Allahabad Court November 1918 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.
Maharaj Singh and anr. Vs. Lalta Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All74; 57Ind.Cas.774
1. This is the plaintiffs' appeal in the suit out of which the connected appeals No. 364 of 1915, No. 16 of 1916 and No. 105 of 1916 decided by us yesterday arose, and for the history of the case we refer to the judgments in the connected appeals. The first point raised by the appellants is that there has been a reduction in the Government revenue from 294 Fasli to 1311 Fasli, and that the plaintiffs ought to have been allowed credit for the difference between the revenue at the date of the mortgages and the reduced rate in pursuance of the terms of the mortgage deed of 1867. The answer to this contention is that during this period Suleman Gardner was alive. It was Suleman Gardner who was entitled to the malikana allowance of Rs. 2,070 per annum and Suleman Gardner had been making fresh mortgages and obtaining fresh advances. We think that it is quite clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to any credit by reason of reduction (if such there was) in the Government revenue during the l...
Guddar Mal Vs. Het Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All263; 50Ind.Cas.87
1. In this case the Court below refused to allow the fee of the successful respondent's Pleader, it appears that the Pleader in the case filed a certificate that he had duly received his fee. An affidavit was also filed by a man who purported to be a karinda of the respondent, and in this affidavit the karinda swore that he had duly paid the fee and that he had not entered into any arrangement to get back the whole or any part of the same. The learned Judge seems to have thought that having regard to Rule 1, Chapter XXI of the General Rules for Subordinate Civil Courts, the Court was not entitled to allow the fee in question. The rule provides that a certificate should be filed by the legal practitioner together with an affidavit made by his client or the latter's 'authorised' agent. The word 'authorised' does not appear in the corresponding rule of the High Court. It seems the word is rather redundant. A man cannot be the agent of another unless he is 'authorised.' It is not contended...