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.
Mangali Lal and ors. Vs. Abidyar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.3
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 before us goes, we must take...
Chattar Vs. Chote and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.269
Tudball, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and the facts out of which it has arisen are as follows:-On the 24th of February 1911 when the laintiff was about 14 years of age, he and his brother Murli constituted a joint Hindu family and Musammat Radha their mother was also alive and a member thereof. The property which is now in suit together with other properties was mortgaged usufruotuary to certain mortgagees. These mortgages were old and of the time of their ancestor. On the aforementioned date Murli, the elder brother and the mother Musammat Radha, executed a sale-deed of the property now in dispute for the sum of Rs. 1,000. The money was required to the' extent of Rs. 852-8 as found by the Court below for family necessity. It was partly utilised to pay off old mortgages and release other properties and partly to pay off other debts and the expenses of the present plaintiff's marriage. According to the findings of the Courts below, the defendants have failed to prove that Rs. 147-8...
Ramji Lal Vs. Karan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All532
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was orginally instituted on 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 judgement-debtors paid several of the instalments According to the decree-holder default was first of all made on 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 in I.L.R. 38 Allahabad, at page 204) has dismissed the application as barred by time. The case referred to was a case...
Hansraj Singh Vs. Bhagwana
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All399; 40Ind.Cas.328
Walsh, J.1. I think this case demands further enquiry and the better plan is to send it to the District Magistrate of Allahabad as 'the nearest Magistrate' and on our own initiation under Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, to transfer it thence to the District Magistrate of Meerut to institute proceed ings against (1) Musammat Bbarto under Section 211, India Penal Code, for having, in the first report made on 15th October 1916 at the Police Station, Begamabad, laid a false charge against Hansraj Singh for the murder of Ganga Bakhsh, knowing the said charge to be false (2) Musammat Bharto and Nanhua for having on the same date conspired to make such false charge and having conspired to support it by evidence which they knew to be false, (3) Musammat Bharto for offences under Section 194, Indian Penal Code, at the Court of Session, Meerut, on the 3rd of January 1917 in Trial No. 105 by falsely swearing, (a) 'I met the chowkidar on the road by the village. He was sitting there a little...
Sarasti Prasad Vs. the People's Industrial Bank, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All129; 39Ind.Cas.729
George Knox, J.1. This revision arises out of a decree passed by the Judge of Small Cause Court, Allahadad, dated the 20th July 1916. The decree was passed against one Sarasti Prasad on the 28th of May 1911. The first application for execution was marie on the 5th of September 1911. The second application for execution was made on the 30th of March 1914, and this was an application for transmission of the decree for execution to Gaya. The third application was made on the 28th of March 1916. Sarasti Prasad, the judgment-debtor, raised two objections. The first was that the decree having been transmitted to Gaya for execution, execution in the Allahabad Court was illegal and the second was that the present application for execution is time-barred.2. The learned Vakil who appears for Sarasti Prasad contended that the present application, i.e., the third application was time-barred. The ground on which he based his contention was that the second application, dated the 30th March 1914, was...
Mahant Dharam Dass Vs. Sadho Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All331; 40Ind.Cas.177
Piggott, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising out of two suits brought in the Court of the District Judge of Benares with regard to the administration of a public trust. There is in the city of Benares a sangat, or monastery, of Nanak Shahi Udasi Sadhus, which has appertaining to it certain immoveable property in the shape of land, houses and trees. The manager of the trust is the Mahant, or religious head of the society, and it is not denied that the office ordinarily descends to the chosen disciple, or chela, of the deceased Mahant. In the year 1910 certain persons interested in the management of the trust obtained the permission of the Legal Remembrancer to institute a suit under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of the trustee and the preparation of a scheme of management. The trust property was then in the possession of Sadho Prakash as Mahant, and with him were associated two persons named Makund Prakash and Sewa Das. By a decree ...
Mahant Baba Dharam Das, Secretary and ors. Vs. Mahant Dharam Das and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All336; 40Ind.Cas.182
Piggott, J.1. This appeal is in substance covered by the orders passed in First Appeal No. 222 of 1915. See 40 Ind. Cas. 177-Ed. I think these appellants were placed in a difficulty by the procedure followed in the Court below, and that it is not easy to say whether the present appeal is to be treated as one against the decree in Suit No. 2 of 1914 or against the decree in Suit No. 3 of 1914, or both. I have made it clear that these appellants are bound, and must remain bound, by the decree in Suit No. 3 of 1914, as confirmed by this Court in appeal. In view of this fact it is of little practical importance what orders are passed in respect of the decree in Suit No. 2 of 1914. In my opinion that decree is open to formal objection in that it contains a direction that the parties to Suit No. 3, including those not impleaded at all in Suit No. 2, 'be divested of any right or interest' in the property in suit. I have stated that the procedure followed in the Court below was, in my opinion,...
Manna Vs. Rang Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All371(2); 39Ind.Cas.859
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was the owner of grove No. 111 of the former Settlement and No. 117 of the recent Settlement, over which he and his predecessors had been in adverse and proprietary possession without any interference on the part of the zemindars of the village and that the defendant had no right in the grove aforesaid. The plaintiff also claimed any other relief which might be necessary for doing him justice. It appears that the defendant had instituted a suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the plaintiff, alleging him to be a tenant. In these revenue proceedings the plaintiff in the present suit alleged himself to be the proprietor or to have proprietor's rights of some kind. The Revenue Court, not wishing to decide the question of proprietary title itself, made an order under Section 199, Clause (a) of the Tenancy Act, requiring the defendant to institute within three months a suit in the Civil Court f...
Sundar Nath Vs. Mallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All95(2); (1917)ILR39All476; 39Ind.Cas.634
George Knox, J.1. The first plea taken in revision is that the order of the Munsif dismissing the suit is without jurisdiction. It appears that in the suit out of which this application has arisen an order was passed on the 6th of January, 1916, requiring the personal appearance of the plaintiff on the 9th of February, 1916, That was an order passed under Order V, Rule 3, and the court was within its jurisdiction in requiring the personal appearance of the plaintiff on that date. It is contended that the order was issued in order that the plaintiff might admit or not admit documents filed by the defendant, that it was issued because the vakil for the plaintiff was not able to do this. Further that when on the 9th of February, 1916, the plaintiff's pleader endorsed on the documents the necessary information that order ceased to have any effect. The order did cease to have effect, but not for this reason. There is nothing in the order limiting the personal appearance of the plaintiff to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›