Allahabad Court March 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.
Ram Chander Upadhya and anr. Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All308; 39Ind.Cas.560
1. The facts connected with this appeal are as follows: There had been a decree for sale of certain property. One Ram Chander and his son were the plaintiffs. There were 15 defendants including defendants Nos. 2-10 (Mahabir Saran and others). The defendants Nos. 2 to 10 (i.e., Mahabir Saran and others) had also obtained a decree for sale of certain mortgaged property against Ram Chander, his sou and six other persons. The defendants were not common to both suits. It so happened that applications for execution of each decree were pending at the same time in the same Court. Thereupon Ram Chander and his son prayed that the amount of the decree of Mahabir Saran and others should be set off against their decree. The Court below held that this could not be done. The decree of Mahabir Saran and others is a complicated decree and we think under no possible circumstances could it have been set off. Order XXI, Rule 18, provides that 'Where applications are made to a Court for the execution of c...
Bhikhumal and ors. Vs. Matkul Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All352; 38Ind.Cas.871
Rafique, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit brought by the plaintiffs for the recovery of possession of 8 sihams out of 69 sihams by partition of an Ahata No. 1718 in Mauza Roorkee, or in the alternative for a decree for joint possession of the ahata against the defendants by the removal of the materials of a bouse. The plaintiffs alleged in their plaint that they and defendants Nos. 1 to 17 were owners of the land of the ahata and that they had allowed one Budhu to build a house in it. Budhu accordingly built a house and lived in it. He sold it to defendants Nos. 18 and 19 sometime in 1909, and in 1911 the latter acquired the proprietary rights of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the ahata in suit. Budhu could only sell the materials of the house and not the right of residence in it. The defendants Nos. 18 and 19 have, by virtue of the purchase of the interest of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the ahata, been retaining the house and keeping it up as a residential house. The plaintiffs then pra...
Muhammad Hafiz and ors. Vs. Muhammad Zakariya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All506
Walsh, J.1. I have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be. allowed. The suit is one to recover the principal due, the interest being abandoned under circumstances which I will mention in a moment, and for the sale of the property hypothecated, under a bond dated the 14th of September, 1910. The plaintiffs in April, 1914, had brought a suit against the defendant for interest for three years and seven months due from the date of the bond, namely, the 14th of September, 1910, to the 14th of April, 1914, the date of the suit. That action had been brought and determined after the expiration of the period of three years from the date of the bond, three years being the period stipulated for the repayment of the money; and the question which arises in the present suit, Raised by the defendant and decided against him by the learned Subordinate Judge, is whether, having regard to the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and of this particular bond, the plainti...
Jageshar Vs. Chuni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All298(2); 39Ind.Cas.140
1. This application arises under the following circumstances: Jageshar (the plaintiff) instituted a suit upon a promissory note against Ram Das, Chuni Lal and Ram Tahal, three brothers. The executant of the pro-note was only Ram Das. Nevertheless the plaintiff sought to make all three brothers liable. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree against all three brothers, but the decree was ex parte against Chuni Lal and Ram Tahal. Ram Das preferred an appeal to the District Judge but did not make Chuni Lal or Ram Tahal parties to the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Chuni Lal made an application to the Subordinate Judge to set aside the ex parte decree against him, on the ground that he was not served. The Subordinate Judge did not go into the merits of the application. He declined to entertain the application, upon the ground that he had no jurisdiction because an appeal had been preferred to the District Judge. He appears to have acted on the authority of the case of Mathura Prasad v. R...
Nathu Vs. Sarup Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All368; 39Ind.Cas.544
1. This appeal arises out of an application in the Court below to restore an appeal which had been decreed ex parte. The plaintiff brought a suit upon a number of bonds bearing very high rates of interest. The defendant admitted the execution of the bonds, but pleaded that the bonds were given as security in connection with other matters. This defence held good in the Court of first instance and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal and the case having been called on the defendant was absent. Thereupon the Appellate Court allowed the appeal ex parte. It appears that service of the notice of the appeal was not made personally. It was made by affixing a copy of the notice to the door of the defendant's house while he was absent. The process-server was informed of the absence of the defendant and that he would return in the course of a few days. Instead of waiting (as he ought to have done) for a few days, he affixed a copy of the notice. We think that the ...