Allahabad Court January 1921 Judgments
Saheb Ram Vs. Musammat Gobind
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All155; 60Ind.Cas.774
1. Second Appeals No?, 649 and 650 of 1918 are between the same parties and arise out of the same emit. On the 18th of November lc91 one Har Narain executed a mortgage-deed for a sum of Rs. 900 in favour of three persons, Saheb Ram and his brother, Ajai Ram, and their couein Har Prasad. On the 30th of July 191J Saheb Ram and Ajai Ram brought a suit for sale against the mortgagor on the basis of the deed. At that time Har Prasad was dead. He left a widow, Govindi, and there was one Brij Narain, the son of Ajai Ram, on whose behalf a claim was put forward by Saheb Ram that he was the adopted son of Har Prasad, Therefore, he and Musammat Govindi were made pro forma defendants to the suit. She applied to be made a plaintiff, claiming to be the heir of Har Prasad. Saheb Ram tock no exception to this appliaation, in fact, he agreed on the condition that she would pay 'half' the costs of the suit. She agreed to do this and was made a plaintiff. An application was also made on behalf of Brij N...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Singh and ors. Vs. Musammat Lakhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.885
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The only question of law which is raised is whether a portion of the plaintiff's claim is barred by Section 111 of the (United Provinces) Land Revenue Act. It appears that certain partition proceedings took place in which Raghubir Singh, the plaintiff, was concerned. Raghubir Singh, having raised a question of title in the Ravenue Court, was directed by the partition officer to file a suit in a Civil Court under Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act (III of 1901); the date of the order was 7th February 1917. The partition proceeding in the course of which the above order was made related to one village only, namely, Shah Muhiuddinpur.2. The present suit was brought on the 10th of May 1917, It relates not only to the village which was the subJ9st of the partition, but to other villages as well in which the plaintiff is said to have an interest.3. As regards Shah Muhiuddinpur an objection was taken, in accordance with the provisions of Section 111 of the Li...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ganesh Rai Vs. Musammat Faizan and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.890
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This application in revision arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, opposite party, for profits against a lambardar. The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the defendant was a trespasser in possession and the plaintiff could not claim profits from him in a Revenue Court, He, thereupon, passed a curious order that the suit be dismissed with costs, and in order to prevent any hardship the plaint is to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff thereupon went in appeal to the District Judge, who, after considering the questions raised before him, tame to the conclusion that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Courts and remanded the case to that Court for trial on the merits. The defendant lambardar comes up here in revision. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party that the application in revision is incompetent. He has referred me to a large number of cas...
Tag this Judgment!Lalman Alias Laloo and ors. Vs. Gopi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.888
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The plaintiffs are the owners of a firm which carries on business at Banda. Their claim was against a firm which carried on a business at Calcutta at the time the suit was filed in the Court of first instance. It appears that the Calcutta firm had come into the hands of a Receiver, under an order of the Calcutta High Court, and, consequently, the Receiver was impleaded in the Court of first instance as the sole defendant. The Subordinate Judge of Banda dismissed the claim. He was of opinion that it was necessary for the plaintiffs' firm, before bringing a suit, to obtain the permission of the High Court at Calcutta to sue the Receiver. He held that such permission was a condition precedent to the maintainability of a suit, relying upon a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported as Pramatha Nath v. Khetra Nath 32 C. 270 : 9 C.W.N. 247. Another issue was raised with which we are not eonoerned.2. The plaintiffs then went in appeal to the District Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Vs. Bohra Tara Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All86; 60Ind.Cas.800
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an application in revision from the decision of the District Judge of Agra, dismissing an appeal against an order of sanction to prosecute the applicant for giving false evidence. The only judgment passed by the learned District Judge in appeal is, 'The application is rejected'. I do not think that an order like this should be passed. An order like this passed in a sanction for prosecution case amounts to a refusal to consider the question and would, in my opinion, at least amount to a material irregularity amounting to illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction by a Court. In order to assure myself of the correctness of the order passed by the first Court I went through the record of the case. There is no documentary evidence what ever on the record to support the statement of the plaintiff as against the defendant. It is a pure question of oath against oath, and, in my opinion, the order of sanction granted by the first Court was not justified. I, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Kandhai Pande Vs. Musammat Dachchina MisiraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All78; 60Ind.Cas.784
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The two plaintiffs are the daughters of one Jagdeo Pande who died leaving two widows, Musammat Phu Kunwar and Musammat Hansrani. After his death then two widows on the 2nd of September 1913, made a gift of part of their estate in favour of the two daughters of Jagdeo conditional on the two daughters agreeing to support them, the two widows. There was a condition in the gift that if the widows were not supported they would have a right to set as the gift and to take possession of the gifted property. The two daughters applied to the Revenue Court for mutation of their names. They were opposed by Mandeo, the first cousin of Jagdeo Pande, and the mutation was fuled. Thereupon the plaintiffs brought a suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration that they were the owners in possession of the shares specified in the deed of gift, Mandeo resisted the suit. He pleaded that Jagdeo had left a son Jamna who died two years after him, that the deed of...
Tag this Judgment!Sitla Bakhsh Singh Vs. Sital Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All245
Phillimore, J.1. This appeal turns upon the construction of the Oudh Estates Act, I of 1869, au Act, the construction of which has been frequently before this Board. It arises in the following circumstances:2. One Sher Bahadur Singh was the holder of a taluqa entered in the 1st and 3rd lists enumerated in Section 8 of that Act. He died on the 10th of June, 1899, having made a will, dated the 1st of December, 1895. The will contained a bequest of the taluqa in favour of his wife, who, however, died in his life-time, then of his mother, Dilraj Kunwar, and then of his daughter.3. There might be points of difficulty as to the construction and efficacy of the bequests, but their Lordship s agree with the Courts in India that in the events which actually happened, Dilraj Kunwar obtained an absolute estate under the terms of her son's will. She entered into possession and died on the 12th of July, 1906. Thereupon the present disputes arose.4. The appellant claimed to be the proper successor u...
Tag this Judgment!Mul Chand and Nemi Chand Vs. Basdeo,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All438
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The facts are as follows: The plaintiff, opposite party, brought a suit against the applicants to recover a certain sum of money. In the plaint, as it stood first, that sum was Rs. 285-12-0. He also asked for interest pendente lite and subsequent to the decree. The decree was passed ex parte and ran as follows:Date .. .. .. 20th of August, 1919In whose favour .. .. PlaintiffAgainst whom .. .. DefendantsAmount decreed .. .. Rs. 285-12Costs .. .. .. Rs. 33-14By whom payable .. .. Defendants.2. Under these the words written were: 'The claim of the plaintiff together with costs and future interest is decreed.'3. Now, after the institution of the suit the plaintiff amended his plaint and his claim was actually for Rs. 293-8-3 and Rs. 43-4-0 costs. The decree was passed on the 20th of August, - 1919. On the 26th of August, six days afterwards, the defendants deposited Rs. 320 under Section 17 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupal Kurmi Vs. Pearey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.230
Tudball, J.1. The simple facts of this case are as follows: A suit for sale was brought and a preliminary decree was obtained on the 3rd of February 1916, allowing the defendants six months within which to make good the amount. No action was taken until the 3rd of February 1919. In between, and much more than the six months prior to the 3rd February 1919, the defendant had died. The plaintiff applied to the Court, alleging the fast of the death, asking that if any order of abatement had been passed it should be set aside on the ground that he was ignorant of the law as it now stood and further asking that the heirs be brought on the record and the suit continued as against them and a final decree be passed. The Munsif, first of all, on the fasts raised an order that the suit had abated, but this was quite unnecessary as under the law the abatement in such a case takes place automatically. He then proceeded, for reasons given by him, to hold that the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Basdeo Ram Sarup Through Ram Sarup and ors. Vs. Firm Seth Mulchan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All144; 62Ind.Cas.689
1. This is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The facts are as follows:--The plaintiff-opposite party brought a suit against the applicants to recover a certain sum of money. In the plaint, as it stood first, that sum was Rs. 285-12-0. He also asked for interest pendente lite and subsequent to the decree. The decree was passed ex parte and ran as follows:Date ... 20th August 1919.In whose favour ... Plaintiff.Against whom ... Defendants.Amount decreed ... Rs. 285-12-0.Costs ... Rs. 33-14-0.By whom payable ... Defendants.2. Under these the words written were--'The claim of the plaintiff together with costs and future interest is decreed.'3. Now after the institution of the suit the plaintiff amended his plaint and his claim was actually for Rs. 293-8-3 and Rs. 43 4 0 costs. The decree was passed on the 20th of August 1919. On the 26th of August, six days afterwards, the defendants deposited Rs. 320 under Section 17 of the Act and asked for a re he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »