Allahabad Court November 1917 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.
Man Singh Vs. Musammat Gaini
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All377; (1918)ILR40All77; 43Ind.Cas.62
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Local Government under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division. The suit in question was brought to set aside an alienation made by the father of the minor plaintiff of certain property which was admittedly the joint ancestral property of the minor and his father. There is a concurrent finding by the court of first instance and by the court of first appeal to the effect that the alienation in question was made for legal necessity. There was an antecedent debt binding on the father, which it was the son's pious duty to satisfy, and under these circumstances an alienation by the father, even of joint ancestral property, would be binding on the son. There was a second appeal to the court of the Commissioner of Kumaun and there the case took an entirely different turn. The learned Commissioner has not dissented from the finding that the alienation in question was made for legal necessity. He has taken up a plea, wh...
Ant Ram Vs. Mithan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All167; (1918)ILR40All135
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff, whose suit to recover from the two defendants, his own brothers, a sum amounting to Rs. 340, after having been decreed by the court of first instance, has been decreed in part only by the lower appellate court. The sum covered by this appeal is Rs. 190. On behalf of the defendants respondents a preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the cognizance of this appeal is barred by Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have to determine whether the suit brought by the plaintiff, Ant Ram, was or was not one of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. It was a simple claim for money to an amount falling short of Rs. 500, and therefore fell within the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, unless excluded by some article in the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, No. IX of 1887. There is really one article alone (Article 41) about which there can be any substantial argument. Someth...
Ant Ram Vs. Mithanlal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.560
Piggott, J.1. 1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff, whose suit to recover from the two defendants, his own brothers, a sum amounting to Rs. 340, after having been decreed by the Court of first instance, has been decreed in part only by the lower Appellate Court. The sum covered by this appeal is Rs. 190. On behalf of the defendants-respondents a peliminary objection was raised to the effect that the cognizance of this appeal is barred by Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have to determine whether the suit brought by the plaintiff Ant Ram was or was not one of a nature cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. It was a simple claim for money to an amount falling short of Rs. 500 and therefore fell within the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, unless excluded by some Article in the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX of 1887). There is really one Article alone (Article 41) about which there can ba any substantial argument. Something has been s...
Netram Vs. Bhagirath Sah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All75
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant to the District Judge of Meerut to be adjudicated an insolvent. It is not very clear from the judgement of the learned District Judge upon what grounds he rejected the application. Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act provides that where a debtor commits an act of insolvency a petition for adjudication may be presented by a creditor or by the debtor. The presentation of a petition to be declared insolvent is deemed to be an act of insolvency within the meaning of the section. Section 15 (1) mentions certain matters which will justify the court in dismissing the petition of insolvency. Section 16 (1) provides that where a petition is not dismissed for any of the matters mentioned in Section 15 the court shall make an order of adjudication. It would, therefore, appear that the court is only justified in refusing an order of adjudication in the cases prescribed by the...
Net Ram Vs. Bhagirath Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All368; 43Ind.Cas.160
1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant to the District Judge of Meerut to be adjudicated an insolvent. It is not very clear from the judgment of the learned District Judge upon what grounds he rejected the application, Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act provides that where a debtor commits an act of insolvency, a petition for adjudication may be presented by a creditor or by the debtor. The presentation of a petition to be declared insolvent is deemed to be an act of insolvency within the meaning of the section. Section 15(1) mentions certain matters which will justify the Court in dismissing the petition of insolvency. Section 16(1) provides that where a petition is not, dismissed for any of the matters mentioned in Section 15, the Court shall make an order of adjudication. It would, therefore, appear that the Court is only justified in refusing an order of adjudication in the cases prescribed by the Act. So far as we have been able to understand the...