Allahabad Court April 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.
Umrao Singh and anr. Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All356; 47Ind.Cas.905
1. The appellants in this Court were the plaintiffs in a suit for partition. They owned between them 8-19th Section of a certain house. The defendant owned the remaining l-19th share. In their plaint at paragraph 4 the plaintiffs stated that, regard being had to its accommodation, the partition of the house in suit would spoil the house altogether so that it would not 'at all remain comfortable for residential purposes.' Hence the plaintiffs asked the Court under Section 2 of the Partition Act (IV of 1893) to order a sale of the house. In reply the defendant raised alternative pleas. In the first place he alleged that a partition of the house by metes and bounds could be effected to the mutual convenience of the parties, provided it were effected in a certain way. In the alternative he pleaded that, if the Court held that the house could not reasonably or conveniently be partitioned and was prepared to accept the plaintiffs' prayer for an auction-sale, then the defendant claimed to exe...
Radhe Shiam Vs. Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All558
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a suit in effect by two judgments, dated respectively the 13th of September, 1915, and the 30th of September, 1915, on what were really two preliminary points. The suit was brought upon a mortgage-deed for sale of the property hypothecated in respect of a default made by the defendant at an early stage of the transaction. The plaintiff chose to shelter himself behind the legal arguments of counsel and did not go into the box, and at present there is nothing before us to show why and how the defendant was persuaded, in January, 1915, to enter into a fresh transaction at compound interest with security, in order to get rid of some comparatively recent unsecured liabilities which are not even shown to have borne compound interest. We do not know either, whether the defendant ever received a single rupee in respect of this transaction. The uncontradicted evidence of the defendant is that he did not, and the general conduct...
Karim-ud-dIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.867
George Knox, J.1. Karim-ud-din has been convicted of three offenses, each offense under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment on each offence, the sentences to run consecutively. It appears from the record and the arguments addressed to me that station masters on the East Indian Railway get some kind of allowance from the Railway in return for goods to be despatched by the Railway to be marked and loaded or otherwise handled. The station master Raghunath Pershad appointed Karim-ud-din and gave him Rs. 10 a month for doing this work. There was no contract of any kind between the East Indian Railway Company and Karim-ud-din. Raghunath Pershad appears to have made or permited Karim-ud-din to write a number of Railway registers. It is not for a moment asserted that the East Indian Railway Company sanctioned this allotment of work to Karim-ud-din or were in any way cognizant of it. Raghunath Pershad took leave and was succeded by one Rikhi ...
Hashmi Begam and ors. Vs. Suraj Bhan, Muhammad Tawakkul HusaIn and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All555
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The point which arises in this appeal is as follows. Certain immovable property was sold for a considerable sum of money. In the sale-deed the consideration is stated to have been received in a certain way (as per details at the foot of the deed). According to this detail the vendee was to retain a sum of Rs, 8,150 for payment to a certain creditor of the vendors who had a mortgage upon other property belonging to the vendors, and, which was no part of the property sold to the vendee. Some delay seems to have taken place in the registration of the deed and, as a consequence, the vendee alleges that he did not pay the Rs. 8,150. Eventually, when he succeeded in getting the sale-deed registered, he went to the creditor and offered him the Rs. 8,150, which the creditor refused to receive because further interest had in the meantime accrued, amounting to the sum of Rs. 749 or thereabouts. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff...
Muhammad Iltifat HusaIn Vs. Alim-un-nissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All105; (1918)ILR40All551
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Order XXXIV, Rule 6. This Rule applies to cases in which after the mortgaged property has been sold the mortgagee comes to court and asks for a personal decree for the balance left due. The Rule provides that 'where the net proceeds of any such sale are found to be insufficient to pay the amount due to the plaintiff, if the balance is legally recoverable from the defendant otherwise than out of the property sold, the court may pass a decree for such amount. In the present case the original mortgage decree was obtained in February, 1906, the mortgage property consisted of two villages. In the events which happened the mortgagee became entitled to the equity of redemption of one of the villages, the result being that the two interests, that is, the interest of the mortgagee and the interest of the mortgagor, vested in one person. This operated to discharge the mortgage to the extent of th...
Mohammad Iltifat HusaIn Vs. Alim-un-nissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.561
ORDER1. A report has been submitted by the office that the appellant was. liable for additional Court-fees in the lower Appellate Court calculated upon the value' of the subject-matter of the appeal. The application was for a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, made in the original mortgage suit. The application, of course, could be made on an S-anna stamp, but the question is what should the fee be which either side would have to pay if they were dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court to which the application was made. In. the present case the Court made an order dismissing the application for a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 6. In the case of Tajammul Husain Khan v. Muhammad Husain Khan 35 Ind. Cas. 158 : 14 A.L.J. 328. Mr. Justice Tudball held that the defendant against whom a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, had been made was obliged to pay an ad valorem Court-fee on the decree which had been made against him. The learned Judge was of opinion that the decision appealed against wa...
Suraj Bhan Vs. Hashim Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All319; 47Ind.Cas.903
1. The point which arises in this appeal is as follows. Certain immoveable property was sold for a considerable sum of money. In the sale-deed the consideration is stated to have been received in a certain way (as par details at the foot of the deed). According to this detail the vendee was to retain a sum of Rs. 8,150 for payment to a certain creditor of the vendors who had a mort-gage upon other property belonging to the-vendors, and which was no part of the property sold to the vendee. Some delay seems to have taken place in the registration of the deed and as a consequence, the vendee alleges that he did not pay the Rs. 8,150. Eventually when he succeeded in getting the sale-deed registered, he went to the creditor and offered him the Rs. 8,150, which the creditor refused to receive because further interest had in the meantime accrued amounting to the sum of Rs. 749 or thereabouts. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover the portion of the purchase-money which ...
Musammat Fatima Bibi and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All420; 51Ind.Cas.646
Piggott, J.1. This is a suit on a mortgage of the 17th of September 1900, The executants of this deed were six persons. Jamil Ullah and Jalil Ullah, the two sons, and Musammat Khatun Bibi, the surviving widow of one Khalil Ullah, deceased, were the first three. The other three executants, Jolira Bibi, Mohammad Shibli and Muhammad Makki, were members of the same family, connected more or less distantly according to a pedigree which is to be found at page 2 of the printed record. The only point I desire to make about these three executants at present is that the pedigree does not show that they could have inherited any property from the deceased Khalil Ullah so as to be liable for payment of any portion of that gentleman's debts. The suit as brought is against the executant Jamil Ullah in person and the heirs of the remaining five executants, all of whom are since deceased. The Court below has found execution proved as against the four male executants and not proved as against the two la...
Abdul Rashid Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All109(2); 46Ind.Cas.402
1. The accused in this case has been convicted tinder Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code of having used a false trade-mark. The accused is the agent of the Burma Oil Company. The trade-mark which he is said to have used is the trademark of the Standard Oil Company of the United States. Since the war it had been agreed between different Oil Companies that tins belonging to one Company might be used by another Company, provided that the other Company put upon the cap of the tin a distinctive mark indicating that it was the oil of the Company which was using the tin. In the case of the Burma Oil Company they had to put on the cap the word 'Victoria' showing that the oil, though contained in the tin of the Standard Oil Company, was oil of the Burma Oil Company. It has been proved that the accused sold eight tins of kerosine oil to one Shekhar Chand. The caps of two of the tins bore the word 'Victoria', the remaining six had only plain caps. It is in respect of these tins that the accused...
Ram NaraIn Sahu and ors. Vs. Musleha Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All536
Piggott, J.1. This is a suit on a mortgage of the 17th of September, 1900. The executants of this deed were six persons. Jamil-ullah and Jalil-ullah, the two sons, and Musammat Khatun Bibi, the surviving widow of one Khalil-ullah deceased were the first three. The other three executants, Zohra Bibi, Muhammad Shibli and Muhammad Makki, were members of the same family, connected more or less distantly according to a pedigree which is to be found at page 2 of the printed record. The only point I desire to make about these three executants at present is that the pedigree does not show that they could have inherited any property from the deceased Khalil-ullah so as to be liable for payment of any portion of that gentleman's debts. The suit as brought is against the executant Jamil-ullah in person and the heirs of the remaining five executants, all of whom are since deceased. The court below has found execution proved as against the four male executants and not proved as against the two ladi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »