Allahabad Court March 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.
Mir Dad Khan and anr. Vs. Ramzan Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All86; 44Ind.Cas.988
Piggott, J.1. The suit out of which this first appeal arises is based upon the following state of facts:Mir Dad Khan and others were the owners of proprietary rights in a certain Mahal. Appurtenant to those proprietary-rights was a considerable area of land of which these Zemindars were in possession either as sir or khudkasht. With reference to the khudkasht land it is sufficient to say that it was land which had been held by the proprietors in their own cultivation for the full statutory period and which had, therefore, acquired the essential character of sir land, so far as Section 10 of the Local Tenancy Act No. II of 1901 is concerned. For purposes of brevity, therefore, it will be convenient hereafter to speak of these lands as the sir lands of Mir Dad Khan and others. Now these proprietors were indebted, and the evidence on the record shows that there was a decree out against them for a sum of Rs. 9,000 held by Thakur Das and others. The proprietors endeavoured to come to terms ...
ishwar Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All133; 45Ind.Cas.149
Tudball, J.1. In this cage Ishwar Prasad has been convicted of an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 by a Magistrate of the second Class. He appealed against his conviction to the District Magistrate who has directed the case to be re-tried in another Court in accordance with law. It is within the Magistrate's power to direct a re-trial under Section 423, Clause (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The grounds given by the District Magistrate for ordering a re-trial are as follows: He says that from its appearance the case would seem to have been hurriedly tried and one in which the evidence is deficient. In particular it is not clear why the evidenoe of the ekkawala who was present at the search, was not taken as he is one of the main witnesses whose evidence is intended by law to be of importance in a case of this type. The procedure adopted is open to criticism. It is necessary that the case should be retried' If the only de...
Collector of Moradabad Vs. Maqbul-ul-rahman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All194(2); (1918)ILR40All434
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit on a mortgage, dated the 20th of November, 1911. The persons impleaded are the mortgagor and certain subsequent transferees. The mortgage was in favour of one Sahu Prasadi Lai. The evidence shows that before registration of the document had been effected the mortgagee fell ill. It seems a fair matter of inference that the mortgagor endeavoured to take advantage of this fact to defeat the registration of the document. On the 3rd of February, 1912, a special power of attorney of the kind spoken of in Section 33 of the Registration Act (No. XVI of 1908), was registred. at the office of the Sub-Registrar of Moradabad, whereby the mortgagee, Sahu Prasadi Lal, purported to authorize a pleader named Pandit Nanak Chand to present the mortgage of the 20th of November, 1911, for registration on his behalf. Accordingly, on the 5th of February, 1912, within the period prescribed by law, the mortgage-deed in suit was presented for registration by the said Pandit Nanak ...
Shankar Lal Vs. Ram Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All288; (1918)ILR40All446; 45Ind.Cas.31
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. We think that both the courts below have taken an extremely narrow and technical view of this case. It appears that one Puran Chand had a lease of the grass farm at Agra. He took into partnership the plaintiff. They were to provide the capital between them and to share in the profits. Puran Chand died. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit, alleging that he had received certain money, and that Puran Chand and after his death his minor son received further money in connection with the joint enterprise. He alleged that there was a much larger sum received by Puran Chand's estate than he had received and that there would be a balance payable to him upon taking accounts. He accordingly asked that the accounts should be taken. The courts below have dismissed the suit, holding that it was not maintainable and that the minor could not be liable to render accounts, It seems to us (assuming the plaintiff's allegation to be true), th...
Prem Sukh Das and anr. Vs. Lachmi Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All94; 46Ind.Cas.542
1. The facts of this case are somewhat unusual. Under the Guardians and Wards Act the District Judge has power to sanction the sale by the certificated guardian of whole or portion of the minor's property. The minor's guardian made an application in which he stated that the minor's property consisted of a number of houses in very bad repair, that if one house was sold the other houses might be repaired and become of value. The value of the house to be sold was stated as Rs. 400. The learned District Judge directed the Munsif to enquire what was the value of the house. The Munsif reported that the value of the house was Rs. 400 and the appellant here, who was the proposed purchaser, was willing to give this sum. The District Judge sanctioned the sale at Rs. 400 and the draft deed of sale was prepared. Before, however, it was executed one Hanuman Prasad informed the Court that he was willing to give Rs. 1,000 for the house. Thereupon the District Judge passed an order that the appellant ...
Jassa and ors. Vs. Rangi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All318(2); 49Ind.Cas.808
Piggott, J.1. Inasmuch as the substantial point taken in this appeal is the effect on the present suit of certain previous litigation, it may be convenient to begin at once with a statement of the facts regarding the said previous litigation, namely, a suit registered as number 65 of 1914 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur. That suit was brought by one Radhe Lal on the basis of a simple mortgage of the 8th of February 1908. The principal defendants in that suit were one of the original mortgagors and the successors-in-interest of the other two, and the relief sought was a decree for sale. In the plaint, however, certain other defendants were also impleaded, namely, the heirs of one Sant Lal. In respect of these additional defendants it was alleged that they held one mortgage subsequent to that of the 8th of February 1908, on which Radhe Lal was suing, and also that they were in possession of the mortgaged property or part of it under two usufructuary mortgages prior in...
The Collector of Moradabad as Manager Vs. M. Maqbul-ul-rahman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.37
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit on a mortgage, dated the 20th of November 1911. The persons impleaded are the mortgagor and certain subsequent transferees. The mortgage was in favour of one Saha Parshadi Lal. The evidence shows that before registratiin of the document had been effected the mortgagee fell ill. It seems a fair matter of inference that the mortgagor endeavoured to take advantage of this fact to defeat the registration of the document. On the 3rd of February 1912 a special power-of-attorney of the kind spoken of in Section 33 of the Registration Act (No. XVI of 1908) was registered at the office of the Sub Registrar of Moradabad, whereby the mortgagee Sahu Parshadi Lal purported to authorise a Pleader, named Pandit Nanak Chand, to present the mortgage of November the 20th, 1911, for registration on his behalf. Accordingly, on the 5th of February 1912, within the period prescribed by law, the mortgage deed in suit was presented for registration by the said Pandit Nanak Chand,...
Mithan Lal Vs. Chhaju Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All268; (1918)ILR40All429
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The facts out of which it has arisen are briefly as follows:--The defendant was the owner of a certain zamindari share, the area of which was some 13 bighas odd. On the 23rd of July, 1908, he gave a usufructuary mortgage of this zamindari to the plaintiff. On the same date the plaintiff gave him a lease of the same zamindari share on payment of a sum of Rs. 70-14-0 per annum plus Rs. 23-11-0 Government demand, etc. The defendant remained in possession as thekadar paying his rent to the plaintiff under the lease. On the 26th of June, 1912, the plaintiff sued him on the basis of that agreement for arrears of rent and obtained a decree and in execution of his decree for the arreas of rent due under the lease, he attached and put to sale the defendant's equity of redemption. This was sold on the 20th of March, 1913, and was purchased by one Bhuttu Mal. At the time of the sale the plaintiff's mortgage and one other mortgage were a...
Mithan Lal Vs. Chhajju Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.529
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The facts out of which it has arisen are briefly as follows: The defendant was the owner of a certain zimindari share, the area of which was some 13 bighas odd. On the 23rd of July 1908, he gave a usufructuary mortgage of this zemindari to the plaintiff. On the same date-the plaintiff gave him a lease of the same zemindari share on payment of a sum of Rs. 70-14-0 par annum plus Ra. 23-11-0 Government demand, e;c. The defendant remained in possession as thekadar paying his rent to the plaintiff under the lease. On the 2Cth of June 1912, the plaintiff sued him on the basis of that agreement for arrears of rent and obtained a decree and in execution of his decree for the arrears of rent due under the lease, he attached and put to sale the defendant's equity of redemption. This was sold on the 20th of March 1913, and was purchased by one Bhuttu Mal. At the time of the sale thp plaintiff's mortgage and one other mortgage were also notified. The price paid fo...
Fazal Rab Vs. Manzur Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All192; (1918)ILR40All425; 45Ind.Cas.773
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts connected with this application may be stated very shortly. There was a decree for about Rs. 1,000. Certain property of the judgment-debtor was directed to be sold. The sale was held by the Collector on behalf of the Civil Court. The sale took place on the 20th of September, 1916. The property was put up to the sale and fetched Rs. 850. On the 15th of October, the judgment-debtor came to the Collector and stated that he was anxious to have the sale set aside and to save the property; that he could not deposit the decretal amount plus five per cent, compensation to the auction purchaser as the Civil Court was closed, but he was anxious to lodge the money in the Treasury. The money was accepted by the Collector. On the 11th of November, which was the day on which the Civil Court opened, the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside and stated how the money had been already deposited in the treasury. There was a rubk...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »