Allahabad Court March 1920 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.
Ram Kumar Vs. Muhammad Yakub and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All445
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This is an application under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to appeal to his Majesty in Council. The parties to the application are a contractor and a person who employed the contractor to build a house for him. The valuation of the dispute between the parties was over Rs. 10,000 in the court of first instance. It came up in appeal before a Bench of this Court and the contractor succeeded. The building owner now files this application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. For the contractor the objection is taken that the value of the subject matter in dispute before the Privy Council would be less than Rs. 10,000 and no substantial point of law is involved in the case and therefore no leave should be given. The learned Counsel for the applicant replies that the value of the subject matter in dispute before the Privy Council would be over Rs. 10,000, if to the original amount decreed by this Court is added int...
Munshi Muhammad Hamid-ud-dIn Vs. Lala Fakir Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.717
1. This appeal arises out of a suit 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 Ishratunnissa and Musammat Shafkat-un-nissa executed a deed of sale in favour of Lala Fakir Chand and Lala Baldeo Sabai. 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 ladles could, on the payment of RS. 6,125 within five 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 the surviving vendee, Lala Fakir Chand, and the h...
Sahu Ram Kumar Vs. Mohammad Yakub and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All202; 55Ind.Cas.976
1. This is an application under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The parties to the application are a contractor and a person who employed the contractor to build a house for him. The valuation of the dispute between the parties was over Rs. 10,000 in the Court of first instance. It came up in appeal before a Bench of this Court, and the contractor succeeded. The building owner now files this application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. For the contractor the objection is taken that the value of the subject matter in dispute before the Privy Council would be less than Rs. 10,000, and no substantial point of law is involved in the case and, therefore, no leave should be given. The learned Counsel for the applicant replies that the value of the subject matter in dispute before the Privy Council would be over Rs. 10,000, if to the original amount decreed by this Court is added interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per an...
Shiam Lal Vs. Tehariya Lakhmi Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All124; 58Ind.Cas.278
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 318 of 1917 which we. have just decided. In the present appeal Shiam Lal, the original mortgagor, is the appellant before us. The plea taken on his behalf is that the suit for the mortgage having failed, a suit for a simple money decree is barred by time. The first bond is dated the 9th of September 1905 and under the conditions entered therein, the money was payable at the end of five years. There were farther conditions in respect to interest. In the case of the second bond of the 2nd of August 1903, the money was payable at the end of four years, and there are similar conditions in respect to payment of interest as in the first bond. It is urged that Article 80, read with Article 116 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, applies and, therefore, the suit ought to have been brought on or before the 9th of September 1913. Our attention has been called to certain rulings, but not of this Court. The learned Vakil for the appellant has to a...
Sheonath Singh Vs. Munshi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All433
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Moradabad sitting in insolvency, dismissing an application filed by the Receiver for an order that a certain transfer made by the insolvent was void under the insolvency law and that the property be handed over to the Receiver. So far as the question decided by the learned Judge and now before us in appeal is concerned, the facts are not in dispute. The respondent suggests that there may be grounds for attacking the order of adjudication and the locus standi of the original petitioning creditor, but these are not matters which can be decided upon this application, and he must be left to take such course as may seem proper to him by way of an independent application to the court below.2. The facts are that the petition or application in insolvency was presented on the 3rd of March; a summons was issued on the 11th of March, on which day the debtor contracted for the sale of his immovable property, and on t...
Kishori Lal Vs. Kampa Devi and Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All430
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The learned District Judge was, in our opinion, mistaken when, at the conclusion of his judgment, he held that he was bound by the finding arrived at in the trial court, that is to say, by the court of first instance, on the question of the consideration for the mortgage deed in suit. The question turns on the wording of Section 3, proviso (3), of Act No. XXVI of 1917. When the learned District Judge, by his order of the 27th of April, 1918, granted the plaintiff's application for review, the plaintiff's appeal against the decree of the trial court dismissing Ms claim for a decree for sale on the mortgage and granting him only a simple money decree, became once more a pending appeal on the file of the District Judge of Meerut. We are not at all certain from the form of the order before us that this fact was fully realized in the court below. The order itself is headed as being an order in a miscellaneous case and the learned District Judge begins his judgment b...
Mr. Sheo Nath Singh Vs. L. Munshi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All153; 55Ind.Cas.941
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Moradabad sitting in insolvency, dismissing an application, filed by the Receiver, for an order that a certain transfer made by the insolvent was void under the Insolvency Law and that the property be handed over to the Receiver. So far as the question decided by the learned Judge and now before us in appeal in concerned, the facts are not in dispute. The respondent suggests that there may be grounds for attacking the order of adjudication and the locus standi of the original petitioning creditor, but these are not matters which can be decided upon this application and he must be left to take such course as may seem proper to him by way of an independent application to the Court below.2. The facts are that the petition or application in insolvency was presented on the 3rd of March, summons was issued on the 11th of March, on which day the debtor contracted for the sale of his immoveable properly, and on the following day, name...
Musammat Kampa Devi Vs. Kishori Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All90; 55Ind.Cas.981
1. The learned District Judge was, in our opinion, mistaken when, at the conclusion of his judgment, he held that he was bound by the finding arrived at in the trial Court, that is to say, by the Court of first instance, on the question of the consideration for the mortgage-deed in suit. The question turns on the wording of Section 3, proviso 3 of Act XXVI of 1917. When the learned District Judge, by his order of April the 27th, 1918, granted the plaintiff's application for review, the plaintiff's appeal against the decree of the trial Court dismissing his claim for a decree for sale on the mortgage, and granting him only a simple money-decree, became once more a pending appeal on the file of the District Judge of Meerut -We are not at all certain from the form of the order before us that this fact was fully realised in the Court below. The order itself is headed as being an order in a miscellaneous case and the learned District Judge begins his judgment by describing the matter before...
Mannu Vs. Musammat Patia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All189(2); 55Ind.Cas.932
1. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Jhansi has referred to us the question whether a finding recorded in a certain previous litigation does or does not operate as res judicata between the parties to a suit now pending before him. In the former litigation the parties were arrayed on the same side as defendants, but there was a question in issue between them and the adjudication of the same was necessary to give appropriate relief to the then plaintiff. The point was duly decided, and was decided in a sense favourable to the plaintiff in this subsequent suit in connection with which the reference is now made. On the principles laid down by this Court in Ahmad Ali v. Najabat Khan 18 A. 65 : A.W.N. (1865) 156 and in Chajju v Umrao Singh 22 A. 386 : A.W.N. (1900) 120 the decision arrived at in the former suit does operate as res judicata in the present one. This is our answer to this reference. We are of opinion that the plaintiff in the case, who alone has been represented...
Maulvi Nazir Hasan Vs. Bakhtawar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All126; 56Ind.Cas.161
1. This is an appeal by Maulvi Nazir Hasan against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur who dismissed his claim, he having sued one Bakhtawar for damages for malicious prosecution. Contrary to what we think is the general belief, these actions for malicious prosecution are extremely difficult to substantiate. The policy of the law is that a man shall be permitted to bring a criminal complaint against another man without incurring any serious risk if he acts in good faith and without malice or, to put it more accurately, if he acts with reasonable and probable cause and without malice. If every one who had been acquitted by a Magistrate was by the mere fact of that acquittal given a good cause of action against a complainant, complainants would be very shy of going into Court; and charges which ought properly to be preferred against people, would be abandoned for fear of the consequences. Now in this case Bakhtawar filed a complaint under sections 298 and 448 of the Indian ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »