Allahabad Court May 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.
Sitla Bakhsh Singh and ors. Vs. Deo NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1916
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All177
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The present defendants brought a suit in the Civil Court for possession against the plaintiffs as trespassers. The latter pleaded that they held the land as tenants to the plaintiffs. The Civil Court thereupon made an order directing the defendants in that suit to institute within three months a suit in the Revenue Court for determination of the question. This order was made under the provisions of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act. This suit was thereupon instituted asking for a declaration of the nature of the tenancy under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act. An objection was taken as to his jurisdiction to hear the suit, which he at once overruled. He then dealt with the suit and made a decree. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge and cross-objections filed by the other side. The learned District Judge entertained the appeal on the ground that a question of jurisdiction had been deci...
Deo NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Sitla Baksh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1916
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.891
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The present defendants brought a suit in the Civil Court for possession against the plaintiffs as trespassers. The latter pleaded that they held the land as tenants to the plaintiffs. The Civil Court thereupon made an order directing the defendants in that suit to institute within three months a suit in the Revenue Court for determination of the question. This order was made under the provisions of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act. This suit was thereupon instituted asking for a declaration of the nature of the tenancy under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act. An objection was taken as to his jurisdiction to hear the suit, which he at once overruled. He then dealt with the suit and made a decree. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge and cross-objections filed by the other side. The learned District Judge entertained the appeal on the ground that a question of jurisdiction had been decided. He then dealt with the case on the mer...
Mohamed Ali Vs. Babu Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.411
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal in an execution case. The appellant's application in the Court below was to have the Bale of certain immoveable property, which had been held in execution of a decree against him and others, set aside under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was for the appellant to satisfy the Court that there had been some material irregularity in the publishing or in the conducting of the auction sale, and further that he had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity. With regard to the publication of the sale it was contended that two irregularities had been committed, viz., that the sale proclamation did not state the amount for the recovery of which the sale was ordered and secondly, that it did not state the approximate value of the property. In connection with this point the following facts are material. The sale had originally been fixed for the 10th of May 1915; the judgment-debtors came into Court o...
Sonai Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All160(1); 35Ind.Cas.624
Sunder Lal, J.1. In this case the only question is, at what rate should interest be allowed to the plaintiff-appellant. The bond in suit contained a covenant to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 12 per cent, by a certain date. If the money was not paid on the said date, the interest was to run at Rs. 24 per cent, from the date of the bond. A stipulation like this to have retrospective effect is penal and cannot be enforced. The Court has power to award such interest a3 it may consider reasonable. In this case the Court has awarded at Rs. 12 per cent. This was a matter entirely in the discretion of the Court below. I cannot interfere in second appeal and I dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees on the higher scale. Time for payment is extended by three months. Interest will run at Rs.12 per cent. up to the period of three months to which time for payment is extended....
Udho Singh Vs. Mulchand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All110; 36Ind.Cas.317
Sunder Lal, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order made by Mr. Pullan, District Judge of Mainpuri, holding that no appeal lay to him. The learned Judge refused to admit the appeal. The facts out of which this application arises are as follows: On 20th January 1914, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 220, being balance due to the plaintiff on account of cloth sold to the defendant. The suit being of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, it was filed in the Court of Mr. Ladli Prasad, Subordinate Judge, who was invested with the powers of the Court of Small Causes. Mr. Ladli Prasad fixed 29th May 1914 for the hearing of the case, but before the date fixed for the hearing arrived, Mr. Ladli Prasad was transferred to some other Court. He was succeeded by Mr. Ram Chander Suksena, who was not invested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes. The District Judge of Mainpuri, by an order dated 23rd May 1914, transferred the case to the Court of th...
Asharfi Lal Vs. Udit NaraIn Misir and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All502
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to realize the amount of a mortgage, dated the 29th of June, 1904. The point for decision in the present appeal arises under the following stated facts. In the year 1907 the appellants (who are defendants to the suit) purchased a 10-pie share of mauza Bakhera. It has been found by the court below that Rs. 309 went to discharge a prior mortgage of 1899. The defendants had contended that all that was due upon this previous mortgage was Rs. 309, which they paid. The court below has found that the appellants did 'in fact pay Rs. 309, but that they did not discharge the entire amount, due on foot of the mortgage of 1899. No claim, however, seems ever to have been made on foot of this mortgage of 1899, and it seems long to have been barred by limitation. We must, however, for the purpose of the present appeal assume that the court below rightly decided that the appellant had only discharged the prior mortgage in p...
Gulab and anr. Vs. Khwaja Muhammad Ismail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All205; 35Ind.Cas.598
Sunder Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. It appears that on the 24th of March 1863 three persons Baldeo, Kesri and Chattar mortgaged the land now in suit to two persons Kundan and Sita Ram for Rs. 400. The mortgage was for a term of 13 years, at the end of which the land was to be given back to the mortgagors without payment; in other words, the mortgage-money was to be satisfied from the usufruct in the course of the 13 years. On June 1st 1866 the three mortgagors sold a moiety of their rights in' the mortgaged property to two persons named Ganga Ram and Ghasi Ram, and on June 21st 1S66 they sold the remaining moiety to the mortgagees Kundan and Sita Ram. If these two sales were good and valid, then the mortgagors ceased to have any interest in the property mortgaged by them. But somehow or other the rights of Baldeo and Chattar were sold in execution of a decree on the 20th May 1874 and purchased by the first two defendants. These two defendants then brought ...
Chunnilal and ors. Vs. Habib Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All213; 35Ind.Cas.571
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit on a mortgage of the 10th December 1883. The defendants originally impleaded were the mortgagor, Shaukat Ali, and a. number of other persons alleged to be transferees of the mortgaged property, or at any rate persons in actual possession of the same. Shaukat Ali has died during the pendency of the litigation and his heirs have been brought on the record in his place; but no appearance has been entered or defence set up by, or on behalf of the original mortgagor. The suit was contested by the other defendants. They formally put the plaintiffs to proof of the execution of the mortgage-deed and of the passing of consideration. Their substantial defence on the merits was that Shaukat Ali, on thedate of themortgage, either possessed no interest at all in property purporting to be dealt with under the said deed, or at most possessed an interest in a fraction only of the said property, and this interest encumbered by some prior, charge or charg...
Jai Ram Vs. Gulzari Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All157; 35Ind.Cas.612
Sunder Lal, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit to eject the defendant under Section 58 (a) of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1901. The plaintiffs are Gulzari Mal who is lambardar and his son Lachman Chand. The defendant Jai Ram is said to be anon-occupancy-tenant of 11 bighas odd. He also appears to have purchased an area of 5 bighas 17 biswas comprising several plots in the village. The suit was resisted on various grounds. In the first place it was urged that the plaintiffs as co-sharers could not alone maintain the suit for ejectment. It was further urged that the suit for ejectment was barred by reason of a decision of an Assistant Collector, Mr. Sita Ram Kher, dated the 17th December 1907, and that it was also barred by reason of a Civil Court's decision dated the 3rd of November 1906. The last plea in defence was that the defendant himself was a co-sharer, that he was not a tenant and that the suit against him for ejectment by brother co-sharers was not maintainable. The case ...
Udit NaraIn Misir and ors. Vs. Asharfi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All81; 35Ind.Cas.732
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to realise the amount of a mortgage dated the 29th of June 1904. The point for decision in the present appeal arises under the following stated facts. In the year 1907 the appellants (whoare defendants to the suit) purchased a 10-pie share of Mauza Bakhera. It has been found by the Court below that Rs. 309 went to discharge a prior mortgage of 1899. The defendants had contended that all that was due upon this previous mortgage was Rs. 309, which they paid. The Court below has found that the appellants did in fact pay the Rs. 309, but that they did not discharge the entire amount due on foot of the mortgage of 1899. No claim, however, seems over to have been made on foot of this mortgage of 1899 and it seems long since to have been barred by limitation. We must, however, for the purpose of the present appeal assume that the Court below rightly decided that the appellant had only discharged the prior mortgage in part. The question is whether, having no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »