Allahabad Court November 1919 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.
Muhammad Askari Vs. Nisar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All227
Tudball and Ryves, JJ.1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from the order of the court below. In the: suit in question an application was made by the plaintiffs for the appointment of a receiver.. The defendants objected and after hearing arguments, the court passed an order to the following effect: 'I would, therefore, allow the application for appoint-ment of a receiver. Plaintiffs to suggest names for selection with particulars regarding security, remuneration and properly to be taken possession of within a month.' The present appeal has been preferred from that order. It is an admitted fact that no receiver has, up to the present time, been appointed. So there is no order by the court below actually appointing a receiver, but merely an expression by the court of its intention to appoint. Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (s), grants a right of appeal against an order under Rule 1 of Order XL. Order XL, Rule 1, says that, where it appears to the court to be just and con...
Syed Mohamed Askari Vs. Qazi Nisar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.520
1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from the order of the Court below. In the suit in question an application was made by the plaintiffs for the appointment of a Receiver. The defendants objected and after hearing arguments the Court passed an order to the following effect: 'I would, therefore, allow the application for appointment of a Receiver. Plaintiffs to suggest names for selection with particulars regarding security, remuneration and property to be taken possession of within a month.' The present appeal has been preferred from that order. It is an admitted fact that no Receiver has, up to the present time, been appointed. So there is no order by the Court below actually appointing a Receiver but merely an expression by the Court of its intention to appoint. Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (s), grants a right of appeal against an order under Rule 1 of Order XL. Order XL, Rule 1, says where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order a...
Raja Sardar Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs. Musammat Budhwanti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All30; 54Ind.Cas.387
1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. The facts may be briefly stated. A decree was passed and put into execution. That decree had been con-firmed on appeal in this Court. The respondents discovered an error in the decree by reason of which they had been deprived of property in execution, to which they were on the face of the judgment entitled. They applied to the Court below for amendment, of the decree. Objections were taken. The Court granted the application and amended the decree. Another application after the amendment was made for restitution. That is the matter-matter of a connoted appeal. But in this appeal it is urged that no appeal lies from an order passed under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code The truth and the force of this contention are practically admitted and the Code is perfectly clear on the subject that no appeal lies. We are asked to treat the appeal as an application in revision, but this we must decline to do for admittedly there are no merits...
Musammat Sudhia Vs. Makka
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All49(2); 54Ind.Cas.418
1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Court below appointing the grandfather of the minor to be guardian in spite of the objection made by the appellant, who is the minor's mother. The minor is now said to be 9 or 10 years of age. The parties are Mahammadans. The property of the family consists of two buffaloes in which the mother and the other children also have shares. In the course of the proceedings the respondent, the applicant for the guardianship, stated that he did not wish to handle the property and that it might be left with the mother. The sole' ground upon which he applied to be made guardian of this minor was that the mother's brother was denying his right to be guardian. The object, therefore, of his application is not the welfare' of the minor but the vindication of his own rights to be a guardian. The minor's father died six years ago. The minor arrived at the age of seven years some three years ago. It is an admitted fact that the mother has always taken car...
Sheikh Muhammad Hashim Vs. Ram Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All104; 54Ind.Cas.450
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was one for foreclosure of two mortgages, under which a sum of Rs. 14,493 was alleged to be due to the plaintiffs. The defendant, who now seeks to appeal to His Majesty in Council, is the purchaser of a portion of the mortgaged property and he contested the claim. The Court of first instance decreed the claim. The present applicant preferred an appeal to this Court and in that appeal he raised the question of his liability in respect of Rs. 3,800 out of the total amount held by the Court below to be due under the two mortgages. In this Court he omitted to implead as respondent one of the persons who was a plaintiff in the suit. On the ground of this omission the learned Judges who heard the appeal in this Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant now applies for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decree dismissing his appeal. The value of the subject-matter of the suit was undoubtedly u...
Mushtaq HusaIn Vs. Amba Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All200
Tudball and Ryves, JJ.1. A preliminary objection is raised in this appeal that no second appeal lies. The facts arc briefly as follows: The plaintiff respondent and the defendant appellant with effect from the 1st of July, 1914, that is, the beginning of the year 1322 Fasli, were owners of two separate mahals in a village after a perfect partition had been effected. In the year 1322 Fasls the revenue of both these mahals fell into arrears. The plaintiff was forced to pay the revenue not only of his own mahal but also of the defendant's mahal to the extent of Rs. 127. Ho brought the present suit to recover this sum plus interest from the defendant in the court of the Munsif. The Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that no suit lay to recover the , amount. The plaintiff appealed. The lower appellate court came to the opposite conclusion and remanded the suit for decision on the merits to the first court. The defendant has come up here on appeal from this order of remand. Under Order ...
Raghunath Vs. Ganesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All23; (1920)ILR42All222
Tudball and Ryves, JJ.1. The facts of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff is the owner of a two anna share out of an eight anna share in a certain village in the district of Hamir-pur. His father died leaving him a minor, and one Musammat Piari, apparently his mother, looked after his affairs. She mortgaged his share. Subsequently proceedings were taken under the Bundelkhand Encumbered Estates Act. The creditor was paid off by Government and Musammat Piari proceeded to repay Government by instalments. After she had paid up a part of the debt she died. Another sarbarhkar was appointed in her place and then the owners of the eight anna share gave a zar-i-peshgi lease to the defendants respondents before us of the whole eight annas. The plaintiff's sarbarahkar was a party to this lease. The plaintiff has now come of age and he has brought the present suit to eject the defendants respondents from his two anna share and to obtain possession thereof for himself. An examination of the p...
Sahdeo Vs. Sarjoo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All9(2); 54Ind.Cas.413
George Knox, J.1. This is an application asking this Court to revise an order passed by a Magistrate of the First Class at Allahabad. The complaint before the Magistrate was a complaint of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. That of course was a case triable by the Court of Session only. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint. I am asked to direct a further enquiry. I find on turning to the judgment of Mr. Bisheshar Nath, Magistrate of the First Clasp, dated the 14th July 1919, that he is of opinion that 'there can be no doubt that the man was murdered and probably one or all of the accused are directly or indirectly involved in it That an attempt of the deceased's brother to fabricate evidence with the help of the head Moharrir has spoilt the whole case.' This was most certainly a case in which the learned Magistrate should never have passed an order of discharge. It is evident from what he has written that there was a prima facie case, and that case triable by the ...
Raghunath Vs. V. Ganesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.381
1. The facts of this appeal are as follows:-- The plaintiff is the owner of a two-anna share out : of an eight anna share in a certain village in the District of Hamirpur. His father died leaving him a minor and one Musammat Peari, apparently his mother, looked after his affairs. She mortgaged his share. Subsequently proceedings were taken under the Enoumbered Estates Act, Bundelkhand. The creditor was paid off by Government and Musammat Peari proceeded to re-pay Government by installments After she had paid up a part of the debt she died. Another sarbarahkar was appointed in her place and then the owners of the eight-anna share gave a zar-i-peshgi lease to the defendants-respondents before us of the whole eight annas. The plaintiff's sarbarahkar was a party to this lease. The plaintiff has now come of age and he has brought the present suit to eject the defendants-respondents from his two anna share and to obtain possession thereof for himself. An examination of the plaint will show t...
Amba Prasad Vs. Mushtaq Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.432
1. A preliminary objection is raised in this appeal that no second appeal lies. The fasts are briefly as follows : The plaintiff respondent and the defendant-appellant with effect from the 1st of July 1914, that is the beginning of the year 1322 Fasli, were owners of two separate mahals in a village after a perfect partition had been effected. In the year 1322 Fasli the revenue of both these mahals fell into arrears. The plaintiff was forced to pay the revenue not only of his own mahal but also of the defendant's mahal to the extent of Rs. 127. He brought the present suit to recover their sum plus interest from the defendant in the Court of the Munsif, The Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that no suit lay to recover the amount. The plaintiff appealed. The lower Appellate Court came to the opposite conclusion and remanded the suit for decision on the merits to the first Court. The defendant has come up here on appeal from this order of remand. Under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (4...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »