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.
Kalika Baksh Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All183(2); 46Ind.Cas.584
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 XXXLV, 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 March 1914, was dated the 4th of March. The 4th of March 1917 was a Sunday. Accordingly if the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the 4th of March 1914, i...
Sundar Kunwar Vs. Ram Ghulam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All286; (1918)ILR40All626; 46Ind.Cas.900
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for preemption. The facts may be very shortly stated. In the year 1804 the owner of the property mortgaged it. There had been two prior mortgages, in 1892 and 1893. The mortgage of 1894 was a consolidation of these mortgages with a further advance. This mortgage was again consolidated by a last mortgage in the year 1895. This mortgage will be found printed at page 9 of the respondents' book It was in form what is called^ simple mortgage, except for the last clause, which provided that if the period mentioned in the mortgage expired and the money had not been paid up the document should be treated as a sale, In the year 1906 a suit was, instituted on this document treating it as a mortgage by conditional sale and a decree for foreclosure was obtained. This decree was made absolute in the year 1911, and shortly after that the decree-holder, mortgagee obtained possession. In the year 1914 .the present suit was institu...
Ram Richcha Prasad Tewari and ors. Vs. Raghunath Prasad Tewari and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All379; 46Ind.Cas.83
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. Certain property which was subject to a mortgage was sold. The vendor left in the hands of the vendee a portion of the consideration which was to go in discharge of a mortgage. A suit was brought by the plaintiffs for pre-emption of the property sold and a decree was obtained. Very unfortunately the decree directed that the plaintiffs should pay into Court as a condition precedent to getting the property the whole of the purchase-money. The plaintiff ought not to have been asked to pay the entire price. He ought to have been only directed to pay in the amount of cash which the vendee had paid to the vendor, retaining in his hands the balance of the purchase-money for payment of the mortgagee just in the same way as the original vendee was to retain part of the purchase-money. The plaintiffs paid into Court the full purchase-money and got possession of the property. The defendants' predecessors drew out of Court the full amount de...
Jaimal Singh Vs. Shib Saran Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All427; 46Ind.Cas.115
1. We think that the ground upon which the lower Appellate Court decided this case was not correct. The plaintiff is not a recorded co-sharer of the property in respect of which the profits claimed are alleged to have accrued due. The lower Appellate Court seems to think that the mere fact that the plaintiff was not recorded was sufficient to prevent him maintaining the suit. We do not think this view is correct. Section 201 of the Tenancy Act provides for what is to be done in the case of a plaintiff who is recorded and in the case of a plaintiff who is not recorded. If the issue arises as to the latter's title, the Revenue Court is either to try the case itself or to refer the plaintiff to a Civil Court. We think, however, that it is perfectly useless to send the case back for trial, because on the allegations of the plaintiff himself in his plaint he cannot possibly maintain the present suit. According to his own allegations the defendant Musammat Dayali Kunwar is not and was not a ...
Jaguji Rai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All93; 47Ind.Cas.73
George Knox, J.1. Jagnji Rai and Inderjit Rai have been bound over to keep the peace for a year. They are to furnish each of them a reliable surety for Rs. 100 and to execute a personal bond in the same amount for this purpose. They were bound over by a Magistrate of the first class of Azamgarh, They do not appear to have gone to the District Magistrate and asked him to cancel this bond, as they might have done under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a person bound over to keep the peace does not adopt this procedure, I always have considerable doubt as to his general reputation in the district, and it is open to the applicants at any time hereafter to satisfy the District Magistrate that there is no necessity any longer for this bond being kept in existence. They have come to this Court with the contention (1) that the evidence on the record does not justify an order under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (2) that if they had committed a substantive off...
Makhan Singh Vs. Jahan Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All381(2); 46Ind.Cas.97
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The first Court granted a decree on payment of Rs. 88. The lower Appellate Court confirmed this decree. The vendees appealed. The first point taken is that the custom is not proved as giving a right to the plaintiffs. We consider that the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiffs had a right of pre-emption. The next point is the question of consideration. The consideration stated in the sale-deed is Rs. 2,000. The plaintiffs' own witness admitted that the property was worth Rs. 2,400 and there can be no doubt that the property was worth at least Rs. 2,000. It is very difficult to understand how the Courts below came to give the plaintiffs a decree conditional upon payment of Rs. 88 only. Prima facie the consideration in the sale-deed is to be taken as the true consideration. No doubt where the plaintiff shows that the price is a very excessive price, he can shift the onus on to the vendee of showing that the consider...
Lachhmi Kunwar Vs. Durgai Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All74; 46Ind.Cas.566
1. The litigation leading to these two first appeals arises out of the following state of facts. One Kundan Lal had two sons, Nathmal Das and Pem Raj. Nathmal Das died in the month of June 1913, leaving no children surviving him but a widow Musammat Lachhmi Kunwar, who is the appellant in both the appeals now before us. Pem Raj died in the month of February 1914. He left no son but he left daughters and a widow, Musammat Durga Kunwar, who is the respondent in both these appeals. It is a matter of some significance that there are now living sons of the aforesaid daughters of Pem Raj by the respondent Durga Kunwar. On the 29th of July 1914, the two widows presented themselves outside the office of the Sub-Registrar at Khurja. Musammat Lachhmi Kunwar there tendered for registration a certain document which is printed at A 20 and the following pages of our record of first Appeal No. 80 of 1916. The Sub-Registrar read over this document to the two ladies, who were sitting concealed from the...
Lalta Prasad Chaudhri Vs. Gokul Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All617
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the same patti with the vendor, but the patti was created by imperfect partition and in more recent years. There seems to be no dispute that a custom of pre-emption prevails in the village. The entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 gives the first right to hissadar karibi and both courts were of opinion that this meant that the co-sharer in the same sub-division as the vendor would have a prferenc over a co-sharer in another sub-division. The court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim. The lower appellate court reversed the decision of the court of first instance solely on the ground that the plaintiff's being in the same patti as the vendor was due to imperfect partition. It referred to the case of Mahadeo Prashad Sahu v. Jaipal Raut (1910) 8 Indian Cases, 867, We do not agree with the decision in this case. It seems to us that where a custom is proved and th...
Het Ram Vs. Ganga Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All615
Knox, J.1. This is a reference made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh. He sends us an order passed by a first class Magistrate of Etah ordering the discharge of several persons accused before him and directing the complainant to pay compensation to the accused persons. The order directing payment of compensation is undoubtedly, to my mind, illegal and must be set aside. The offence with which the accused were charged was really an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 363 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which were added as Sections under which the accused were alleged to be guilty, were mere appendages to the original Section. The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 250 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be found one in a chapter which deals with the trial of summons cases by a Magistrate, and the other in a chapter dealing with the trial of warrant cases by Magist...
Lalta Prasad Chaudhry Vs. Gokul Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All429(1); 46Ind.Cas.125
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the same patti with the vendor but the patti was created by imperfect partition and in more recent years, There seems to be no dispute that a custom of pre-emption prevails in the village. The entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 gives the first right to hissadar Karibi, and both Courts were of opinion that this meant that the co-sharer in the same sub-division as the vendor would have a preference over a co-sharer in another sub-division. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Court of first instance solely on the ground that the plaintiff's being in the same patti as the vendor was due to imperfect partition. It referred to a case reported as Mahadeo Prashad Sahu v. Jaipal Raut 8 Ind. Cas. 867. We do not agree with the decision in this case. It seems to us that where a custom is proved, if the plaintiff can show that he comes wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »