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.
Gajraj Mati TiwarIn Vs. Swami Nath Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All281; (1917)ILR39All13
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d), of the Code of, Civil Procedure, from an order rejecting an application made under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code to set aside a decree passed ex parte.2. The circumstances under which the appeal has arisen may be briefly recapitulated, before proceeding to deal with the point arising in the appeal. On the 6th of October, 1899, Nand Lal, Rai Misra and others instituted a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur for the sale of property to realize the sum of Rs. 39,468 on foot of a mortgage, dated the 20th of June, 1891, alleged to have been executed by defendants of the first set named Krishan Nath Tiwari, Govind Nath Tiwari and Balbhadar Nath Tiwari, and also by the defendant of the second set named Musammat Gajraj Mati Tiwarin, who is the mother of the defendants of the first set. From the recitals in the deed of mortgage and from the judgment in appeal of this Court it appears that the property mortgage...
Bhagwan Dayal and anr. Vs. Param Sukh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All8
Sundar Lal, J.1. In 1911 Param Sukh Das instituted a suit against Parbhu Lal and Bhagwan Dayal, minors, and their uncle Raghubar Sahai on a mortgage dated the 17th of September, 1904, for sale of property. Ragaubar Sahai, the uncle, was named by him as a fit and proper person to be appointed as guardian of his minor nephews. Raghubar Sahai refused to act as guardian and in doing so he informed the court that the minors were living with their mother, and not with him. The court thereupon appointed the amin of the court as the guardian ad litem of the said minors and made an ex parte decree for sale on the 30th of August, 1911. An application was made on behalf of the plaintiff for setting aside the ex parte decree on the 8th of June, 1912. The court, however, rejected the application. The plaintiff then brought a suit to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that 'the appointment of the plaintiff's guardian as made was improper and contrary to law and the plaintiffs had no knowled...
Bhagwan Dayal and anr. Vs. Param Sukh Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.366
Sunder Lal, J.1. 1911 Param Sukh Dass instituted a suit against Parbhu Lal and Bhagwan Das minors and their uncle Raghubar Sahai on foot of a mortgage, dated 17th September 1904, for sale of property. Raghubar Sahai, the uncle, was namgd by him as a fit and proper person to be appointed as guardian of his minor nephews. Raghubar Sahai refused to act as guardian and in doing so he informed the Court that the minors were living with their mother, and not (with him. The Court thereupon appointed the Amin of the Court as the guardian ad litem of the said minors and made an ex parte decree for sale on 30th August 1911. An application was made on behalf of the plaintiffs for setting aside the ex parte decree on 8th June 1912. The Court, however, rejected the application. The plaintiffs then brought a suit to set aside the ex parte decree, on the ground that 'the appointment of the plaintiffs' guardian as made was improper and contrary to law and the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the suit af...
Musammat Gajraj Mati TewarIn Vs. Shami Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.307
Sunder Lal, J.1. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d), of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order rejecting an application made under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code to sat aside a decree passed ex parte.2. The circumstances under which the appeal has arisen may be briefly recapitulated, before proceeding to deal with the point arising in the appeal. On 6fch October 1899, Nand Lal Rai Misra and others instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur for the sale of property to realize the sum of Rs. 39,468 on foot of a mortgage, dated 20th June 1891, alleged to have been executed by defendants of the first set named Krishen Nath Tewari, Gobind Nath Tewari and Balbadhar Nath Tewari, and also by the defendant of the second set named Musammat Gajraj Mati Tewarin who is the mother of the defendants of the first set. From the recitals in the deed of mortgage and from the judgment in appeal of this Court, it appears that the property mortgaged stood in the nam...
Umrai Lal Vs. Musammat RukmIn Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All44; 35Ind.Cas.647
1. The sole question for decision in these two appeals is whether a mortgage executed by the respondent Musammai Rukmin Kuar in favour of the appellant Uumrai Lal on the 15th September 1908 is entitled to priority over two mortgages executed by the same mortgagor in favour of Krishen Sarup and Munnu respectively. Krishen Sarup's mortgage was executed on the 7th November Id JO, that in favour of Munnu on the 10th July 1907.2. This question of priority has arisen in two suits, one filed by Krishen Sarup and the other by Umrai Lal. The Court below has held in both suits that Umrai Lal's rights as mortgagee must be postponed to those of the two mortgagees who hold the earlier mortgages, and hence these two appeals.3. A brief statement of the fact, leading up to the present litigation is necessary in order to show the material points on which the parties are at issue.4. Musammat Rukmin Kuar is the widow of a man named Khushbakbt Rai, who owned a 20-biswas share in Mauza Rampura.5. At the ti...
Sri Deo and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All237; 36Ind.Cas.495
Walsh, J.1.This case has been very properly referred to the High Court by the Sessions Judge of Budaun under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter came before him by way of an application for revision under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure off an order of a first class Magistrate.2. There was a dispute about the possession of a house between two persons, Sahib Lal and Babu lal of the one part and two other persons Sri Deo and Kishen Lai of the other part. The Magistrate instituted proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, He decided in favour of the first party and declared them entitled to possession under Section 145., He then found that there was a fear of disturbance on behalf of the second party, and ordered each of item to execute a bond of Rs, 200 each and to find a further surety of Rs. 200 each to keep the peace for one year and in default to undergo simple imprisonment.3. There is nothing in Section 145 or in any section...
Chet Ram and anr. Vs. Khawani Singh and Uda Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All1
Piggott and Lindsay, JJ.1. This is the appeal of Khawani Singh, who was a defendant in a suit brought by Chet Ram and others for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a certain document, dated the 7th of February, 1914, and registered on the 10th of February, 1914, and which was executed by Musammat Uda Kunwar in favour of Khawani Singh, is null and void and ineffectual as against them after the death of Musammat Uda Kunwar. It appears from a pedigree which is to be found in the first paragraph of the plaint that one Mansa Ram had four sons, Badam Singh, Lalji, Bakhti and Khushali, Musammat Uda Kunwar, the lady who executed the document which forms the subject-matter of this suit, is the widow of Lalji. Khawani Singh, who is the appellant in the present case, is the son of Badam Singh, and, therefore, nephew of Uda Kunwar's deceased husband. The plaintiffs in the case are the descendants of Bakhti and Khushali, the other two sons of Mansa Ram. The case set out in the plaint was t...
Qazi Abdur Razzaq Vs. Seth Partab Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All125(2); 35Ind.Cas.638
Rafique, J.1. The facts of this appeal are as follows:--One Imdad Husain mortgaged with possession V bighas and 6 biswas by a registered-deed on the 5th June 1869 to Johri Mal and Basiram. Imdad Husain died, leaving him surviving a son Nur Muhammad and a daughter Mnsammat Rahmat-un-nissa. Nur Muhammad died in 1885 without issue, leaving him surviving a widow Musammat Shamsi. Musammat Rahmat-un-nissa died subsequently, leaving her surviving two sons, viz., Abdur Raz/.aq and Abdul llaq. Musammat Shamsi is also dead. Her two brothers who were her heirs sold her share in the mortgaged property to Partap Singh, son of Johri Mai. On the 25th September 1913 Abdur R.azzaq, one of the sons of Musammat Rahmat-un-nissa, instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for the redemption of the mortgage of the 5th of June 1869 on the payment of Its. 40, or any other sum that the Court may laid due. The claim was brought against Partab Singh and the legal representatives of Basiram, the oth...
Emperor Vs. Kashi Shukul and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR380All695
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This is an application in revision from the order of the Munsif of Gorakhpur, made under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the prosecution of the applicants on charges under Sections 193, 471 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that Kashi Shukul, one of the applicants, brought a civil suit against Rameshar Misir for the recovery of Rs. 522, principal and interest, on the basis of a chitthi or letter, dated the 16th of March, 1911. Rameshar Misir denied the execution of the chitthi and the receipt of consideration. The learned Munsif who tried the civil suit held that the claim was a false one and that the chitthi was not genuine, and the claim was accordingly dismissed on the 16th of February, 1914. Several months after, an application was made by Rameshar Misir for sanction to prosecute the present applicants on charges of perjury and forgery. The application, it is said, was rejected on the 3rd of May, 1915. A notice, however, was iss...
Jai Ram Vs. Purna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All170(2); 35Ind.Cas.625
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision from the order of the Munsif of Sambhal exercising the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court Judge. It appears that the applicant had brought a suit for the recovery of the rent of a house in the Court of the Munsif and had obtained an ex parte decree on the 22nd November 1915. On the 1st December 1915, the opposite party made an application to the learned Munsif asking for the setting aside of the ex parte decree. The decretal amount or security for it was not filed with the application as required by Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. In fact the decretal amount was not deposited till some time in January, long after the application for setting aside the ex parte decree had been made. The plaintiff-applicant objected on the date of hearing, on the ground that the application of the defendant could not be entertained as the decretal amount or the security for it had not been given on the date of the making of the application. The l...