Allahabad Court June 1918 Judgments
Bihari Lal Vs. Baldeo NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All422; (1918)ILR40All674
Ryves, J.1. The facts out of which this application arises are admitted. A suit was filed against a minor, Bihari Lal, under the guardianship of his brother, Gaya Prasad, and a simple money-decree was passed against him for a sum of Rs. 238-15-0, In execution of that decree, house property belonging to the minor was attached and advertised for sale. The sale was fixed for the 14th of April, 1917. On the 13th of April, 1917, an application was made by Gaya Prasad, as guardian of the minor, as(sic)ng for the adjournment of the sale. The application was put in by a vakil of the court under a vakalatnama executed by Gaya Prasad. In the body of the vakalatnama which is a printed document, and which is usually filled in by the vakil himself or his clerk, the name of Gaya Prasad was not entered. The document reads 'I ... appoint' so and so. It was executed by Gaya Prasad. Of this there is no question, but he did not add that he was executing it as the guardian of the minor. Along with this ap...
Tag this Judgment!Hirdey NaraIn Vs. Alam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All13; 48Ind.Cas.353
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff in a pre-emption suit obtained a decree for pre-emption on the 11th of October 1915. By this decree he was directed to lodge in Court the pre-emption money within six months, and it further decreed that in the event of his failing to do so the suit would stand dismissed with costs. It will thus be seen that the decree was a decree in favour of the plaintiff on certain conditions. If those conditions were not fulfilled, the decree became a decree in favour of the defendant vendee. The plaintiff did not deposit the money within six months. The last day which would have enabled the plaintiff to comply with the decree was the 11th of April 1916. This was a holiday. It was alleged (and it has been found by the Court below) that the money was brought to the Nazir on the 12th of April, a day on which the Court was sitting. On that day he obtained a chalan which would have enabled him to have deposited the money in the Trea...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Singh Vs. Beni Madho Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All672
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. The plaintiff appellant in this suit was a person who under a deed of gift executed by one Jagat Singh obtained a half share in certain property. The respondent Ram Lal Singh is a person who received a half share in the same property by an entirely separate deed of gift from that same Jagat Singh. Beni Madho Singh and Zalim are certain persons claiming to be the lawful owners of a certain share in the property. They brought a suit to recover their share and they impleaded both Ram Lal Singh and Nand Lal Singh in the suit, Ram Lal Singh did not defend the suit, but Nand Lal Singh did, and in the course of his pleadings he stated that Ram Lal Singh was at the bottom of the suit and that he had instigated the plaintiffs to sue. Part of the claim was decreed and part of the claim was dismissed, The plaintiffs appealed in respect to so much of their claim as was disallowed. Nand Lal Singh appealed in respect to so much of the claim as had been decreed against ...
Tag this Judgment!Nannhu and ors. Vs. Sri Thakurji Maharaj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All23; (1919)ILR61All37; 46Ind.Cas.764
Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. The facts out of which this case arises are these: The first respondent applied to the Revenue Court for partition of his share in certain zamindari. The present applicants put in an objection claiming that they had acquired proprietary interest in certain plots of land which they were holding as rent-free grantees. The Revenue Court considered this objection to be an objection raising a question of proprietary title and referred the present plaintiffs to the Civil Court). Strictly speaking this order was not correct. The court holding the partition proceedings could very easily have disposed of the objection on the ground that no court had yet declared that the objectors had acquired proprietary title. However, in accordance with the direction of the Revenue Court the plaintiffs instituted the present suit in the Civil Court claiming a declaration that by reason of their holding the rent-free grant for more than fifty years and for two generat...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Singh Vs. Beni Madho Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All328; 47Ind.Cas.980
1. The plaintiff appellant in this suit was a person who under a deed of gift executed by one Jagat Singh obtained a half share in certain property. The respondent Ram, Lal Singh is a person who received a half share in the same property by an entirely separate deed of gift from the same Jagat Singh. Beni Madho Singh and Zalim are certain persons claiming to be. the lawful owners of a certain share in that property. They brought a suit to recover their shares and they impleaded both Ram Lal Singh and Nand Lal Singh in the suit. Ram Lal Singh did not defend the suit, but Nand Lal Singh did and in the course of his pleadings he stated that Ram Lal Singh was at the bottom of the suit and that he had instigated the plaintiffs to sue. Part of the claim was decreed and part of the claim was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed in respect to so much of their claim as was disallowed. Nand Lal Singh appealed in respect to so much of the claim as had been decreed against him. The plaintiff's appea...
Tag this Judgment!Aziz-ur-rahman Vs. Hansa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All417; (1918)ILR40All670
Knox, A., C.J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Magistrate of Agra whereby an order of a first class Magistrate of Agra was confirmed. The first class Magistrate of Agra had before him an application asking him to enforce the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of Act No. XIII of 1859. All that appears before me on the record is an order in which the learned Magistrate a rives at the conclusion that the suit does not lie under Act No XIII of 1859. No evidence appears to have been taken, and all that is on the record is the contract. Act No. XIII of 1859 is an Act which has been extended to the station of Agra. The contract is upon a stamp paper and it recites that it is a contract under Act No. XIII of 1859. The first class Magistrate sets out what he believes to be the obvious object of Act No. XIII of 1859. He says that ' it was designed to prevent coolies or labour contractors fraudulently bolting with the advances necessary for obtaining work from them and...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Bhagwan Das Gondka Vs. Firm Ram Kumar Ramesher Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All303(2); 46Ind.Cas.660
1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissing a suit for want of prosecution, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to comply with an order to answer interrogatories. The suit was between two trading firms and the claim was one for damages for breach of contract. The plaint was filed on the 15th of August 1917 and issues were fixed on the 10th of September 1917. On the 2nd of November 1917 the defendant put in a list of interrogatories, ten in number, and asked that the plaintiff be ordered to answer the same. This order was served on the plaintiff on the 12th of November 1917. Seven days later, that is to say on the 19th of November 1917, the plaintiff came into Court with a statement and affidavit in the course of which he answered the first two, and claimed to have also answered the third of the interrogatories. In respect of the remaining seven he objected that they were irrelevant to the issues for trial. This...
Tag this Judgment!Azizur Rahman Vs. Hansa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.441
George Knox, Acting C.J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Magistrate of Agra, whereby an order of a First Class Magistrate of Agra was confirmed. The First Class Magistrate of Agra had before him an application asking him to enforce the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of Act XIII of 1859. All that appears before me on the record is an order in which the learned Magistrate arrives at the conclusion that the suit does not lie under Act XIII of 1859. No evidence appears to have been taken and all that is on the record is the contract. Act XIII of 1959 is an Act which has been extended to the station of Agra. The contract is upon a stamp paper and it recites that it is a contract under Act XIII of 1859. The First Class Magistrate sets out want he believes to be the obvious object of Act XIII of 1859. He says that 'it was designed to prevent coolies or labour contractors fraudulently bolting with the advances necessary for obtaining work from them and it was no...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi NaraIn Dube Vs. Kishan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All665
Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal by one Lachmi Narain Dube, who had applied to the court of the Subordinate Judge exercising jurisdiction in the district of Mirzapur to be adjudicated an insolvent. The application was opposed by a creditor; the court had examined the applicant and had taken certain evidence offered by the objecting creditor. The hearing was then adjourned for reasons which need not be discussed, and it continued to be adjourned over a number of successive dates fixed for the hearing. Finally, on the 31st of October, 1917, the case being called on, it was found that the applicant did not appear. The court, thereupon, passed the following order:-Applicant is absent. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.2. It seems to us that this order is not justified either by the circumstances of the case or by the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No. III of 1907. The debtor's petition had alleged facts sufficient, if established,...
Tag this Judgment!Nannu Prasad Vs. Sukh Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All666
Ryves, J.1. This application arises out of a suit brought by a nephew against his uncle and a tenant. It appears that a house which jointly belonged to the nephew and uncle had for many years been rented by defendant No. 2 and the whole rent used to be collected by the uncle. No doubt, the nephew was entitled to a half share. This suit was brought to recover Rs. 130, being half of Rs. 260, which the uncle had been paid by the tenant. The suit was filed in a Court of Small Causes. Not only was no objection taken to the jurisdiction of that court, but in paragraph 8 of the written statement the uncle specifically stated that he raised no objection to the court trying the suit Of course it is not open to parties to waive a question of (sic)jurist diction, but for reasons to be stated later, I think this matter is of some importance. The court, from the judgment which it has recorded, tried the case apparently very fully, and came to what seems to me a very just decision. Having lost the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »