Allahabad Court August 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.
Ragunandan Ahir and anr. Vs. Sheonandan Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All182
Walsh, J.1. In my opinion no question of law arises in this suit. The suit is brought by two youths, who were at the commencement of the suit minors, namely, Raghunandan Ahir and Jugnandan Ahir, against their half-brother Sheonandan, the son of a former wife of their father, for a declaration that the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint was joint with the family property, and further alleging, though it is difficult to say that this was a definite form of relief, that certain proceedings with reference to the partition of the shares in such property brought in the Revenue Court, were improperly brought by the defendant. The property consists of two categories; (a) Property admittedly ancestral, (b) property comprised in certain purchases made between the years 1902 and 1907, It is of course with reference to the property in list (b) that the controversy arises. At the time when all these purchases were made, both the plaintiffs were under age, and it therefore may be safel...
Raghubtandan Ahir and ors. Vs. Sheo Nandan Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All170; 46Ind.Cas.306
Walsh, J.1. In my opinion no question of law arises in this suit. The suit is brought by two youths who were at the commencement of the suit minors, namely, Raghupandan Ahir and Jagnandan Ahir, against their half brother Sheo Nandan, the son of a former wife of their father, for a declaration that the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint was joint with the family property, and further alleging, though it is difficult to say that this was a definite form of relief, that certain proceedings with reference to the partition of the shares' in such property brought in the Revenue Court were improperly brought by the defendant. The property consists of two categories: (A) property admittedly ancestral, (B) - property comprised in certain purchases made ' between the years 1902 and 1907. It is of course with reference to the property in list B that the controversy arises. At the time when all these purchases were made both the plaintiffs were under age and it, therefore, maybe safe...
Sher Mohammad Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All400; 50Ind.Cas.994
Piggott, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur had, in this case, an application before him under Section 195, Clause 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an order represented to him as being an order of sanction under the same section passed by a Magistrate of the first claas subordinate to him, The person against whom that order had been passed had a statutory right to ask the Sessions Judge, as the superior Court, to re consider the Magistrate's order of sanction and to revoke the same if it found that sufficient cause was shown. I think the learned Sessions Judge has been, to some extent, misled by the fact that one or more of the pleas taken before him were pleas against the regularity or validity of the order of sanction as passed. Even with regard to these pleas, it strikes me that the learned Sessions Judge took up too rigid and technical an attitude. If, as a matter of fact, the Magistrate's order of sanction was bad in law, the sooner that point was adjudicate...
Dildar HusaIn and anr. Vs. Sheo NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.113
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. Certain property was attached in execution of a simple money decree as far back as the year 1914. Various objections were raised. The property, which consisted of a house, had been sold and purchased by an auction purchaser. It turned out that the whole house should have not been sold. The auction-purchaser naturally complained that he bad bid for a whole house and not a part of a house, and in the end an order was made by the Court executing the decree to the following effect: 'The sale is set aside. The application for execution is struck off. The attachment will remain.' Further applications were made for execution of the decree, but no application was made in respect of the property now in dispute which consists of a part of the house to which we have already referred. Eventually in the year 1916 a further application in execution was made and it was asked that (the saleable ?) portion of the house should ...
Rushan Lal and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.845
Piggott, J.1. The essential point for determination in this second appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The plaintiffs sued to enforce a simple mortgage of January the 8th, 1891. They impleaded the mortgagors as defendants first' party, one set of subsequent mortgagees as defendants second party and the present appellants, as purchasers of a portion of the equity of redemption, as defendants third party. The defendants of the first and second parties do not contest the suit, at any rate at this stage. The defendants third party contend that the claim is barred by limitation. Prima facie this suit instituted on 7th of November 1914 would be well outside the prescribed period of limitation for a suit on a simple mortgage of January the 8th, 1891. The plaintiffs' case is that limitation is saved under Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908) by three payments on account of interest as such, the last of these payments is of a sum of Rs. 800 made on the 25th of November 190...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›