternal uncle has undoubtedly under the Muhammadan Law a preferential right over the mother's mother to dispose of the hand of this girl in marriage, so long as she remains a minor under the Mu...
In Re: Mrs. E.E.W. Meik
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.865
1. A question has arisen as to the proper Court-fee payable in respect of this estate. It is admitted that the assets of the deceased, if no deductions are to be made for the debts or funeral expenses of the deceased, exceed Rs. 1,000 in value. On the other hand, it is admitted that if the debts and funeral expenses of the deceased are deducted, the assets are less in value than Rs. 1,000. The administratrix contends that no Court-fee is payable. On the other hand, the Board of Revenue contend that duty is payable either on the gross assets or on the net assets after deducting debts and funeral expenses. Section 19 of the Court Fees Act provides, inter alia, as follows: 'Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee.' Amongst the documents set forth is: 'Letters of Administration, where the amount or value of the property in respect of which the Letters shall be granted does not exceed one thousand rupees.' It is admitted here that the Court...
Hakim Nasrat HusaIn and anr. Vs. Adia Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All79; 37Ind.Cas.851
Piggott, J.1. These are three connected appeals which raise a point of law. The said point is clearly covered by authorities of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to the Full Bench case of Wahidullah v. Kanhaya Lal 25 A. 174 A. W. N. (1902) 222 and the recent case of Dalip Singh v. Kundan-Singh 22 Ind. Cas. 614 : 36 A. 58 : 12 A. L.J. 21. The three suits in question were instituted in the Court of a Munsif. In each case the defendant objected that the suit had been under-valued. An issue was framed on this point, but was not separately tried. The learned Munsif tried the question of valuation along with the ether issues, after taking all the evidence offered by both parties. He found in favour of the plaintiff on the question of valuation and be decreed the plaintiffs suits on the merits. The defendant appealed to the Court of the District Judge and his appeals were transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge for disposal. That Court has found that, as a matter of fact, the su...
Sheonandan Vs. Kashi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All302(1); 37Ind.Cas.878
1. The facts of the litigation out of which this appeal arises are complicated; but the appeal before us raises a single and a simple point. One Bipat was declared insolvent on the 1st of October 1910. In his schedule he appears to have recorded among his assets his mortgagee rights under a certain mortgage of the year 1907. The Receiver, however, considered those rights worthless and after making such efforts as he thought proper to realize the insolvent's assets for the benefit of his creditors, the said Receiver reported to the District Judge that there were no other assets of the insolvent which, in his opinion, were capable of realization. Upon this Bipat was discharged by an order of the 24th of June 1913. Since that date, that is to say, on the 20th of October 1914, Bipat has found one Kashi who was willing to pay him Rs. 500 for his rights under the mortgage of 1907. The present suit was by Kashi to enforce the rights, if any acquired by him under this transfer. The Court of fi...
Sheo Ghulam Vs. Shib Dayal and Lachman Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All241
Henry Richards, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 18th of November. 1904. The mortgage is alleged to have been made by Shib Dayal, the appellant, in favour of one Babu Lachman Singh. The plaintiff was the transferee from Babu Lachman Singh. The connected appeal also arises out of the same suit. The present appeal is by the defendant who alleged that the mortgage was not proved. In the connected appeal the plaintiff appeals against so much of the decree of the lower appellate court as disallowed a portion of the interest claimed. With regard to the proof of the mortgage the plaintiff produced one of the attesting witnesses, who proved that he saw the mortgagor sign the mortgage and that he signed his name as an attesting witness. On the face of it the mortgage appears to have been attested by a number of other witnesses, but they were not called. Nor did the witness who was called say that there was any other attesting witness prese...
RajaIn Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.984
Henry Richards C.J.1. In this case Rajain Singh has been convicted under Section 26(2) of the Criminal Tribes Act of 1911. The charge against him was that he as an occupier of land had not 'forthwith' communicated to the officer in charge of the nearest Police station' information which he had obtained of the arrival on his land of a certain bhar, a member of a criminal tribe. The evidence as set forth in the judgment of the learned Magistrate and also of the learned Sessions Judge is as follows. The bhar had been wanted for three years for the purpose of having his thumb impression taken. The fact that he was 'wanted' would seem to imply that he was wandering about and that his residence was unknown, that is to say, his residence during the period for which he was wanted. The Sub-inspector came at night--the hour is not stated--to the house of the accused, and somewhere near the house he saw the accused seated smoking talking to the bhar. There is no evidence referred to in the judgme...
Zair HusaIn Khan Vs. Musammat Kaniz Fatima Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.922
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal from an order granting an injunction under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The essential facts are as follows. Musammat Kaniz Fatima Bibi, the respondent in this Court, was married to the appellant, Zair Husain Khan. It is admitted that the parties lived as man and wife for a considerable number of years. The lady has now brought a suit against the appellant claiming a sum of Rs. 15,000 on account of her dower-debt. That suit is still pending. It has been met by a variety of defences, amongst the allegations made by the defendant and denied by the plaintiff being an allegation that the plaintiff had been divorced. There is also a serious controversy as to the amount of the dower fixed for this lady at the time of her marriage. The plaintiff puts it as high as Rs. 1,25,000 though she has limited her claim to Rs. 15,000. The defendant puts it as low as Rs. 107. It is under these circumstances that the plaintiff applied...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »