Allahabad Court October 1918 Judgments
Sundar Bai Vs. Basdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.109
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has failed in both the Courts below. The object of that suit was to obtain a declaration that a certain decree or order passed on the 13th of October 1909, in another suit instituted by this same plaintiff, is void and ineffectual against her, together with such subsidiary relief in the way of preventing the decree-holders from executing the said decree as the Court might think necessary and suitable. The Courts below have dismissed the suit, in part upon a finding of fact as to the soundness of the plaintiff's mind on the date on which that suit was instituted, and in part also on the view that it is barred either by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, or both. When the appeal first came before this same Benoh in the month of June last, we were of opinion that the finding of fact on which the Courts below had proceeded was insufficient, because it was necessary for us to...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Mohan and anr. Vs. Sakhawat Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All243
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of the 12th of November, 1917, brought by two persons who have been adjudicated insolvents. The application to the Insolvency Court on which the order was made, was called 'objections.' It asked the court not to confirm a sale which had taken place under the direction of the receiver of certain property which had belonged to the insolvents. The grounds upon which the application was made were (1) certain alleged irregularities in the sale and (2) a sale at an alleged undervalue. The objections were dismissed and the sale confirmed. In our opinion the insolvents have no right of appeal to this Court, Further, they had no right to make the original application, An insolvent can always tender himself as a witness. But this would not make him a party. The original application erroneously describes the insolvents as 'opposite parties' and alleges that the sale is 'calculated to cause them severe loss.' A momen...
Tag this Judgment!Sakhawat Ali Vs. Radha Mohan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All284; 49Ind.Cas.816
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of the 12th of November 1917 brought by two persons who have been adjudicated insolvents. The application to the Insolvency Court, on which the order was made, was called 'objections.' It asked the Court not to confirm a sale which had taken place under the direction of the Receiver of certain property which had belonged to the insolvents. The grounds upon which the application was made were (1) certain alleged irregularities in the sale and (2) sale at an alleged under-value. The objections were dismissed and the sale confirmed. In our opinion the insolvents have no right of appeal to this Court. Further, they had no right to make the original application. An insolvent can always tender himself as a witness, But this would not make him a party. The original application erroneously describes the insolvents as opposite parties' and alleges that the sale is calculated to cause them severe loss.' A moment's reflection will show t...
Tag this Judgment!NelIn Kumar Mukerji and anr. Vs. Mannu Lal and anr. and Shankar Lal an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All200
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts out of which this and the connected appeals arise are somewhat complicated, but it is unnecessary to state them at any great length, It appears that there were three brothers, Ghasi Ram, Shankar Lal and Mannu Lal. There was also their father Fauji Lal. Ghasi Ram appears to have been a man of considerable business capacity and intelligence and to have started a number of business in various parts of the province, which were, up to a certain period at least, quite successful. He associated his father and brothers as partners in some of the concerns without any contribution of capital on their part. All went well until one of the brothers Mannu Lal started a suit for partition against his brother Ghasi Ram. Ghasi Ram, instead of meeting this suit in a straightforward fashion and having all questions decided between himself, Mannu Lal and the other members of the family, got himself declared an insolvent. After a good dea...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Prasad and anr. Vs. Brij NaraIn Rai and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All235
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal, which is by the defendant, arises out of a suit brought by the two minor plaintiffs, seeking to have set aside an ex parte decree obtained by the defendant on the 27th of November, 1912, in a suit brought against them and their father on the basis of a mortgage deed, dated the 4th of March, 1908, which their father had executed in lieu of Rs. 11,000, and in which he had mortgaged the joint ancestral property. The father Sita Ram Rai was also made a defendant to the suit. The plaintiffs in this case pleaded that they had not been duly represented by a properly appointed guardian in the previous litigation; that they had, therefore, been prejudiced and that the decree should be set aside as null and void. The defendant appellant, who is the appellant now before us, pleaded that the minors had been properly represented in the previous litigation; further, that the bond of the 4th of March, 1908, was a genuine deed for consideration and was ex...
Tag this Judgment!Brij NaraIn Rai Vs. Mangal Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All324; 50Ind.Cas.101
1. This appeal, which is by the defendant, arises out of a suit brought by the two minor plaintiffs, seeking to have set aside an ex parte decree obtained by the defendant on the 27th of November 1912 in a suit brought against them and their father on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 4th of March 1908, which their father had executed in lieu of Rs. 11,000 and in which he had mortgaged the joint ancestral property. The father Sita Ram Rai was also made a defendant to the suit. The plaintiffs in this case pleaded that they had not been duly represented by a properly appointed guardian in the previous litigation; that they had, therefore, been prejudiced and that the decree should be set aside as null and void. The defendant-appellant, who is the appellant now before us, pleaded that the minors had been properly represented in the previous litigation. Further that the bond of the 4th of March 1908 was a genuine deed for consideration and was executed to pay off antecedent debt; tha...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Singh and anr. Vs. Allah Diya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All221(1); 48Ind.Cas.476
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application that no application for review is allowable where the decree was given in an appeal under Section 10 of the Letters Patent. It was so held in the case of Hafiz Muhammad Mohsin v. Sheo Prasad 1 A.L.J. 509. This decision is binding on us. We accordingly reject the application with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarut Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.111
Tudball, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of the case of King-Emperor v. Ram Sarup pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad to some other Court either in that district or any other district. The ground on which the application is pressed is based on the facts to be found stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed with the application. It is an allegation to the effect that in the week between the 9th and the 14th of September last the Presiding Judge adopted a practice in regard to the disposal of his work which made it very difficult, if not impossible, for an accused person to properly defend himself. The allegations are that the Sessions Judge fixed only one day for each Sessions case, whatever the number of witnesses to be heard; that he commenced very early in the morning, sat through the day and continued the case till late in the evening; with the result that the Counsel engaged on both sides were reduced more or less to a state of exhaustion and w...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoraj Ram Teli Vs. Mahadeo Kori
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All169
Piggott, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of money lent with interest. As regards one portion of the claim the plaintiff did not profess to support it by documentary evidence. At the hearing he offered to be bound by the defendant's statement on oath. When thus examined, the defendant, although he had denied all liability in his written statement, admitted having borrowed a sum of Rs. 125 on a certain date. The first court accordingly passed a decree for this sum, with interest by way of damages, and dismissed the rest of the claim, In respect of the portion of the claim thus dismissed the plaintiff tendered in evidence a certain document described as a sarkhat. One of the matters in controversy which has not yet been tried out is the date on which this document was executed, there being a discrepancy between the year of execution as stated in the first part of the document and that stated in a later portion of the same. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Mannu Lal and anr. Vs. NelIn Kumar Mukerji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All21(2); 48Ind.Cas.443
1. The facts out of which this and the connected appeals arise are somewhat complicated but it is unnecessary to state them at any great length. It appears that there were three brothers, Ghasi Ram, Shankar Lal and Mannu Lal. There was also their father Fauji Lal. Ghasi Ram appears to have been a man of considerable business capacity and intelligence and to have started a number of businesses in various parts of the province, which were upto a certain period at least quite successful. He associated his father and brothers as partners in some of the concerns without any contribution of capital on their part. All went well until one of the brothers Mannu Lal started a suit for partition against his brother Ghasi Ram, Ghasi Ram, instead of meeting this suit in a straightforward fashion and having all questions decided between himself, Mannu Lal and the other members of the family, got himself declared an insolvent. After a good deal of litigation (out of which probably the legal professio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »