Allahabad Court March 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.
Mannu Lal and After His Death Jhunni Lal and ors. Vs. Sri Thakur Radah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All302; 36Ind.Cas.989
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed that a security-bond executed by one Maiku was null and void against them. The suit is brought in the names of Sri Thakur Radha Krishna and Narain Das. Narain Das, Maiku and Gur Prasad were brothers. The allegation in the plaint is that the three brothers were joint and that they dedicated a house (one-third of which Maiku hypothecated). The Court of first instance held that the alleged dedication was never made. The lower Appellate Court held that there was a dedication. We doubt very much that there ever was a dedication. It looks very much as if dedication was alleged merely with the object of defrauding the creditors of Maiku. However, the finding of the Additional District Judge, so far as it is a finding of fact, is binding on us in second appeal. The only question we have to decide is whether in the absence of a registered deed of gift the alleged dedication is valid. In our opinion the provisions of Section 123...
Khurshed Ali and ors. Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All439; (1916)ILR38All361; 35Ind.Cas.210
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs seek to enforce their claim for pre-emption. The document which gave rise to the alleged cause of action is in the following terms:We agree that we shall pay annually the interest and in default of payment of interest for two years, the creditors shall have the right, without waiting for the expiry of the time fixed, to file suit and to recover their due from the property mortgaged (niakbuza) and if the creditors make delay in realizing the principal and interest then the aforesaid creditors shall not be entitled to recover their dues under the deed from any other property of myself excepting the property mortgaged (makbuza).2. The plaintiffs came into court alleging that in reality the transaction was a sale and that they were entitled to get possession upon payment of the consideration. They further claimed, however, in the alternative that if the transaction was a mortgage they might be substituted for t...
Chunni Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All276; 35Ind.Cas.173
Knox, J.1. The District Magistrate of Cawnpore on the 28th of September 1915 refused to interfere with an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Cawnpore. That Deputy Magistrate on the 16th of August 1915 had passed an order whereby five persons, Chunni Lal, Raja Ram, Gajadhar, Sidhan Lal, and Manu Lal, residents of Mauza Deoha were bound over to keep the peace under the authority conferred on the Deputy Magistrate by Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code These same five persons have come to this Court and ask this Court to interfere in revision on the ground: (1.) Because there is no finding by the Court below that each of the persons ordered to furnish security is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity or is likely to do some wrongful act which may occasion such a disturbance, and the order complained of is, therefore, bad in law. (2) Because the occasion on which there was anyapprehension having passed off quietly before the order was passed, the said ...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All260(2); 33Ind.Cas.495
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. According to the entry in the wajib-ul-arz the first right is with qarabatdaran karibi; the second, with hissedaran karibi; third, hissedaran thok and fourth, hissedaran in another thok. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that the vendee is qarabatdar karibi whilst he is not--being eight degrees removed. The plaintiff, according to his own allegations and apparently in the opinion of the Court, was a co-sharer in the mahal in which at least a portion of the property was situate. The question then arises, whether the defendant-vendee can be said to be qarabatdar karibi. He is the son-in-law of the vendor. This means that he is no blood relation whatever of the vendor. Bearing in mind that in Hindu families the daughter marries into an entirely different family and that she becomes a member of that family and to a large extent ceases to be a member of her own family from the time of her marriage, and bearing in mind ...
Dukkhi Vs. Ghurhu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.768
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the District Judge of Benares, upholding the order of the Munsif returning the plaint to the applicant for presentation to the Court of Small Causes. It appears that the plaintiff sued in the Court of the Munsif, on the allegation that the defendants had made an excavation next to his (the plaintiff's) wall by which the wall had come down and that the defendants should be made to rebuild the said wall or pay Rs. 200 as damages. The Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of Small Causes and on appeal his order was affirmed by the District Judge, on the ground that the relief requiring the defendants to re-build the wall could not be granted to the plaintiff. I do not think the order of the learned Judge is correct. The jurisdiction of a Court depends upon the nature of the suit as brought and not upon the character which it would ultimately assume. The relief with regard to requiring the defendants to re...
Hazarilal and ors. Vs. Musammat Lareti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.523
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in, revision from an order of the District Judge of Shahjahanpore setting aside an order of the Munsif on the execution side and remanding the case for trial on the merits. It appears that Hazari Lal the opposite party obtained a decree against the applicant Musammat Lareti from the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Farrukhabad in the exercise of its Small Cause Court powers. The decree was transferred to the Court of the Munsif of Shahjahanpore for execution. The decree-holder applied for execution and was met with a plea of limitation, The learned Munsif yielded to the plea. The decree-holder preferred an appeal to the District Judge who disagreed with the first Court on the question of limitation and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The applicant before this Court challenges the order of the District Judge on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction. It is contended on her behalf that the Munsif of Shahjahanpore for the purpose ...
Shadi Lal Vs. Debi Bakhsh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All271
Shaw, J.1. By Section 162 of the Oudh Land Revenue Act, XVII of 1876, certain persons are declared to be disqualified from managing their estates. Among the enumeration of those persons are the following: Under Sub-section (g), 'Persons declared by the Chief Commissioner on their own application to be disqualified from managing their estates.'. The Taluqdar of Mallanpur was one of those persons. On his application his estates were assumed by the Court of Wards and they remained under the management of that Court from the year 1886 until the year 1898.2. During that period the Raja borrowed certain sums of money, and on the 12th of August, 1904, his creditors sued and obtained a personal decree against him in the Court of first instance. There were certain judicial proceedings which occurred subsequent to the decree; and it may be of interest to note that, the debt incurred having been originally a sum of Rs. 4,000, execution is now sought to be obtained against the property put under t...
Darbari Lal and anr. Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All357
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In this case the suit had been dismissed under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. An appeal against this order of dismissal was entertained by the District Judge and resulted in an order directing the court of first instance to re-admit the suit on to its pending file and to dispose of it on the merits. Presumably the District Judge considered himself to be acting under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter has been brought before us on appeal from the District Judge's order of remand. We think that no appeal lay to the District Judge. Authority for this proposition is to be found in Lucky Churn Chowdhry v. Budurr-un-niasa (1882) I.L.R. 9 Calc. 627 and in Parbati v. Toolsi Kapri (1913) 20 Indian Cases 1. It seems to be clear that the dismissal of the suit by the first court was a form of dismissal for default, and therefore excluded from the definition of the word 'decree' in the present Code of Civil Pr...
Hardwari Lal Vs. Salamat-ullah Khan and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All147; (1916)ILR38All358
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order setting aside a sale under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first point taken is that the application under that rule was made by one Salamat-ullah Khan who was neither the decree-holder nor the judgement-debtor, nor a person otherwise entitled to make any such application. We think this contention must prevail. The decree was one passed against Amanat-ullah Khan, a son of Salamat-ullah Khan aforesaid. It was a mortgage decree. A decree absolute was obtained on the 17th of January, 1913, and the sale actually took place on the 20th of March, 1915. In the meantime Salamat-ullah Khan had filed a suit, on the 9th of March, 1915, asking for a declaration that he was himself the real owner of the property covered by the mortgage and ordered to be sold in execution of the same. This suit is sill pending. The question is whether under these circumstances Salamat-ullah is a person whose interes...
Hardwari Lal Vs. Muhammad Salamat Ullah Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.272
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal against an order setting aside a sale under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first point taken is that the application under that rule was made by one Salamat Ullah Khan, who was neither the decree-holder nor the judgment-debtor, nor a person otherwise entitled to make any such application. We think this contention must prevail. The decree was one passed against Amanatullah Khan a son of Salamat Ullah Khan aforesaid. It was a mortgage-decree. A decree absolute was obtained on the 17th of January 1913 and the sale actually took place on the 20th of March 1915. In the meantime Salamat Ullah Khan had filed a suit, on the 9th of March 1915, asking for a declaration that he was himself the real owner of the property covered by the mortgage and ordered to be sold in execution of the same. This suit is still pending. The question is, whether under these circumstances, Salamat Ullah is a person whose interests are affected ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »