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.
Nihal Singh and anr. Vs. Sewa Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All228; (1916)ILR38All292; 35Ind.Cas.275
Tudball, J.1. This matter comes up before me on the report of the Stamp Officer. The facts are simple. The plaintiffs brought a suit on the following allegations:--Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 contracted to sell to them certain zamindari property for the sum of Rs. 2,900. Of this sum Rs. 100 was paid as earnest money. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3, however, failed to carry out their contract, but instead, they executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1.. The defendant No. 1 had full knowledge of the contract between plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs, therefore, ask for specific performance of the contract including possession of the property. The Court-fee paid in the Courts below was that calculated under Section 7, Clause v, of the Court Fees Act, i.e., as in a suit for possession of land. A second appeal having been preferred by the plaintiffs in this Court the Stamp Officer is of opinion that the plaintiffs should pay Court-fees not only under Section 7, Cl...
Makund Ram and anr. Vs. Ramraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.292
1. We think the view taken by the Court below was correct. It may be said that the plaintiffs were unfortunate. It is their own fault for sleeping on their rights until the very last day of limitation.2. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Parbhu NaraIn Singh, Kashi Nareshi Vs. Harbans Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All266; 35Ind.Cas.279
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for arrears of rent. The defendant was described as a tenant at fixed rates of the land in suit and was sued for rent of the same under Section 102 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901), the suit being of the description referred to in Serial No. 2, Group (A), of the Fourth Schedule to the said Act. The amount claimed being a small one, the suit was instituted in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class. The defendant pleaded that the relationship between the parties was not that of landlord and tenant within the meaning of the Tenancy Act, that he did not owe the plaintiff rent for the land in question, and he also put the plaintiff to proof of the amount of the rent claimed. The Assistant Collector found in favour of the plaintiff on all the issues raised and decreed the claim. There was an appeal to the Court of the Collector, and there the Collector came to the conclusion that the land referred to in the plaint was not land whic...
Uttam Singh and anr. Vs. Hukum Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All89; 38Ind.Cas.651
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage. The only question which we have to decide in the present appeal is as to whether or not the lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the mortgage had been proved. Section 59 provides that a mortgage can only be effected by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that ' if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.' Section 69 provides: ' If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing t...
Jagan Lal Vs. Taj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All289
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. There was a decree passed nominally in favour of one Dule Ram. The respondent Jagan Lal, in the course of a suit against Dule Ram's heirs, obtained a decree to the effect that he was himself the beneficial owner of the decree. Having applied to the proper court for that purpose, he obtained an order under Order XXI, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure granting him permission to execute the decree as transferee of the same. Before that order was passed the present appellant, who was on the record as one of the judgement-debtors, had received notice of Jagan Lal's application. He took no objection to the same and submitted to the order granting the said application., Subsequently Jagan Lal applied to the Court to take certain steps to execute the decree by sale of the property concerned. Thereupon the appellant filed an objection in which he said, firstly, that Jagan Lal was not a genuine transferee of the decree, because the whole proceedings between Jagan L...
Shiam Lal Vs. Roshan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All287; 35Ind.Cas.230
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor in an execution case. A decree bad been passed under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure for sale of certain mortgaged property. Notice was issued to the parties fixing the 6th of October as the date on which the Court would proceed to hold an enquiry under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 66, of the Code of Civil Procedure with a view to drawing up a proper sale proclamation. On that date the judgment debtor put in what is described as a petition of objection. On the face of it the most substantial point taken appears to be that the judgment-debtor was seeking for a review of the decree, and he wished to have a postponement of the execution proceedings until his application for review of the decree should be disposed of. For reasons not apparent on the face of the record, the learned Judge of the Court below evidently viewed this application with the utmost disfavour and was strongly disinclined to order a postponem...
Rangi Lal and anr. Vs. Jassa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All483(2); 35Ind.Cas.208a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent in the Revenue Court. The facts are that the plaintiffs, or their representatives, having lent money to the defendants, or their representatives, took a usufructuary mortgage of certain zemindari property. The mortgagees then made a letting of the property to the defendants on the terms that the defendants should pay a certain sum in cash (which included a sum sufficient to pay the Government revenue). In addition to this they agreed to deliver a certain amount in bhusa, chari, grain and sugarcane. In the kabulict the expression 'rasum zemindari' is used. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiffs but calculated the value of the produce at Rs. 24 per annum. The plaintiffs claimed interest on all the arrears of rent from the time they became due up to the time that they were paid. This included interest on a sum of Rs. 200 which the defendants paid into Court. The first Court disallowed the interest on the Rs. 200 even prio...
Taj Singh Vs. Jagan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All219(1); 35Ind.Cas.234
1. There was a decree passed nominally in favour of one Dale Ram. The respondent Jagan Lal, in the course of a suit against Dule Ram's heirs, obtained a decree to the effect that he was himself the beneficial owner of the decree. Having applied to the proper Court for that purpose, be obtained an order under Order XXI, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure, granting him permission to execute the decree as transferee of the same. Before that order was passed the present appellant, who was on the record as one of the judgment debtors, had received notice of Jagan Lal's application. He took no objection to the same and submitted to the order granting the said application. Subsequently Jagan Lal applied to the Court to take certain steps to execute the decree by sale of the property concerned. Thereupon the appellant filed an objection in which he said, first, that Jagan Lal was not a genuine transferee of the decree, because the whole proceedings between Jagan Lal and the heirs of Dule ...
Pearey Lal Vs. Hanifunnirsa Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.303
Piggott, J.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 Pearey 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 Pearey Lal was a bona 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 judgment-debtors can obtain restitution, not merely as against Bansidhar himself (this they have already obtained) but against Lala Pearey Lal. We have been referred to a large number of authorities on this point but it really seems unnece...
Nihal Singh and ors. Vs. the Collector of Bulandshahr and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All160(2); (1916)ILR38All237; 33Ind.Cas.165
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution. The suit is against the two sons of Tejpal Singh through the Collector as manager of the Court of Wards. Various pleas were raised, including notice and limitation. These pleas have, however, now been dropped. The facts are shortly as follows: Thakur Unirao Singh had four sons and a daughter. The daughter was married into family possessed of considerable property. On the death of the husband of the daughter the father became the guardian of the property of the daughter. On the death of Umrao Singh one of his sons, Rao Girraj Singh, brought a suit against his sister, alleging that she had adopted his son Indarjit Singh and that this son was entitled to the estate of the deceased husband of the sister. The sister met this claim with a denial and a counter suit against all the brothers, alleging that her father, and after him her brothers, had been in possession of her estate as managers, and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »