Allahabad Court July 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.
Lakhpat Singh Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All156; 40Ind.Cas.35
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff obtained a decree for pre-emption conditional upon his paying into Court within thirty-one days a certain sum mentioned in the decree. The sum mentioned was paid into Court. It is alleged that it was not paid within time. How much foundation there is for this allegation we are not in a position to say. If there is no foundation for it, it is unfortunate that the point should be raised, as it will only lead to loss by the parties. The money, if it be found to be sufficient, is lying idle in Court. The real question which we are called upon to decide is, whether or not the deposit of the money, assuming it to be within time, was in compliance with the terms of the decree. Lakhpat Singh, not having the money himself to deposit, borrowed the money by executing a simple mortgage of the property, the subject-matter of the suit for pre-emption. The mortgage was taken in the name of a minor, the money being provided by the fath...
Ram Dei Vs. Munna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All27; 38Ind.Cas.175
1. This appeal arises out of a suit, on foot of a mortgage. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that it was not proved that the mortgage had been duly attested as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The first Court also considered that the real mortgagee (that is to say, the person who had advanced the money) was one Man Mohan Lal and not Munna Lal, the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court held that the document had been duly attested and that the other question ought not to have been gone into at all. We think that the decision of the lower Appellate Court was correct. The plaintiff proved that the mortgage was signed by Bachchu Lal, the mortgagor. It was proved that one of the attesting witnesses was dead, The other attesting witness was called and proved that the mortgage was signed by the mortgagor in. his presence and that he had signed the deed as an attesting witness. It was not expressly proved that there was another attesting ...
Shiam Bihari Lal Vs. Malhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All54(1); (1917)ILR39All107; 38Ind.Cas.178
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants obtained a licence from Government) to sell drugs, and that they thereupon entered into a contract with the plaintiff to the effect that in consideration of the plaintiff advancing some money, the defendants would give the plaintiff the profits derived to the extent of one anna out of six annas, and in the event of there being a loss, the plaintiff would suffer the loss to the extent of one anna. The court of first instance found that the contract had been entered into and gave the plaintiff a decree. The lower appellate court has reversed the decree of the court of first instance, holding that the contract was illegal having regard to the provisions of the Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. The rule which is alleged to have been violated by the alleged contract is Rule 82 which is in the following terms: 'Transfers and subleases of licences a...
Saiyed Nazir HusaIn and anr. Vs. Kanhaya Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All184; 35Ind.Cas.473
1. This is a second appeal by two plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It arises out of the following facts. The plaintiffs were judgment-debtors under a simple money-decree held by the defendants, in execution of which decree certain immoveable property belonging to the plaintiffs was attached. The property being ancestral, the execution of the decree was transferred to the Collector under Section 68, Civil Procedure Code. Its execution proceeded subject to the rules made by the Local Government, which are to be found in the United Provinces Gazette of 14th October 1911, Part I, page 1005. In the result, the property attached was sold at auction and purchased by the decree-holders on the 20th of March 1913. The sale was confirmed on the 25th of April 1913. On the 25th of June 1913 the judgment-debtors presented a petition to the Collector asking that the sale should be set aside. They alleged that the decree-holders had fraudulently kept them in ignorance...
Puttu Mal and anr. Vs. Bharat Indu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All182; 41Ind.Cas.613
1. This suit relates to certain land in Kamalganj. The plaintiffs are the zemindars of the village. Nanhe and Balli bhatiaras or inn-keepers are residents of the village, who are occupants or owners of certain shops or buildings in the sarai. The dispute does not relate to the shops or buildings but to plots of open land and land covered by a chabutara, which have been recently sold and which the other defendants now intend to build upon. The plaintiffs' case is that they are the zemindars of the village, that as such they are the owners of the land, that the defendants do not own the land in dispute, that they have no right to sell and that the transferees have no right to build upon the land without the plaintiffs' consent. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The learned Judge in appeal has decreed it. The question is whether the findings at which that Court has arrived can be disturbed by us.2. There was previously a suit about lands in this very village which is reporte...
Mathura Kuer Vs. Dharam Samaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All94; 38Ind.Cas.183
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain immoveable property consisting of grove land and some houses. It appears that the brothers named Madho Ram and Kirpa Ram executed a deed in the year 1908, which purported to convey this property to the 'Dharam Samaj.' In the year 1909, Madho Ram having died Kirpa Ram, after reciting that he had been unduly influenced in executing the previous deed, assigned the property to the defendant who was a member of his family: Both the Courts below have granted the plaintiff, that is the 'Dharam Samaj,' a decree. The origin of the 'Dharam Samaj' is that a gentleman of the name of Badri Prasad some years ago dedicated certain property for the purpose of spreading education in Sanskrit. He called the endowment the Dharam Samaj.' The 'Dharam Samaj' had no more definite existence until recently a number of persons got themselves registered under Act XXI of 1860. At the time of the deed of transfer in 1908 there was no such registered bod...
Bedyadhar Saran Das Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All101
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 11-12 as his share of some trees which he said had been cut and appropriated by defendant No. 1 on some abadi land. The nature of the suit was undoubtedly such as was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the value of the subject-matter was also within the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. As a matter of fact the suit was instituted in the court of a Munsif exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court and it was tried by a Munsif who was invested with Small Cause Court powers. Somehow or other, and it is not explained how, the case was not heard summarily but heard after the fashion of a regular suit and it was dismissed. The reason why it was dismissed was that the plaintiff had not proved that he had been in possession. An appeal was filed from the decision of the Munsif, and it was heard by the Additional Judge of Gorakhpur, who gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 7-2-8, as the price of the tamarind and ...
Ram Chandar Vs. Ganga Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All155; (1917)ILR39All103; 37Ind.Cas.89
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff who is the mortgagee under a document, dated the 17th of February, 1913. The mortgage was for a term of ten years. The plaintiffs case is that under the circumstances mentioned in the plaint the defendant got hold of the original document from the plaintiffs custody and fraudulently endorsed the following note on the document:Received Rs. 1,200, the 17th of February, 1913, up to the 19th of June, 1913. Principal, Rs. 1,144. Interest, Rs. 56-4.2. The endorsement purports to bear the signature of Ram Chandar plaintiff, by the pen of Afzal Khan, and his thumb impression. The court of first instance tried the case and held that the endorsement was a forgery, and that no payment had been made in fact, and decreed the suit. The plea under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act was raised in the court of first instance, which that court overruled for the reasons given in its judgement. The defendant appealed to the learned Judge, who, without go...
Muhammad Habib-ullah Vs. Mushtaq HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All95
Walsh and Sundar Lal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings instituted under Act No. III of 1907. One Mushtaq Husain, who is a resident of mauza Kara in the district of Allahabad, used to carry on business as a contractor and dealer in timber. He entered into a contract for the supply of a certain number of sleepers to one Habib-ullah, a merchant of Agra. He was not able to perform his part of the contract, and Habib-ullah consequently brought a suit against him on the 15th April, 1913,, for the. recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,468 for the breach of the contract. The exact date on which the suit was filed is not noted on the copy of the plaint on the record, but the copy shows that it was verified by the plaintiff on the 15th of April, 1913, which we take to be the date of the institution of the suit. Soon after the institution of the suit the plaintiff Habib ullah applied for the attachment of a deposit held by a bank which is described as Jamal Ahmad Bank at Kara. The court granted ...
Abdul Majid Vs. Bedyadhar Saran Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All159; 37Ind.Cas.92
George Knox, J. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 11-12-0 as his share of some trees which, he said, had been cut and appropriated by defendant No. 1 on some abaii land. The nature of the suit was undoubtedly such as was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the value of the subject-matter was also within the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. As a matter of fact the suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court, and it was tried by the Munsif who was invested with Small Cause Court powers. Somehow or other, and it is not explained how, the case was not heard summarily but heard after the fashion of a regular suit and it was dismissed. The reason why it'was dismissed was that the plaintiff had not proved that he had been in possession. An appeal was filed from the decision of the Munsif and it was heard by the Additional Judge of Gorakhpore, who gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 7-2-8, as the price of the tamari...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »