Allahabad Court February 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.
Baij Nath Rai Vs. Dharam Deo Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All22; 35Ind.Cas.707
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the principal defendant in a suit against an order passed by the District Judge of Ghazipur, under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It arises out of the following facts and circumstances. In the year 1886, one Bhondu joined with his brother in the execution of a mortgage-deed hypothecating certain immoveable property. Bhondu was the head and manager of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his sons. In the year 1898, a suit was brought on this mortgage in which not only the original mortgagors were impleaded, but also the three sons of Bhondu. Of these three sons, one Raj Narain was major at the time, while the other two were minors. On the 30th of July 1898, an application was made to the Court to appoint Bhondu guardian ad litem for his two minor sons. Notice was issued to Bhondu, but no reply was received from him, nor did he put in any appearance in the suit. The Court, however, on the 30th August 1898...
Mukta Prasad Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All57; (1916)ILR38All327
Piggott, J.1. The appellant in this case held a decree against) Munno Lal and Radha Rawan. He attached certain property in execution of the decree. One Mahadeo Prasad objected that the property attached belonged to him. The three parties to this controversy, the decree-holder, the judgement-debtors and Mahadeo Prasad respondent came together and arrived at a compromise. A portion of the decree -was paid up at once. A promissory note was given for a further sum, and there was a covenant that the rest of the decree-holder's claim should be satisfied by annual instalments of Rs. 350. The attached property was accordingly released. Mahadeo Prasad, however, executed a security bond, making himself liable as a surety for the due performance by the judgement-debtors of that portion of the agreement which related to the payment of the stipulated annual instalments. He expressly covenanted that, in the event of default of payment in respect of any two consecutive instalments, he would himself m...
Mukta Prasad Alias Gaya Prasad Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.982
Piggott, J.1. The appellant in this case held a decree against Munno Lal and Radha Rawan. He attached certain property in execution of the decree. One Mahadeo Prasad objected that the property attached belonged to him. The three parties to this controversy, the decree holder, the judgment-debtors and Mahadeo Prasad respondent, came together and arrived at a compromise. A portion of the decree was paid up at once. A pro-note was given for a further sum, and there was a covenant that the rest of the decree-holder's claim should be satisfied by annual instalments of Rs. 350. The attached property was accordingly released. Mahadeo Prasad, however, executed a security-bond, making himself liable as a surety for the due performance by the judgment-debtors of that portion of the agreement which, related to the payment of the stipulated annual instalments. He expressly covenanted that, in the event of default of payment in respect of any two consecutive instalments, he would himself make good ...
Piari Lal Vs. Hanif-un-nissa Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All240
Tudball and Walsh, JJ.1. The finding on the issues remitted by us in our order of the 29th of May, 1915, is in favour of the appellant. We must now take the facts to be substantially these: Certain property was put up for sale in the execution of a decree by one Bansidhar, who was a transferee of that decree. As regards the particular property in question in this appeal, it was purchased at auction by the appellant Lala Piari Lal. On the findings now returned, which have not been seriously assailed in argument before us, and which we must accept upon the evidence, we hold that Lala Piari Lal was a bond fide auction-purchaser for value. The decree under execution at the instance of Bansidhar has been reversed on appeal, and the question before us is whether the judgement-debtors can obtain restitution, not merely as against Bansidhar himself (this they have already obtained) but against Lala Piari Lal. We have been referred to a large number of authorities on this point, but itreally se...
Emperor Vs. Bhima and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All321; (1916)ILR38All311; 33Ind.Cas.639
George Knox, J.1. Bhima and Dwarka have been convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. They were tried together. They applied in revision to the court of Session at Cawnpore and took sundry objections to the conviction, These objections have been found to have no weight by the learned Sessions Judge, but he says that at the very last the learned pleader who appeared in support of the application raised the objection that the two convicts should not have been tried together. This objection was based on Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge considering this objection a good objection has referred the case to this Court. It would appear that on the 26th of September the house of one Nazir Jan was broken into and property stolen there from. The police failed to trace the thieves, but later on, somewhere in the month of October, a Sub-Inspector, who was inquiring into another case in which Bhima was suspected, found on the premises occupied by...
Karam Singh and anr. Vs. Gur Dayal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All254
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs seek to recover a sum of Rs. 476 principal and Rs. 83 interest, in all Rs. 559, against all the defendants, and in default, that certain property should be sold. The facts of the case were somewhat complicated, but for the purpose of the questions of law which we have to decide it is not necessary to go with great detail into them. On the 28th of August, 1908, the plaintiffs sold certain property to Gur Dayal. This property was sold in consideration of Rs. 250. In the detail of consideration it is stated that the vendor has received Rs. 90 in cash and that he has left Rs. 160 for payment to certain creditors of the vendor. We may mention that the nature of the debt which was to be paid was a simple contract debt and not a mortgage debt. As a matter of fact the purchaser did not pay the creditors of the vendor. His alleged reason for not doing so was that he did not get possession of p...
Gur Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Karm Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All264; 35Ind.Cas.289
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs seek to recover a sum of Rs. 476 principal and Rs. 83 interest, in all Rs. 559, against all the defendants and in default that certain property should be sold. The facts of the case were somewhat complicated, but for the purpose of the questions of law which we have to decide it is not necessary to go with great detail into them. On the 28th of August 1903, the plaintiffs sold certain prperty to Grur Dayal. This property was sold in consideration of Rs. 250. In the detail of consideration it is stated that the vendor has received Rs. 90 in cash and that he has left Rs. 160 for payment to certain creditors of the vendor. We may mention that the nature of the debt which was to be paid was a simple contract debt and not a mortgage-debt. As a matter of fact the purchaser did not pay the creditors of the vendor. His alleged reason for not doing so was that he did not get possession of part of the property sold, and there certainly ...
Joshi Damodarji and ors. Vs. Joshi Ram Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.467
1. This appeal arises out of an application under paragraph 20 of the 2nd Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code, which has been rejected by the Court below.2. The parties to the application are all members of a Hindu family and are Brahmans by caste. They reside at Benares and are wealthy, carrying on a large business in the purchase and sale of precious stones and jewelry.3. The applicants are all the male members of the joint family except one. The exception is the sole defendant Joshi Ram Nath, against whom the application was made.4. The case for the applicants was that Joshi Ram Nath came of age in 1914 and took to riotous living and incurred heavy debts. This led to disputes, on which all the members including Ram Nath agreed to partition the family property and to separate. That accordingly an agreement was drawn up, and duly executed on 5th July 1914 and presented for registration on 18th July 1914.5. That under the agreement one Panna Lal was appointed arbitrator to divide up t...
Shambhu Singh Vs. Daljit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All12; (1916)ILR38All243; 33Ind.Cas.19
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff' claims a declaration of his title to and possession of a certain plot of land. The case will be found reported in 13 A.L.J. 779. It is only necessary to shortly sum-up the facts which have been found by both the courts below. In a particular mahal there were nine pattis formed in the year 1875. Patti No. 9 was a shamilat patti common to all the co-sharers. In course of time patti No. 2 became the property of plaintiff. The defendant was a co-sharer in pattis Nos. 4 and 5 and also in the shamilat patti No. 9. The plaintiff, or his predecessor in title, had no share in pattis Nos. 4 and 5. Iu 1904, the defendant made an application for perfect partition in the Revenue Court. He asked that a separate mahal might be made of his share in pattis Nos. 4 and 5 and also in No. 9. For some reason or another this application was dropped and a fresh application was made for imperfect partition in the year 1905. There i...
Manmohan Lal Vs. Kalka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All302
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The facts connected with this appeal are very fully stated in the order of my learned colleague who referred the case. The suit is one to recover possession of certain property which originally was a quarter biswa asli share which has now been by partition formed into a separate mahal. It appears that in the year 1910 one Kali Charan male an application in the Revenue Court for partition of his four biswa share. A 3 3/4 biswa stood in the names of the plaintiff and his brother, who are the sons of one Nand Kishore. One Kalka Prasad, the present defendant, was also recorded in respect of one-fourth biswa. This is the one-fourth biswa that is now in dispute. On the day after the date filed for the hearing of objections this Kalka Prasad made an application for the partition of the one fourth biswa which stood in his name. He made this application in the same proceeding as the proceeding of Kali Charan. The result was that the partition was held and a mahal of half ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »