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.
Padam Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Rup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All458; 36Ind.Cas.217
Walsh, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed. I do not feel sufficiently strongly about the matter to differ from my brother Mr. Justice Sunder Lal, who thinks that, the defence having been raised by the sons of the original mortgagor, there are under the special circumstances of this case sufficient grounds for upholding the decision of the Court below. Probably rough justice has been done, and I am not prepared to dissent. But speaking for myself, 1 should like to say that in my view neither of the judgments of the Courts below can be supported. Ro far from either of them containing any ground justifying the conclusion at which they arrived, each of them contains affirmative grounds which are in my view clearly contrary to law and which indicate--I am sorry to say--to, tendency, not infrequently found in inferior Courts, to lose their heads when they are called upon to decide a question of contract between a person who has advanced money at a high rate of interest and the person who was...
Chaudhri Niader Singh Vs. Musammat Ganga Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All335; 35Ind.Cas.86
Walsh, J.1. This case has been thoroughly argued. But really the point is hardly open to discussion. The plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant certain money which has been received by the defendant, in the form of rent paid to the defendant through the Court under a decree entitling the defendant to receive such rent as against tenants, but id respect of property of which the plaintiff was entitled to possession, and also to receipt of rents. It is suggested that for such an action the Limitation Act provides one year's limitation by reason of the terms of Article 29, that is to say, it is an action for compensation for wrongful seizure of moveable property under legal process, It is nothing of the kind. The moment one appreciates you apply the test of the distinction between tort and contract, all difficulty disappears. Assuming for a moment that such money can be moveable property, it is obvious that it has never been in the possession of the plaintiff at all. Compensation for...
Ram Parson Upadhia and ors. Vs. Sheikh Kalab HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All19; 36Ind.Cas.100
Rafique, J.1. The facts of this appeal briefly stated are as follows:One Shaikh Fazal Husain died in 1894 possessed of some landed property in the district of Azamgarh leaving him surviving three sons and three daughters, viz., Kalab Husain, Mohammad Shan and Mohammad Taqi and Musammat Kulsum, Musammat Zainab and Musammat Zaitun. After his death mutation of names was effected in the revenue registers in favour of his three sons only in respect of the property left by him. They sold a part of their father's property to Raghunandanand Munna, defendants Nos. 4 and 7, on the 19th March 1903 by a registered sale-deed. On the 14th May 1909, the same vendors sold the rest of the property of Fazal Husain to Gaya Prasad Lai and Bishnath Prasad Lai, defendants Nos. 5 and 6 by a registered sale-deed. On the 17th March 1912 two of the daughters of Fazal Husain, viz., Musammat Zainab, and Musammat Zaitun executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of their proportionate shares in th...
Sheo Shankar and ors. Vs. Chunni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All290; (1916)ILR38All669
Sundar Lal, J.1. These appeals arise out of orders passed by the court below under Order XXI, Rule 18, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that three suits were filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur to which the parties or most of them were impleaded either as plaintiffs or defendants. The first of these was filed by seven plaintiffs, viz., (1) Jamuna Prasad (2) Chunni Lal, (3) Lachmi Narain, (4) Bhagwan Das, (5) Persotam Das (6) Jairam Das and (7) Sheo Prasad against nine defendants viz.--(1) Changur Khan (2) Shoo Shankar (3) Haridas (4) Rai Rajnath (5) Bhola Nath, (6) Raghunath Das, (7) Muluk Das, (8) Rameshwar Das and (9) Jageshar Das.2. The suit was for sale on a mortgage which the defendants pleaded was paid off and discharged.The learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur dismissed the suit with costs, amounting to Rs. 365, awarded to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and Nos. 6 to 9. The plaintiff appealed against the said decree to this Court, and on the 17th of Septembe...
Sheo Shanker Kaulapuri and ors. Vs. Chunni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.948
Sunder Lal, J.1. These appeals arise out of orders passed by the Court below under Order XXI, Rule 18, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the three suits were filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, to which the parties or most of them were impleaded either as plaintiffs or defendants. The first of these was filed by seven plaintiffs, viz., (1) Jumna Pershad, (2) Chunni Lal, (3) Lachmi Narain, (4) Bhagwan Das, (5) Persotam Das, (6) Jairam Das and (7)Sheo Pershad against nine defendants, viz., (1) Changur Khan, (2) Sheo Shankar, (3) Haridas, (4) Baijnath, (5) Bhola Nath, (6) Raghunath Das, (7) Maluk Das., (8) Rameshar Das, (9) Jageshar Das.2. The suit was for sale on foot of a mortgage which the defendants pleaded was paid off and discharged.3. The learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur dismissed the suit, with costs amounting to Rs. 365 awarded to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and Nos. 6 to 9. The plaintiffs appealed against the said decree to this Court and on 17th...
Taik Ram and ors. Vs. Khiali Ram and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All540
Piggott and Lindsay, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Agra in the exercise of his appellate powers. He has directed that a suit which had been pending in the court of the Munsif of Agra, and in which an appeal had bean preferred to his court, should be sent back to the court of first instance for determination of the remaining issues. The suit which was before the Munsif was a suit for redemption brought by Taik Ram and others, who alleged themselves to be the descendants of one Sukhjit. In the third paragraph of the plaint the plaintiffs gave particulars of the mortgage under which they claimed to have a right of redemption. It is stated in that paragraph of the plaint that the mortgage had been made in the Sambat year 1913; that the name of the mortgagor was Sukhjit; that the mortgage had been executed in favour of Muhammad Husain Khan; that the total amount of the mortgage-debt was Rs. 200, and that the mortgage was with possessi...
Jagannath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All166; 35Ind.Cas.526
Walsh, J.1. In this case the applicant has erected a pump and a chabutra connected therewith in what must be taken to be for the purposes of this case clearly established as a public way and street within the meaning of the Municipalities Act. He has erected it outside the house of one Ghasi Ram and, it is suggested, has erected it as a sort of counterblast to the door which that person had obtained permission to open into the street from the Municipal authority.2. Now it is quite clear that if this is a street, neither the applicant nor any other private individual can erect a pump upon it for his own or even for public purposes without permission of the Municipal authority and in the order I am compelled to make, having regard to the terms of the Statute under which this proceeding has unfortunately been brought, I desire to make it quite clear that nothing in this case must be taken to qualify or discourage the exercise by the Municipal authority of their undoubted right to prevent ...
Karan Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All272; 36Ind.Cas.580
Sunder Lal, J.1. This is an appeal by two persons, Karan Singh and Bhullan. The first of these has been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; the second, namely Bhullan, has been convicted under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo a similar term of imprisonment.2. The facts of the case appear to be as follows: Musammat Saliman is a girl of dhobi caste aged about twelve years. She was married to one Sukka, in whose house he was living. She is a Musalman dhobi. She appears to have been dissatisfied with her mother-in-law and intended to leave her husband's house in village Jarelia for that of her maternal uncle which was in village Jufri about four kos from her husband's village. She left her husband's house and was proceeding alone in the direction of the village Jufri. On the way she met with the accused Karan Singh and Seria. The latter enquired of her as to whither she was going a...
Khiali Ram Vs. Taik Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All201; 36Ind.Cas.452
1. This is a defendant's appeal against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Agra in the exercise of his appellate powers. He has directed that a suit which had been pending in the court of the Munsif of Agra, and in which an appeal had been preferred to his Court, should be sent back to the Court of first instance for determination of the remaining issues. The suit which was before the Munsif was a suit for redemption brought by Tek Ram and others, who alleged themselves to be the descendants of one Sukhjit. In the third paragraph of the plaint the plaintiffs gave particulars of the mortgage under which they claimed to have a right of redemption. It is stated in that paragraph of the plaint that the mortgage had been made in the Same year 1913, that the name of the mortgagor was Sukhjit, that the mortgage had been executed in favour of Muhammad Husain Khan, that the total amount of the mortgage debt was Rs. 200 and that the mortgage was with possession, the agreement being that...