Allahabad Court April 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.
Lala Kedar Nath and anr. Vs. Lala Sheo Pratap
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All349; 52Ind.Cas.411
1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants to a suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra. The plaintiff sued to recover money alleged to be due on a contract, The defendants urged two pleas, namely, that no such contract as was stated in the plaint bad taken place between the parties and, secondly, that if any contract did take place between the parties, it was of a wagering nature and could not be enforced. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge examined the defendants before proceeding any further in the case. He recorded their statements in a rubkar, dated the 21st of February 1918. After writing the depositions of the two defendants the Court framed three issues. The Pleader for the defence asked the learned Subordinate Judge to add a fourth issue to the effect that the contract, if any, between the parties was a wagering contract. The learned Subordinate Judge disallowed the prayer of defendants' Pleader.2. Th...
Makrand Singh and anr. Vs. Kallu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.640
1. The only point in the appeal before us is whether the remedy sought by the decree-bolder under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure is barfed by limitation. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has applied Article 83 of the Limitation Act, The bond provided that the money advanced upon it was to be paid after the lapse of seven years and the interest was to be paid yearly. The mortgagee was given the option of suing either on default in the payment of interest or after the expiry of the term. The mortgagee sued after the expiry of the term and obtained a degree against the mortgaged property. It was sold in execution of the, decree and fetched only Rs. 25. The amount of the decree was Rs. 1,466-13-0. The decree-holder then applied under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, for a personal decree. The judgment-debtors pleaded limitation, on the allegation that the cause of action accrued to the mortgagee after one year of the execution of the bond when the first default in pa...
Jai NaraIn Vs. Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All83; 58Ind.Cas.566
1. The two appeals Nos. 143 and 241 of 1916 are connected and arise out of a suit brought under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The principal appeal is No. 140 of 1916 and is by one of the defendants only. It appears that there were two brothers, called Kunj Behari Lal and Sital Prasad, who had a considerable joint business at Ecawah, Kunj Behari had no children. Sital Prasad had four sons, namely, Banka Behari Lal, Girwardhari Lal, Banarsi Das and Sheo Narayan. On the 6th of December 1900 there was a partition between the two brothers, Kunj Behari and Sital Prasad. On the 21st of December 1900, Kunj Bahari made a Will by which he gave his separated share to his nephew, Banke Behari Lal, and the eldest son of the latter, Jai Narayan, in the proportion of 7 annas and 9 annas respectively. Kunj Behari Lal died some time prior to 1902. ON the 18th of December 1962, Sheo Narayan and Girwardhari Lal brought a suit against their father and their brothers and nephews for partitio...
DIn Dayal Vs. Abdul Ghani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All578
1. This is an application in revision directed against an order of the Munsif of Bijnor passed in the course of a suit in which the parties originally went to arbitration. It appears that after the first arbitrator had been appointed and after he had been called upon to enter upon his duties he informed the court that he was not willing to act and returned the papers which had been sent to him. The date on which the papers were returned to the court with this intimation was the 8th of December, 1916. The Munsif thereupon directed that the parties should be given notice of the refusal of the arbitrator to act. On the 12th of December, 1916, it is made to appear that an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff direct to the court asking for the appointment of another arbitrator. The defendant was present on that occasion, and from the order-sheet it appears that the parties could not come to any agreement in the matter of nominating a fresh arbitrator. In these circumstances the M...
Abdul Ghani Vs. DIn Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All219; 50Ind.Cas.655
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application in revision directed against an order of the Munsif of Bijnore passed in the course of a salt in which the parties originally went to arbitration. It appears that after the first arbitrator had been appointed and after he had been called upon to enter upon his duties, he informed the Court that he was not willing to act and returned the papers which had been sent to him. The date on which the papers were returned to the Court with this intimation was the 8th of December 1916. The Munsif thereupon directed that the parties should be given notice of the refusal of the arbitrator to act. On the 12th of December 1916 it is made to appear that an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff direct to the Court asking for the appointment of another arbitrator. The defendant was present on that occasion and from the order sheet it appears that the parties could not come to any agreement in the matter of nominating a fresh arbitrator In these circumstanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›