Allahabad Court March 1920 Judgments
In Re: Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All1; (1920)ILR42All450
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.1. The respondent, a vakil of this Court, practising at Farrukhabad, has appeared before us on a notice, dated the 10th of March, 1920, to show cause why he should not be disbarred or suspended, in that:(a) On the 20th of January, 1920, he prepared and put be fore the' Sessions Court a statement which purported to be a petition issuing from his clients and drafted on their' instructions, whereas in truth and in fact it was a petition which originated with him and in respect of which he had received no instructions;(b) that he knowingly prepared and filed the said petition before the Sessions Court and put therein allegations which were to his knowledge untrue, or, alternatively, which were made recklessly without any reasonable grounds of belief;(c) that by means of the aforesaid he intended to deceive or mislead the court.2. The facts which have given rise to this matter must be stated by us in some detail in. order that this ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Prasad Vs. Chhanga Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All449
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This application in revision is against a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpore, dated 16th of September, 1919. It appears that the opposite party, the plaintiff, sued to recover Rs. 65 on the allegation that he had deposited Rs. 100 with the applicant with the object of doing some business, that the business was not carried out and the applicant returned Rs. 35, and Rs. 65 is still due from him. It turned out on the evidence of both parties in the court below that the business in respect of which the money was paid to the applicant was in respect of satta transactions, that is, wagering contracts. The defendant applicant went into the witness-box and stated that he had made wagering contracts on behalf of the plaintiff, the opposite party, with certain other firms, in which losses had been sustained, and the deposit made by the plaintiff had been swallowed up by the losses. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court did not believe the defendant with r...
Tag this Judgment!Murtaza Khan Vs. Lalta Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All191; 58Ind.Cas.729
Rafique, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this revision are as follows:One Bhadani executed a deed of mortgage in respect of a house in favour of the applicant, Murtaza Khan. The latter sued for recovery of his money and obtained a preliminary decree on the 15th July 1918. Subsequently, a final decree was drawn up in favour of Murtaza Khan on the 5th of June 1919. In execution of that decree the mortgaged property, that is, the house, was put up to sale on the 23rd of July 1919 and was purchased by one Lalta Singh. The sale was confirmed on the 26th of August 1919. From the sale proceeds the decree of Murtaza Khan was paid off on the 3Cth of August 1919 and the balance of the sale price was paid to the other creditors of Bhadani, the judgment-debtor. Ram Prasad instituted a suit on the 31st of July 1919 for a declaration that the house sold on the 23rd of July 1919 in execution of the decree of the 6th of May 1919 was not liable to attachment and sale as it belonged to him and n...
Tag this Judgment!Chhanga Mal Vs. Sheo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All167; 55Ind.Cas.965
Rafique, J.1. This application in revision is against a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpur, dated 16th September 1919. It appears that the opposite party, the plaintiff, sued to recover Rs. 65 on the allegation that he had deposited Rs. 100 with the applicant with the object of doing some business; that the business was not carried out and the applicant returned Rs. 35 and Rs. 65 is still due from him, It turned out on the evidence of both parties in the Court below that the business in respect of which the money was paid to the applicant was in respect of satta transactions, that is wagering contracts. The defendant applicant went into the witness-box and stated that he had made wagering contracts on behalf of the plaintiff, the opposite party, with certain other firms in which losses had been sustained and the deposit made by the plaintiff had been swallowed up by the losses The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court did not believe the defendant with regard to the loss...
Tag this Judgment!Azizurrahman Khan Vs. Abdulhai Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All64; 55Ind.Cas.963
Tudball, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the Second Additional Judge of Aligarh passed on the 31st of August 1918. The predecessor-in office of the Judge in question heard and decided an appeal on the 26th of April 1918. The plaintiff in that suit sought for partition of a house, claiming a half shara therein and a half share in plot No. 54/2. The plaintiff also claimed exclusive possession of plot No. 54/1. On appeal the Additional District Judge found in favour of the plaintiff and in his finding wrote the following words: 'Thus the proper order to make is to award to the plaintiff the entire site 54/1 and a half share in the remaining site inclusive of the platform and a half share in the entire materials. I find accordingly.' This was very clear and distinct. At the end of his judgment he wrote as follows: 'I allow this appeal in part and modifying the decree of the lower Court order that plot No. '54/2' be awarded to the plaintiff unconditionally, that the remaining po...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Bux Lal Vs. Brij Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All193(1); 55Ind.Cas.966
Rafique, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 from the decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the appeal of the applicant from a decree of the Munsif. It appears that the opposite party Brij Mohan instituted a suit against the applicant in the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur for the recovery of money on the basis of a bond, dated the 27th of March 1914. The defendant denied his obligation under the bond and stated that the bond was given by way of satisfaction to the plaintiff for the debt due to him from one Musimmat Rajrani. In other words, he pleaded that he simply stood surety for Musammat Rajrani. On the day of hearing the plaintiff was absent. The learned Munsif, however, proceeded with the case and recorded the statement of the defendant and decreed the claim in p Article In appeal the defendant contended, and the same point is urged here, that under Order IX, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, the learned Munsif ought to have dismissed the claim for default and should not ha...
Tag this Judgment!Jawad Ali Shah Vs. Kamlapat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All223(1); 56Ind.Cas.641
Tudball, J.1. In this case the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Gorakhpur dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the sole ground that no succession certificate had been filed. The plaintiff was one of several heirs of a deceased creditor. I have examined the order-sheet. The suit was finally decided on the 22nd of November 19:8. It was on that date that the defendants first appeared to defend the suit and it was on that date the plea was taken that a suit without a succession certificate is not maintainable. The Court came to the conclusion that this was a good plea, It, however, dismissed the suit without giving the plaintiff an opportunity of obtaining the necessary certificate and filing if, as it obviously was the Court's duty to do for the ends of justice. If any such opportunity was given to the plaintiff, there ought to be something in the order-sheet or on the record to show that this was done. There is nothing on the record. As I have paid above, the case came up for hearing on th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: a Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.501
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. The respondent,...a Vakil of this Court, practising at Farrnkhahad, has appeared before us on a notice, dated the 10th of March 1920, to show cause why he should not be disbarred or suspended, in that : (a) On the 20th of January 1920, he prepared and put before the Sessions Court a statement which purported to be a petition issuing from his clients and drafted on their instructions', whereas in truth and in fact it was a petition which originated with him and in respect of which he had received no instructions;(b) that he knowingly prepared and filed the said petition before the Sessions Court and put therein allegations which were to his knowledge untrue or, alternatively, which were made recklessly without any reasonable grounds for belief :(c) that by means of the aforesaid he intended to deceive or mislead the Court.2. The facts which have given rise to this matter must be stated by us in some detail in order that this case may be thoroughly understood, On t...
Tag this Judgment!Bohra Bhoj Raj Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All16; (1920)ILR42All448; 55Ind.Cas.950
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This is an application in revision from the decree of the Small Cause Court Judge on the ground that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs, the opposite party, sued in the court of the Judge of Small Causes at Kasganj, for the recovery, of half the price of the trees sold by the applicant, on the allegation that under the custom prevailing in the village, the plaintiffs, who were the zamindars, were entitled to half the. sale proceeds. The claim .was resisted on various grounds, but it was decreed. In revision to this Court it is stated that under Article (13), Schedule II, of the Small Cause Courts Act, the present suit is not cognisable by the Small Cause Court. I do not think that the contention for the applicant is well-founded, Mr. Rustomji in his commentary on the small Cause Courts Act says:If the claim is simply on the basis of a contract or custom, for example, as recorded in the wajib-ul-arz, Article (13) has no appli...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Hamid-ud-dIn Vs. Fakir Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All270; (1920)ILR42All437
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a stub brought by the plaintiff appellant in the lower court for the redemption of an alleged mortgage-deed, dated the 21st of July, 1883. It appears that on that date two ladies, Musammat Ishrat-un-nissa and Musammat Shafkat-un-nissa, executed a deed of sale in favour of Lala Fakir Chand and Lala Baldeo Sahai. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 6,125. On the same day (i. e., the 21st of July, 1883,) the two Lalas executed a deed of agreement in favour of the two ladies, in which, after reciting the fact of their purchase, they said that the purchase had been made subject to the condition that the two ladies could, on the payment of Rs. 6,125 within 5 years from the date of the execution of the agreement, get back the property. The two ladies are dead and so is Lala Baldeo Sahai. The plaintiff appellant is the husband of Musammat Shafkat-un-nissa. He brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen against ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »