Allahabad Court February 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.
Ram Baran Rai and anr. Vs. Har Sewak Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All246; (1918)ILR40All387
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.This was a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed redemption of a mortgage by conditional sale effected on the 27th of December, 1866. The plaintiffs are the son and grandson of the original mortgagor, and the defendants are the sons and grandsons of the original mortgagee. The fact of the mortgage is admitted, and we find that it was never pleaded that the said mortgage, if redeemable at all, was redeemable only for a larger sum than that tendered by the plaintiffs. The defendants, however, contended that the equity of redemption had been extinguished by reason of certain proceedings taken in the year 1876 by the mortgagee under Section 8 of Regulation XVII of 1806. Both the courts below have found in favour of the defendants on this point and have added a finding that the present suit is barred by limitation, This latter finding, as it stands, is difficult to accept. The suit was one for redemption and was brought within the statutory period of limitation. Either ...
Ram Baran Rai and ors. Vs. Har Sewak Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.488
1. This was a suit in which the plaintiffs claim redemption of a mortgage by conditional sale effected on the 27th of December 1866. The plaintiffs are the son and grandsons of the original mortgagor, and the defendants are the sons and grandsons of the original mortgagee. The fact of the mortgage is admitted, and we find that it was never pleaded that the said mortgage, if redeemable at all, was redeemable only for a larger sum than that tendered by the plaintiffs. The defendants, however, contended that the equity of redemption had been extinguished by reason of certain proceedings taken in the year 1876 by the mortgagee under Section 8 of Regulation XVII of 1806. Both the Courts below have found in favour of the defendants on this point and have added a finding that the present suit is barred by limitation. This latter finding, as it stands, is difficult to accept. The suit was one for redemption and' was brought within the statutory period of limitation. Either the equity of redemp...
Musammat Ajnasi Kuar and ors. Vs. Payag Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All264; 45Ind.Cas.534
George Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Musammat Ajnasi Kuar and another against Payag Singh. In the plaint which Musammat Ajnasi Kuar filed in the Revenue Court she described her suit as a suit for assessment of rent under Section 150/156 of Act No. II of 1901, or assessment of revenue under Section 150/158 of Act No. II of 1801. She goes on to say that until the last Settlement the defendant was in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant by paying rent to the plaintiffs' ancestor and to the plaintiffs. He was in possession as an occupancy tenant. At the last Settlement the name of the defendant was, by mistake, entered as the purchaser of shanltalp property. Since that date or thereabout the defendant on the strength of the wrong entry has denied responsibility, for paying rent and (he plaintiffs pray that, a rent of Rs. 26-2-0 a year or as, much as the Court may deem proper be assessed on the land in dispute under Section 150/156. She also prayed f...
Har Prasad Vs. Tajammul HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All290(1); 44Ind.Cas.720
1. This is a reference under Section 195 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The point for consideration is whether an appeal in the case lay to the District Judge or to the Commissioner. The suit was one for ejectment on the allegation that the defendants were the plaintiff's tenants without rights of occupancy. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and asserted that the relation of landlord and tenant did not subsist between the plaintiff and themselves. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain it in view of certain orders passed by the Revenue Court. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge, but he was of opinion that the appeal lay to the Commissioner. The petition of appeal was returned and was presented in the Court of the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner has referred the case to this Court for determination of the question whether the appeal lay to the Judge or to the Commissioner. We are clearly of opinio...
Emperor Vs. Indar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All372
Piggott, J.1. In this case Indar, Jhabbu Lal and Bhopal, a father and two sons, have been required by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate to give security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year under the provisions of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An appeal against that order has been dismissed by the District Magistrate. The case is before me on an application for revision in respect of these two orders. I have been through the record and I am quite satisfied that the orders complained of are illegal, on more than one ground, and cannot be affirmed. The order of the District Magistrate is perfectly clear and straightforward and shows beyond possible doubt the grounds upon which the prosecution of these men for bad livelihood has proceeded and the order against them passed. There was a dacoity at the house of one Ram Dayal, in the course of which the said Ram Dayal was murdered. Information was for becoming to the affect that this dacoity had been organized by Indar ...
Banarsi Das Vs. Sheodarshan Das Shastri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All309; 45Ind.Cas.451
Piggott, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal and the connected Appeal No. 317 of 1915 arise, was brought to enforce a mortgage-deed of the 10th of January 1881. The property hypothecated was the equity of redemption in a revenue-free grant in village Gadaya Latifpur and 500 bighas of revenue-free land in another village called Khankara. It is recited in the deed itself that the latter of these two properties was already mortgaged with possession to the same mortgagees under a deed of the 15th of June 1866. Part of the consideration of the simple mortgage now in suit was the redemption of this older usufructuary mortgage on the land in village Khankara. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 10,80 for the deed in suit a sum of Rs. 7,184 was calculated as due on the usufructuary mortgage of the 15th of June 1866, and was set apart for the redemption of the said mortgage. One effect, therefore, of the deed in suit was that the mortgagors became entitled to re-enter into possession of th...
Bhana and anr. Vs. Guman Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All384
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division of 1894. The facts are simple. Musammat Bhana, a Hindu widow, having a widow's estate, executed a deed of gift in favour of her husband's sister's sons. The plaintiffs are the presumptive reversioners. After the deed of gift had been executed they were preparing to bring a suit for a declaration that the deed of gift was not binding upon them. The donees and the plaintiffs came to terms. The plaintiffs executed an agreement in favour of the donees under which they agreed not to enforce their right to the declaration which they were about to seek in consideration of the donees transferring to them half of the property and also undertaking to support Musammat Bhana for the rest of her life and to pay off her debts. The donees executed an agreement at the same time under which they agreed that they would transfer half the property to the plaintiffs and would support ...
Muhammad Farzand Ali Vs. Rahat Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.29
1. The present applicant brought a suit in forma pauperis for possession of certam property which had been mortgaged. He sought to recover possession without payment of any sum of money. On the 15th of July 1916 the Court gave a decree for redemption of the mortgage on payment of Rs. 4,301.3.2. On the 19th of August he filed an application under Order XLIV, Rule 1, together with a memorandum of appeal as directed therein asking for permission to be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis. The Appellate Court directed farther enquiry by the Court of first instance into the alleged pauperism and on the 15th of February, that Court reported that the applicant was a pauper. On the 17th of February 1917, the Court then took action under the proviso to Rule 1 of Order XLIV. It examined the judgment and the decree and rejected the application under that proviso. Information of this was sent to the applicant by post and he received it on the 17th of March 1917. On the 20th of March 1917 the applic...
Musammat Bhana and anr. Vs. Guman Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All184; 44Ind.Cas.629
1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division of 1894. The facts are simple. Musamamt Bhana, a Hindu widow having a widow's estate, executed a deed of gift in favour of her husband's sister's sons. The plaintiffs are the presumptive reversioners. After the deed of gift had been executed they were preparing to bring a suit for a declaration that the deed of gift was not binding upon them. The donees and the plaintiffs came to terms. The plaintiffs executed an agreement in favour of the donees, under which they agreed not to enforce their right to the declaration which they were about to seek in consideration of the donees transferring to them half of the property and also undertaking to support Musammat Bhana for the rest of her life and to pay off her debts. The donees executed an agreement at the same time, under which they agreed that they would transfer half the property to the plaintiffs and would support Musammat Bhana and pay her deb...
Ganeshi Lal Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All223; (1918)ILR40All374; 45Ind.Cas.4
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for partition has been dismissed by the court of the Subordinate Judge of Dehra Dun and Mussoorie. One of the pleas taken in the written statement was that that court had no jurisdiction to try the suit at all. So far as we can gather from the judgement of the learned Subordinate Judge, he seems to have found that he had no jurisdiction to try the whole suit, but had jurisdiction to try part of it, and he has therefore proceeded to try what he regards as a preliminary question sufficient to determine that portion of the suit which he conceived himself to have jurisdiction to try. The conclusion we have come to is that the court below either had jurisdiction to try the entire suit, or had no jurisdiction to try any part of it. Further, we are of opinion that the decision pronounced with regard to a portion of the plaintiff's claim proceeds upon erroneous principles of law and is calculated to make it impossible for the plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »