Allahabad Court April 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.
Tub Collector of Muttra Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All1; 42Ind.Cas.952
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Baldeo Singh and others- against the Collector of Muttra as Manager of Court of Wards of the estate of Kunwar Muhammad Etmad All Khan. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the mortgagors, of some property in dispute and that the defendant is the mortgagee; that the mortgage was effected on the 11th of November 1870; that the plaintiffs are the heirs of Musammat Radha, the original mortgagor, and the defendant is the representative of the original mortgagee; that the defendant is in possession of the property; that the plaintiffs deposited the mortgage money in the Court of the Munsif of Hathras for payment to the defendant under Section 83, Act IV of 1882, but the defendant refused to receive the money; that the plaintiffs consequently brought a suit, but owing to some technical defect that suit was struck off; that the plaintiffs again sent a formal notice to the defendant, but the defendant paid no heed to it. The re...
Ramji Lal Vs. Karan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All119(1); 40Ind.Cas.424
1. This appeal arises out of a Suit which was originally instituted upon foot of a mortgage. The suit resulted in a compromise decree, which provided that the defendants should pay Rs. 600 by certain instalments therein mentioned and that in default of any one of the instalments the property should be sold for the full amount of the claim and costs. It is alleged (and we may assume for the purposes of this appeal) that the judgment-debtors paid several of the instalments. According to the decree-bolder default was first of all made oil the 2nd of February 1915. Such default having been made, the present application was preferred for a final decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 5. The Court below has dismissed the application as being barred by time. The Court relying on a decision of this Court [affirmed by the decision reported as Chhattar Singh v. Amir Singh 32 Ind. Cas. 590 : 14 A.L.J. 132 : 38 A. 204 has dismissed the application as barred by time. The case referred to was a case of a si...
Ajudhia Prasad Vs. Badar-ul-husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All489
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Ajudhia Prasad, who was one of the twenty-one defendants impleaded in a certain suit in which the plaintiff claimed a sum of money by way of damages. A number of defendants, including Ajudhia Prasad, joined with the plaintiff in petitioning the court to refer the entire matter in dispute to the decision of a certain arbitrator. On receiving this application the court seems to have examined the array of parties. It found that there were two contesting defendants who had not joined in the application; but in respect of these the plaintiff abandoned his claim, so that they undoubtedly ceased to be parties interested in the suit. There were three other defendants, Nos. 5, 18 and 19, who also had not joined in the agreement to refer to arbitration. With reference to these three defendants the court made a note to the effect that they had never entered any appearance in the suit and that an order had already been passed that the trial o...
Ajodhya Prasad Vs. Badarul Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All183; 41Ind.Cas.357
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Ajudhya Prasad, who was one of the twenty one defendants impleaded in a certain suit in which the plaintiff claimed a sum of money by way of damages. A number of defendants, including Ajudhya Prasad, joined with the plaintiff in petitioning the Court to refer the entire matter in dispute to the decision of a certain arbitrator. On receiving this application the Court seems to have examined the array of parties. It found that there were two contesting defendants who had not joined in the application; but in respect of these the plaintiff abandoned his claim, so that they undoubtedly ceased to be parties interested in the suit. There were three other defendants Nos. 5, 18 and 19, who also had not joined in the agreement to refer to arbitration, With reference to these three defendants the Court made a note to the effect that they had never entered any appearance in the suit and that order had already been passed that the trial of th...
Emperor Vs. Hashim Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All397(2); (1917)ILR39All482
Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal which the Local Government have felt it their duty in the public interest to file against the order of a Special Magistrate sitting at Lahtpur, who has acquitted one Mulla Hashun Ali on a prosecution alleged against him an offence under Section 185 of the Municipalities Act (Local Act No. II of 1916). The allegation against Hashim Ali was that he had erected a tin-roofed shed in front of a certain shop, of which he was the tenant, within the limits of the municipality of Lalitpur, and that ho had done this without obtaining the Action of the board. The case was defended upon various grounds in the court below. It was suggested that a matter of fact sanction had been obtained by one Chaube Chatarbhuj the owner of the house. We have found it necessary to look into the evidence on this point. We think it is clear that on he 30th of July, 1915, the Municipal Board of Lahtpur passed a resolution which had the effect of conveying to...
Madan Gopal and anr. Vs. Sati Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All326; (1917)ILR39All485; 40Ind.Cas.451
Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs for setting aside a sale-deed executed by their father, defendant No. 2, on the 14th of May, 1913, in favour of the first defendant and for possession of the property comprised in the sale. The ground upon which they brought the suit was that the sale was not for an antecedent debt or for family necessity. They also alleged that the defendant No. 2, the father of the plaintiffs, had been duped by the guardian of the first defendant and had been induced to execute the sale-deed without receiving any part of the consideration for the salts. The court of first instance dismissed the claim on the ground that it had not been proved that the sale had been made for immoral or illegal purposes. This judgement of the court of first instance was set aside by the lower appellate court. That court held that there was no legal necessity for selling joint family property and that part...
Khuda Baksh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All379(1); 40Ind.Cas.749
Walsh, J.1. In this case the Bench, as originally constituted when the case was opened, consisted of three gentlemen (Honorary Magistrates) who were duly appointed members of the Bench. One of them left at an early stage of the proceedings when he had heard only part of the case for the prosecution and took no further part in the proceedings. The other two gentlemen beard the whole of the case. One of them wrote the judgment but did not sign it, although he initialled certain corrections in the text. The other one signed it. It is quite clear that both took part in the hearing of the case and the decision which was ultimately arrived at. It is, therefore, a case which has been heard and decided by two Honorary Magistrates. The point originally taken before this Court in revision was that the judgment should have been signed by both the Magistrates. But I have allowed arguments to proceed upon the other point, namely, that it should be presumed that the only Bench which could hear the c...
Musammat Kamer-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Musammat Sughra Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All60; 40Ind.Cas.427
1. This appeal is connected with Second Appeals No. 140 and No 141 of 1916. They were all disposed of by one judgment. All three appeals arise out of preemption suits. The plaintiff in each case came into Court seeking to pre-empt certain property and relying both upon alleged village custom and Muhammadan Law. The Court of First Instance in each case dismissed the suit. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the Court of First Instance. That Court has held that there is an existing custom of pre-emption under which the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the property upon payment of the price found to have been paid by the defendant vendee. The Court below, having decided that the custom of pre-emption existed, felt it unnecessary to consider whether the formalities required by Muhammadan Law had been complied with. We may assume for the purposes of the present appeal that some time prior to the year 1881 there was a custom of pre-emption prevailing which was recorded...
Sughra Bibi Vs. Kamr-un-nissa Bibi and Muhammad Ismail and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All480
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal is connected A. No. 140 and No. 141 of 1916. They were all disposed by one judgement. All three appeals arise out of pre- In suits The plaintiff in each case came into court seek- property and relying both upon alleged Muhammadan law. The court of first ins-no in each case dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the decree of the court of first instance. That court has held that there is an existing custom of pre-emption under which the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the property upon Payment of the price found to have been paid by the defendant vendee. The court below, having decided that the custom of pre exemption existed, felt it unnecessary to consider whether required by Muhammadan law had been complied We may assume for the purposes of the present appeal year 1881 there was a custom of pre-propriety. we the property of a single proprietor. It seems to us quite impossible that there could be a custom of...
Mangali Lal and ors. Vs. Abid Yar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All97; (1917)ILR39All523
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal - arises is based upon the following state of facts, There was a lady named Naushani Begam, who died as long ago as the 24th of November, 1900. On the findings now before us we must take it that she left two heirs to her estate under the Muhammadan law: one was her husband, Ahmad Husain, and the other was a distant cousin named Abdul Wahid Khan. The pedigree filed with the plaint, the accuracy of which may be taken as established, shows that Abdul Wahid Khan was the son's son of one Ali Muhammad Khan, and that Naushani Begam was the son's daughter of another son of the said Ali Muhammad Khan. The relationship was thus a distant one, and this alone might account for the fact that Abdul Wahid Khan did not find it easy to enforce his claim to a share in the estate of the deceased lady. It further appears from this record that the legitimacy of Abdul Wahid Khan was contested by other members of the family. So far as the record befo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »