Allahabad Court May 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.
Lakhpat Rai and ors. Vs. Sri Kishan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All24; (1919)ILR61All68; 48Ind.Cas.450
Walsh, J.1. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal must succeed. There has been a very full discussion, upon somewhat unfamiliar lines in this Court; but we have no doubt as to the proper conclusion which ought to be reached. The appeal is brought by the plaintiffs, the registered patentees of a process of manufacture, the plaintiffs consisting of Lakhpat Rai, Sampat Rai, and Manphul Narain, and carrying on business at No. 14, Mullick Street, Calcutta, against a judgment dismissing their suit brought against the defendants Srikishan Das, Bahal Rai and Bhup Narain, carrying on business at Farrukhabad, for infringement of the patent. One Prag Narain who figures somewhat prominently in the case, is a member of the plaintiffs' firm, but, for reasons best known to the plaintiffs, was not one of the applicants for the patent and is therefore not a necessary party to the suit. The ground upon which the suit was dismissed was a question of fact, namely that the process for which the p...
Gopi Lal and ors. Vs. Lakhpat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All125; 48Ind.Cas.605
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. It is necessary for us to dispose of a question which has arisen under Section 126 of the Evidence Act. The proceedings before us are a suit or petition brought by the applicant or petitioner to revoke certain Letters Patent granted to the respondent firm consisting, amongst others, of a member named Lakhpat Rai, and the question which arises for decision is the formation and the process of the working of a certain stove owned and used by the respondent firm for the manufacture of banslochan. In the course of the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner a vakil of the name of A.K. Banerji was tendered in evidence on behalf of the petitioner to prove the formation and the process of the working of this particular stove which was then in the possession of the aforesaid Lakhpat Rai. In the year 1895, the Municipal authorities took proceedings against the said Lakhpat Rai, or the firm of which he was then a member, for a nuisance by smell in the preparation of bansl...
Sheo Sampat Pande Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All455; 47Ind.Cas.815
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The applicant Sheo Sam-pat, who is an old man of seventy, has been convicted under Sections 193 and, 210 of the Indian Penal Code under the following circumstances. Sheo Sampat brought a suit in the Revenue Court against one Barbu for arrears of rent. He claimed Rs. 16-11-0 as principal and interest; an ex parte decree Was passed in his favour on the 29th of September 1916 for Rs. 940 and Rs. 25-0 costs, total Rs. 119-0. The judgment-debtor, Barbu, made an application to have the ex parte decree set aside. This application was granted. The case was re-heard and on the 24th of May 1917 a decree was made for Rs. 8-3-0 which included costs. On the 19th of May 1917, Sheo Sampat filed an application for execution of the decree. In that application the date of the decree was erroneously mentioned as the 20th of June 1917 and the amount claimed was put down as Rs.. 16-11-0. He took out attachment of some property of the judgment-debtor. Meanwhile the-judgment-debtor deposit...
Moti Ram Vs. Banke Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All339; 47Ind.Cas.954
1. The facts of this case are as follows:-- The property in dispute was owned by one Kallan. There wag an usnfructuary mortgage upon it for the sum of Rs. 290. It was subsequently mortgaged to Banke Lal, the defendant, under two deeds dated the ,20th of February 1895 for Rs. 150 and 27th of June 1895 for Rs. 150. The property, i.e., the equity of redemption, was subsequently sold in execution of a decree on the 26th of March 1100 and was purchase by the plaintiff, Moti Ram. In that year 1900, Banke Lal brought a suit on his first deed of the 20th of February 1895 for sale of the property and he joined Moti Ram as a defendant. In this suit Banke Lal mentioned the prior usufructuary mortgage and the fact that Rs. 290 thereon was due to Mathura Prasad, the mortgagee. He offered to pay this sum. He prayed for a decree for sale. He paid off the Rs. 290. His decree was dated the 16th of July 1900 and he got a final decree for sale on the 23rd of February 1901. In neither of these decrees was...
The Secretary of State for India in Council and anr. Vs. Munshi Qamar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All360; 51Ind.Cas.501
1. The facts of the present case are hardly in dispute, and are as follows: In Mauza Udaipur Khas, Pargana and Tahsil of Bareilly, there were three plots of land recorded as Nos. 42/1, 42/2 and 43 (paragraph 1 of the plaint). These belonged to two persons, lmdad Husain and Altaf Husain.2. In 1907 these persons sold these plots to the plaintiff Qamar Ali, a practising Lawyer, living at Bareilly. It may be as well to point out here that Udaipur Khas is on the outskirts of Bareilly city.3. Qamar Ali, though a Lawyer, and presumably well aware of the existence of Revenue Records and the duty imposed on a transferee of having his name duly recorded as the owner, did not apply for mutation of names at once.4. Subsequently, lmdad Husain sold his share, together with other property, to his wife Ahmadi Begam.5. She applied for and obtained mutation of names as against a half share.6. After this Qamar Ali applied for mutation of names in respect to the whole, as against his transferors. As their...
Jwala Prasad and anr. Vs. East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All415(1); 46Ind.Cas.99
1. The plaintiffs brought a suit against the East Indian Railway Company in the Court at Cawnpore for recovery of certain money deposited by them with the Railway Company in Calcutta. The Subordinate Judge held that the Cawnpore Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation in the proper Court. An appeal was preferred from this order to the District Judge and the learned District Judge affirmed the decision of the Court of first instance. This is an application for revision of the appellate order of the District Judge. Admittedly no appeal lies from such an order. It is also admitted that the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal before him. If in the exercise of his jurisdiction he committed an error (we do not hold that he did so), that does not give the applicants a right to apply in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In our opinion this application cannot be entertained.2. We accordin...
Ram Chandra Naik Kalia Vs. Raghunath Saran Singh Deo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All327; 46Ind.Cas.101
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. He and the two defendants-respondents are three decree-holders. One Farzand Ali died leaving a certain number of heirs of whom Musammat Najm-un-nissa was one, she being his widow. She brought a suit as against her co-heirs to recover Rs. 97,500 due to her as dower. The other two defendants-respondents brought suits against all the heirs of Farzand Ali including Najm-un-nissa and obtained decrees as against them for monies due from Farzand Ali. In all three cases the sums found due were recoverable from the assets of Farzand Ali which had come to the judgment-debtors by inheritance. A certain property was attached and sold in execution of the decree obtained by the defendant No. 1, and the plaintiff applied for rateable distribution, so also did defendant No. 2. The plaintiff, we may state here, is the transferee of the decree of Musammat Najm-un-nissa. Rateable distribution was allowed only in respect to 3/4ths of the sum recovered, inasmuch as the judg...
NaraIn Das Vs. Het Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All241; (1918)ILR40All637; 46Ind.Cas.925
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a Suit brought for possession of property and damages. The plaintiff in paragraph 1 of his plaint stated that Musammat Gulabo, defendant No. 2, was the zamindar and owner of nine bighas and nineteen biswas of land in a certain village, that she and her husband, defendant No. 1, mortgaged the same with possession to the plaintiff for a period of five years under a registered mortgage-deed for Rs. 600 on certain conditions, one of which was that the principal mortgage-money should be deposited in the month of Jeth before the property could, be redeemed. He went on to state that he, the plaintiff, obtained possession of the property and had it cultivated through his sub-tenants. In paragraph 2 of the plaint he stated that on the 1st of September, 1915, the two principal defendants mentioned above ejected his sub-tenants who were made pro formd defendants to the suit and without paying the mortgage-money unlawfully took possession of...
Deodatt Singh Vs. Ram Charrittar Jati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All278; 46Ind.Cas.897
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and the facts out of which it has arisen are as follows:2. One Din Dayal was the owner of 47 bighas 9 biswas muafi sarkari in the village in question. This revenue-free holding was resumed by Government and it became what is called muafi zabti sarkari. On the 31st of March 1887, Din Dayal sold half to Sheo Harak. Sheo Harak sold this to Jagdeo. The other half passed to the heir of Din Dayal, namely, the defendant-respondent Ram Charittar. He sold one half of this half to the plaintiff on the 29th of September 1907, and he mortgaged the other half to the plaintiff. It is admitted before as that Din Dayal claimed a proprietary interest in the land. The plaintiff brought a suit upon his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale. He applied in execution for sale of the property. Ram Charittar pleaded that the property was ancestral and that it ought to be sold through the Collector. His plea was successful and the decree was transferred for execution to the Co...
Kalka Bakhsh Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Oharan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All630
Henry Richards, C.J. and Knox and Pramada Charan Banerji, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree. Originally there was a decree in a mortgage suit. The mortgaged property having all been sold and found insufficient to satisfy the debt, a decree under order XXXIV, rule 6, was granted on the 4th of March, 1911. An application was made for execution of this decree and on the 3rd of March, 1910 the court ordered that notice should go to the judgment-debtors. The application in execution was subsequently struck off. It appears that notice did go from the court, but nevertheless the application was struck . off. On the 5th of March, 1917, the present application for execution was made. It was met with the objection on behalf of the judgment-debtors that it was barred by time. The notice which went from the court in consequence of the court's order, dated the 3rd of March, 1914, was dated the 4th of March. The 4th of March, 1917 was a Sunday. Accordingly, if ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »