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.
Muhammad Habibullah Vs. Mushtaq HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All32; 37Ind.Cas.684
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings instituted under Act III of 1907. One Mushtaq Ahmad, 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 certain number of sleepers to one Habibullah, a merchant of Agra. He was not able to perform his part of the contract and Habibullah consequently brought a suit against him on the 15th of 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 Habibullah applied for the attachment of a deposit held by a Bank, which is described as Jamal Ahmad Bank at Kara. The Court granted the application on the 16th of April...
Asharfi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All91; 38Ind.Cas.419
George Knox, J.1. This Court is asked to exercise its revisional jurisdiction with reference to an order passed by Mr. Anthony, an Assistant Collector of the first class of Bareilly. The order was passed on the 20th of December, 1915. Under that order Mr. Anthony directed that one Asharfi Lal be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of certain statements. Nowhere in the Order Is it stated under which section of what Act Mr. Anthony was proceeding; but the whole tenour of the proceedings and of the judgement and order shows it to be an order passed under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statements on account of which this -order was passed against Asharfi Lal were statements made on the 17th of September, 1915. On that date Mr. Anthony had before him proceedings for sale of immovable property. The sale was in pursuance of a decree of a Civil Court. As the sale was a sale of immovable property, it had been transmitted from the Civi...
Bhagwan Das Vs. Nannu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All114
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed the sum of Rs. 705-2-6. The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased certain property at an auction sale in which the defendants first party were decree-holders and defendant second party judgement-debtor. He alleged that after he had purchased this property a suit was brought by a third party against the judgement-debtor for possession, which was successful. It appears that the plaintiff in the present suit applied to be brought on to the record of that suit. He was not brought on to the record, and the suit was finally decided against the judgement-debtor after purchase by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to get back the purchase money and interest from the decree holders and the judgement-debtor. The court below has decreed the claim against the decree-holders only. The latter have appealed. The plaintiff has never had the sal...
Nannu Lal and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All63; 37Ind.Cas.9
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed the sum of Rs. 705-2-6. The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased certain property at an auction-sale in which the defendants- first party were decree-holders, and defendants second party, judgment-debtors. He alleged that after he had purchased this property a suit was brought by a third party against the judgment-debtor for possession, which was successful. It appears that the plaintiff in the present suit applied to be 'brought on to the record of that suit. He was not brought on to the record and the suit was finally decided against the judgment-debtor after purchase by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to get back the purchase-money and interest from the decree-holders and the judgment-debtor. The Court below has decreed the claim against the decree-holders only. The latter have appealed.2. The plaintiff has never had the sale set aside nor taken steps to do so. Or...
Ganga Prasad Vs. Hira Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All114; (1917)ILR39All86; 37Ind.Cas.656
Walsh and Sundar Lal, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this case sues to recover a sum of Rs. 609, due on a hundi dated the 7th of July, 1909, drawn by Lal Das Kedar Nath on Ram Gopal Bhagwan Das of Delhi, payable sixty-one days after date. The payee is a firm consisting of the defendants of the first party. The hundi was endorsed by the payee to the plaintiffs on the 11th of May, 1914. The plaintiffs endorsed it to Khub Chand Salig Ram, who endorsed it to Kanhaya Lal Brij Lal. The hundi was never presented to the drawers for acceptance, but some time on the 10th of July, 1914, it was presented by the holder for payment. In the meantime the firm of the drawers failed somewhere about the 8th to the 10th of July, 1914. The drawees refused to pay the amount. The last holder therefore demanded repayment from his endorser and obtained it. In the same way the plaintiffs, in their turn, had to pay to their endorsee, and in their turn they now claim payment from the defendants of the first set (their en...
Ali Ahmad and ors. Vs. Kalka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All165(1); 37Ind.Cas.95
1. We think that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the mortgage upon payment of Rs. 200. It is contended in support of the decision of the Court below that if there was a deficiency of profits, that is to say, when the profits did not reach Rs. 48 the mortgagee was entitled to add this amount to the principal, and that the property could not be redeemed otherwise. The deed itself expressly says that the property can be redeemed upon payment of Rs. 200. True it is that a personal liability was undertaken to pay year by year the deficiency in the profits. The decision of the Privy Council in Jawahir Singh v. Someshwar Dat 28 A. 225 : 10 C.W.N. 266 : 1 M.L.T. 66 : 3 C. L.J. 354 : 33 I.A. 42. relied upon by the respondent is distinguishable, as the document in that case was quite different. There it was expressly stipulated not only that the deficiency should be made good by the mortgagor, but that if it was not paid, it should be paid at the time of redemption. We allow the appeal, set...
Gauri Shankar Vs. Sushil Chandar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All81
Walsh and Sundar Lal, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for an account of commission due to him as broker for the defendant. The original contract, which was not substantially in dispute, appears by the pleadings to have been made about the year 1901. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that in respect of goods actually delivered by the defendant to his customers the plaintiff should get six annas, per cent, on cotton goods and twelve annas per cent, on woollen goods, whether the order for the goods was secured by the defendant through the plaintiff or otherwise. In the course of business commission was paid as from the date of the delivery of the goods. This fact is recorded in the judgment of both the lower courts.2. In the year 1905, there was a general settlement up to the 18th of November, 1905. About the month of July, 1905, with the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff introduced a new man named Jiwan Ram or, as, he is sometimes' called, Jiwan Singh, who...
Lala Ram and ors. Vs. Jamna Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All74
Piggott and Lindsay, JJ.1. The facts of this case so far as it is necessary to set them out for the purpose of determining the two questions which are before us in appeal may be stated briefly as follows:On the 29th of November, 1899, a decree was obtained by Daya Ram and others on the basis of a mortgage executed in their favour on the 23rd of May, 1891. Daya Ram and others are now represented by the defendants in the present suit. The decree so obtained was a decree for sale of certain mortgaged property which was described as being a twenty biswa share in mauza Satta. This mauza, it is admitted, was made up of two mahals, mahal Bhagwati Prasad and mahal Madan Gopal. After this decree had been passed, that is to say, on the 9th of September, 1901, the decree-holders purchased a half share in mahal Bhagwati Prasad in satisfaction of half of the decretal debt. At this stage these decree-holders borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,000 from the plaintiff in the present suit, one Pandit Lala Ram. In ...
Sadik HusaIn Khan Vs. Hashim Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All627
Atkinson, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, Lucknow, both dated the 13th of November, 1911, which reversed in part and modified in part two decrees, each dated the 25th of October, 1909, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow.2. The first of the two suits in which those last-mentioned decrees were made, namely, that numbered 76 of 1907, the appeal in which is No. 121 of 1913, was instituted by Mirza Sadik Husain Khan, the appellant in both the present appeals, to enforce a mortgage, dated the 26th of June, 1900, executed in his favour by the third respondent in the first appeal, namely, Nawab Ummat-ul-Fatima, in her own right, and also as guardian of her two sons, then minors, the first and second respondents in the first appeal, to secure the repayment of 20,000 rupees admittedly advanced by the mortgagee to this lady, with interest at 1 per cent, per mensem.3. The second of these suits, namely, that numbe...
Muasmmat Jamnadei Vs. Pandit Lala Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All309; 37Ind.Cas.4
1. The facts of this case, so far as it is necessary to set them, out for the purpose of determining the two questions which are before us in appeal, may be stated briefly as follows2. On 29th November 1899 a decree was obtained by Daya Ram and others on the basis of a mortgage executed in their favour on the 23rd of May 1891. Daya Ram and others are now represented by the defendants in the present suit. The decree so obtained was a decree for sale of certain mortgaged property which was described as being a 20-biswa share in Mouza Satta. This mouza, it is admitted, was made up of 2 mahals, Mahal Bhagwati Prasad and Mahal Madangopal. After this decree had been passed, that is to say, on the 9th of September 1901, the decree--holders purchased a share in Mahal Bhagwati Prasad in satisfaction of half of the decretal debt. At this stage these decree-holders borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,000 from the plaintiff in the present suit, one Pandit Lala Ram. In order to secure the money so borrowed a m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »