Allahabad Court June 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.
Mansa Puri, Minor, Through Bhopal- Vs. Harbhagat Puri Alias Shankar Pu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All186; 37Ind.Cas.172
1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Court below granting leave to the plaintiff to sue as a pauper. The ground upon which the application was made is that the respondent had executed an agreement in favour of a third party giving him an interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and that the application, therefore, should not have been granted. It appears that in 1908 the applicant mortgaged his property for the purpose of instituting a suit. We are informed that a suit was filed but it was dismissed. There is no ground for revision of this order. The Court below had discretion to grant the application or not, and it is not possible to say that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in granting the application. It has been suggested that the said mortgage precluded the plaintiff from maintaining his application. Under the law it is an agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit that bars the application. The ...
Dulla, Major and anr. Vs. Shib Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.281
Walsh, J.1. In this case one Ram Lal and his mother executed a promissory note. In 1911 a simple money decree was obtained by the creditor against the mother and against the estate of Ram Lal then deceased or rather against his two brothers Dulla and Dhani Ram, the present plaintiffs, who were sued as representatives of the estate of Ram Lal. After various assignments which are not necessary to specify, the present defendant purchased the property in question under the decree in execution proceedings. It is not disputed that, at any rate in this suit, at the time of the sale which took place in execution proceedings in 1903, the property which the present defendant bought was the property of the present plaintiffs, the two minor brothers of Ram Lal, and was not part of the estate of Ram Lal deceased, that is to say, it was property which the decree-holders could not attach, could not sell, and in respect of which the purchaser obtained no title. In the year 1914 the two plaintiffs, one...
Chandrika Bakhsh Singh Vs. Indar Bikram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All440
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 25th of May, 1911, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a decree, dated the 3rd of January, 1910, of the Subordinate Judge of Bara Banki and dismissed the suit with costs.2. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal may be briefly stated. The dispute relates to the appellant's title to an Oudh taluqa, known as Mahgawan, which was an impartible estate. The parties are Hindus, subject to the law of the Mitakshara. On the 13th of December, 1904, Babuain Maharaj Rani, who held Mahgawan for a Hindu widow's interest, made, by a deed of gift, an absolute transfer of Mahgawan to the appellant, and he obtained possession. To that transfer Mahabir Singh and his younger brother, Bechu Singh, were consenting parties. At the time of the transfer Mahabir Singh was the heir to Mahgawan expectant on the death of Babuain Maharaj Rani, and the appellant is his only son. Upon the transfer to him the appellan...
Rahas Bihari Lal Minor Through L. Sital Pershad Vs. the Municipal Boar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All361; 35Ind.Cas.222
Rafique, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:--The plaintiff, who is a minor, made an application to the Municipal Board of Cawnpore on the 11th November 1911, stating that he was the owner of a house in Mohalla Butcher khana, which he wanted to pull down and rebuild according to the old plan and on the old foundations and asked for permission to do so. He submitted a plan of the house also with his application. In the month of January 1912 the application of the plaintiff was granted and according to the finding of the Court below the permit pass together with the approved plan was made over to the father of the plaintiff in February 1912. The plaintiff, however, says that he received no permit pass and in June 1912 he sent a reminder to the Municipal Board but received no reply. He waited for a month and receiving no acknowledgment of his reminder also, he started building the house and completed it in a few months. The Municipal Board issued a notice o...
Mohammad Yusuf and anr. Vs. Raja Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All90; 35Ind.Cas.867
Rafique, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Saharanpur for the recovery of arrears of rent. The claim was partially decreed on the 14th February 1914. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge on the 17th March 1914. During the pendency of the appeal in the District Judge's Court the plaintiffs filed an application for review of judgment on the 3rd April 1914 to the first Court. The application was entertained and the case was re-tried and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on the 29th une 1914. On the 7th July 1914 the plaintiffs withdrew their appeal. The defendants preferred an appeal from the decree of the 29th June 1914, on the ground among others that the first Court baa no right to entertain the application for review. The learned Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the decree of the 29th June 1914. The plaintiffs in their second appeal to this Court co...
Chedi Lal Vs. Saadat-un-nissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All470; (1917)ILR39All36; 36Ind.Cas.907
Walsh and Sundar Lal, JJ.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. On the 18th of January, 1901, one Zahur Ahmad mortgaged for the sum of Rs. 500 and interest thereon to Inayat Ahmad a 2 anna 8 pie share in Bahmanpur and an 8 anna share in Khasmau. Mauza Bahmanpur appears to have been previously mortgaged to another person on the 12th of August, 1900, and the mortgagor, on the 21st of September, 1901, sold the said village to satisfy the said prior mortgage. After the said sale, on the 5th of October, 1912, Inayat Ahmad the mortgagee sold his interest in the mortgage in suit to Chedi Lal. On the 9th of August, 1913, Chedi Lal sued the heira of Zahur Ahmad, who had died in the meanwhile, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,100 on. the allegation that by reason of the sale of Bahmanpur on the 21st of September, 1907, to satisfy the previous mortgage of the 12th of August, 1900, the plaintiff had lost a part of the property mortgaged. He alleged that, when Zahur Ahmad had ma...
Bank of Multan, Limited Vs. Kamta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All465; (1917)ILR39All33
Piggott and Lindsay, JJ.1. The only question for disposal in this appeal is one of limitation. The suit was one brought by the Bank of Multan, now in liquidation, against one Kamta Prasad to recover a sum of Rs. 664 alleged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff Bank. In support of this claim the Bank exhibited what purported to be a running account which opened on the 15th of October, 1900, and the last item of which is dated the 25th of November, 1912. Both the courts below have held that the suit is time-barrel The plaintiff Bank relied upon the provisions of Article 85, schedule I, of the Indian Limitation Act. That article relates to a suit brought for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties. The courts below have found that the account did not fall within this description, and after hearing a lengthy argument by the learned Counsel for the appellant we have come to the conclusion that the decision of ...
The Bank of Multan Ltd. Vs. Kamta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.199
1. The only question for disposal in this appeal is one of limitation. The suit was one brought by the Bank of Multan now in liquidation against one Kamta Prasad to recover a sum of Rs. 684 alleged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff Bank. In support of this claim the Bank exhibited what purported to be a running account which opened on the 15th of October 1909, and the last item of which is dated 25th November 1912. Both the Courts below have held that the suit is time-barred. The plaintiff Bank relied upon the provisions of Article 85, Schedule I, of the Indian Limitation Act. That Article relates to a suit brought for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties. The Courts below have found that the account did not fall within this description, and after hearing a lengthy argument by the learned Counsel for the appellant we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the Courts below is correct. The a...
Pandit Kishori Lal Vs. Seth Badri Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All303; 40Ind.Cas.307
1. This is an application by a judgment-debtor asking for the amendment of the decree passed against him on the 30th of March 1912 by the learned Subordinate Judge of Agra, which was affirmed by this Court on the 16th of December 1914. The suit in which the decree was passed was brought by Seth Badri Das as a mutwalli for the recovery of possession of a temple and the property appertaining to it. The Court of first instance decreed the claim with costs. No mention was made in the judgment of the first Court as to interest on costs, but in framing the decree interest on costs was inserted. The decree of the first Court was signed by the Vakils of the parties to the suit. The present applicant preferred an appeal to this Court and no objection was taken in the memorandum of appeal to the award of interest on costs in the decree. A Bench of this Court affirmed the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. The applicant makes this application for the amendment of the decree, on the ground t...
George Banerji Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.877
Walsh, J.1. In this case the Sessions Judge of Allahabad has referred to this Court an order of the first class Magistrate which came before him by way of revision. As the first class Magistrate says, this is really a test case to decide how certain vehicles should be taxed. The complaint was made by the Municipal Board against Mr. G. Banerji of Canning Road for using a bicycle with a motor-wheel attachment without a license. The question is one of taxation and, as the Sessions Judge rightly says in his order of reference, enactments which render the public liable to pay taxes or charges of this nature must be construed strictly; or in other words, unless the language under which they are sought to be charged is perfectly clear, the charging authorities are not entitled to assess a charge inasmuch as the public have a right to know what exactly are the charges imposed upon them. Now in this case there are three classes of vehicles which are material (1) a motor car, (2) a motor bicycle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »