Allahabad Court April 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.
Udhishter Singh and anr. Vs. Kausilla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All443; (1916)ILR38All398
Piggott, J.1. In the litigation out of which this second appeal arises there were three parties. The appellants now before this Court were subsequent mortgagees. There were certain defendants who were the original mortgagors, and there was one Tika Ram Avho held mortgages prior in date to those of the present appellants. There were separate suits instituted by Tika Ram and the present appellants, but we are concerned at present only with the suit in which these appellants were the plaintiffs. It was a contested matter between them and Tika Ram as to whether the mortgages in favour of the latter had or had not priority, but this point was decided in favour of Tika Ram. A preliminary decree was then drawn up under Order XXXIV, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case were somewhat complicated, more particularly by the circumstance that the mortgages in favour of Tika Ram covered certain other property over and above that which was involved both in Tika Ram's mortgage...
Udhishter Singh and anr. Vs. Musammat Kausilla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.79
Piggott, J.1. In the litigation out of -which this second appeal arises there were three parties. The appellants now before this Court were subsequent mortgagees. There were certain defendants who were the original mortgagors, and there was one Tika Ram who held mortgages prior in date to those of the present appellants. There were separate suits instituted by Tika Ram and the present appellants; but we are concerned at present only with the suit in which these appellants were the plaintiffs. It was a contested matter between them and Tika Ram as to whether the mortgages in favour of the latter had or had not priority; but this point was decided in favour of Tika Ram A preliminary decree was then drawn up under Order XXXIV, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case were somewhat complicated, more particularly by the circumstance that the mortgages in favour of Tika Ram covered certain other property over and above that which was involved both in Tika Ram's mortgages...
Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. the Boot and Equipment Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.397
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders in an execution case. The judgment-debtor is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act (Act VII of 1913). For purposes of this appeal we may take it that this Company has gone into voluntary liquidation. The Court of first instance held that this circumstance afforded no reason for staying execution of the decree, but this decision has been reversed by the District Judge on appeal. In the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913) there is no statutory provision as to stay of suits or other legal proceedings in the case of a Company which has gone into voluntary liquidation, corresponding to the provisions of Section 171 of the Act with regard to the consequences of a winding tip order. The learned District Judge points out that it would be open to the present decree-holders to obtain a winding up order and assumes that this circumstance is in itself sufficient to deprive them of their remedy by way of execution. We have been refe...
Har Bilas Vs. Shankar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All167; 36Ind.Cas.402
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 182 of 1914. They both arise out of the same suit. The suit was brought on foot of five hundis executed in the name of the firm styled Baldeo Das-Gulab Chand. There was also a claim for a balance of account, amounting to Rs. 3,350, alleged to be due by the same firm to the plaintiff. The defendants were Gulab Chand and Har Bilas and some pro forma defendants. One Baldeo Das died leaving him surviving three sons and a widow, Khub Chand, 'the aforesaid Gulab Chand and Har Bilas Khub Chand was the son of one wife, while Gulab Chand and Har Bilas were the sons of a second wife. Previous to his death Baldeo Das made a Will. It has not been seriously suggested that this Will was not a genuine document. The Will begins with a recital that Baldeo Das was the absolute proprietor of all his moveable and immoveable property, that no one was joint with him, and that he had full power to dispose of the same in any way he thought fit. The testator pr...
Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Nawab Muhammad Mushtaq HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All68; 35Ind.Cas.718a
1. This is the defendants' appeal in a suit for possession of immoveable property, which has been decreed to the plaintiffs by the Court below.2. The plaintiffs are five Muhammadan gentlemen and their case is as follows:-- That Nawab Rukn-ud-Danla Muhammad Azmat Ali Khan was the owner of a large estate lying partly in the Punjab and partly in the Muzaffarnagar District of these Provinces, including the properties claimed; that the Nawab created a waqf of the aforesaid properties under a deed dated 25th August 1908 and registered on 1st September 1908; that he appointed himself the first mutawalli and remained in possession as such up to the date of his death on 26th December 1908; that in his lifetime on 9th November 1908, he executed a document, designated therein a 'trusteenamah,' framing rules for the management of the trust property and nominating six gentlemen to succeed him as trustees on his death; that four of these are among the plaintiffs; that one of them has died and the se...
Lajja Ram Vs. Beni Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All452
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff, in effect, sought to set aside a decree which had been obtained by one Beni Prasad. Beni Prasad's suit was based on the following allegations. He said that Lajja Ram owed a debt to one Ram Singh, that a creditor of Ram Singh had attached this debt and sold it in execution of a decree obtained against Ram Singh and that he (Beni Prasad) was the auction-purchaser of the debt. At the time that Beni Prasad brought his suit Lajja Ram was 'technically' a minor. His mother had been appointed his guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. On this account the attainment of majority by Lajja Ram was postponed from the period of eighteen years (according to Hindu law), to the special period of twenty-one years prescribed by the Guardians and Wards Act. Beni Prasad accordingly sued Lajja Ram through his certificated guardian who, at the time of the institution of the suit, was the defendant No...
Beni Prasad and anr. Vs. Lajja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All324; 35Ind.Cas.63
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff in effect sought to set aside a decree which had been-obtained by Debi Prasad. Debi Prasad's suit was based on the following allegations. He said that Lajja Ram owed a debt to one Ram Singh, that a creditor of Ram Singh had attached this debt and' sold it in execution of a decree obtained against Ram Singh and that he (Debi Prasad) was the auction-purchaser of the debt. At thetime that Beni Prasad brought his suit Lajja Ram was 'technically' a minor. His mother had been appointed his guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. On this account the attainment of majority by Lajja. Ram was postponed from the period of 18 years (according to Hindu Law) to the spjeial period of 21 years prescribed by the Guardians and Wards Act. Beni Prasad accordingly sued Lajja Ram through his certificated guardian who, at the time of the institution of the suit, was the defendant No. 2, one Tikait Narain. The allegation in the plaint in the prese...
Lal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All236; 36Ind.Cas.481
Piggott, J.1. The following are the essential facts out of which this application arises. On the 16th of November 1915, a Magistrate of the first class convicted four persons on a charge framed under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Three of these accused he sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each; but on one person named Lal Singh, he passed a sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment only. The three convicts who had received the longer sentence, a sentence in itself on the face of it appealable, exercised their right of appeal to the Sessions Judge. On the 3rd of December 1915, the Sessions Judge quashed the convictions on the merits and ordered the release of the three convict appellants. Presumably information of the success of this appeal reached the convict Lai Singh and stirred him up to make an effort on his own behalf. It was not, however, until the 13th of December 1915 that he managed to file in the Court of the Sessions Judge a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›