Allahabad Court April 1923 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.
Adya Saran Vs. Kali Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All580; (1923)ILR45All567
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order by which the District Judge of Cawnpore refused to entertain a petition of appeal presented to him against the decree of an Assistant Collector in what was, beyond question, a suit under the Local Tenancy Act No. II of 1901. The suit, as originally brought, was a suit of the description covered by serial No. 36, group C, of the fourth schedule to the said enactment, and under the provisions of Sections 150 and 154 of the said Act. It is possibly an arguable point whether the decree, against which the petition of appeal was presented in the court of the District Judge, was in reality a decree in the suit as originally instituted, or whether it could be treated as a decree in a separate suit or proceeding which had arisen out of the former one and fell under the purview of serial No. 38 of group C of the schedule already mentioned, being governed by the provisions of Section 150/158 of the Tenancy Act.. In any event, the p...
Jugal Kishore Girdhari Lal Vs. Achal Singh and Takhat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All569
Piggott, J.1. A suit in the Court of. Small Causes at Agra, was dismissed for default of appearance by the plaintiff.2. Along with the order of dismissal was an order that the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs, amounting to Rs. 18-8-0. Within limitation the plaintiff applied under Order IX, Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order to set the dismissal aside. He satisfied the Judge of the Small Cause Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, and obtained an order setting aside the dismissal. It does not appear that this order was coupled with any direction that the plaintiff should first pay the costs which had been awarded against him, though such an order would undoubtedly have been within the discretion of the court. The result has been that the defendant has come to this Court in revision, contending that the order setting aside the dismissal was without jurisdiction, because the plaintiff had not first deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs. 18-8-...
Gajraj Tewari and ors. Vs. Bhagirathi Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All95; 74Ind.Cas.14
Daniels, J.1. In this case, a preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of the appeal on tae ground that it has abated. The facts are that two of the respondents, Bhagwat Pande and Chhotkan Pande, are deed and that no steps have been taken to bring their legal representatives on the record. As they admittedly died prior to 1st June last there is no doubt that the appeal has abated against them. The respondent contends, however, that under the circumstances of She case the appeal has abated against all the respondents. Chhotakan Pande was plaintiff No. 13 in the original array of parties and was No. 19 in the 1st of respondents in this Court. Bhagwat, son of Harihar Pande, is No. 7 in the list of plaintiffs-respondents attached to the memorandum of appeal. As a matter of fact, no such name appears either in the plaint or in the memorandum of appeal to the lower Appellate Court and a comparison of the names in the plaint with those in the memorandum of appeal to this Court goes to sh...
Girdhari Lal Vs. Firm Achal Singh-takhat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.64
Piggott, J.1. A suit in the court of Small Causes at Agra was dismissed for default of appearance by the plaintiff Along with the order of dismissal was an order that the plaintiff should ray the defendant's costs, amounting to Rs 18-8-6. Within limitation the plaintiff applied under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order to set the dismiss aside. He satisfied the Judge of the Small Cause Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, and obtained an order setting aside the dismissal. It does not appear that this order was coupled with any direction that the plaintiff should first pay the costs which had been awarded against him, though such an order would undoubtedly have been within the discretion of the Court. The result has been that the defendant has come to this Court in revision, contending that the order setting aside the dismissal was without jurisdiction, because the plaintiff has not first deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs. 18-8-0 or give...
B. Adya Saran Vs. Kali Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.280
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order by which the District Judge of Cawnpore refused to entertain a petition of appeal presented to him against the decree of an Assistant Collector in what was beyond question a suit under the local Tenancy Act, II of 1901. The suit, as originally brought, was a suit of the description covered by Serial No. 36, group C, of the Fourth Schedule to the said enactment and under the provisions of Sections 150 and 154 of the said Act. It is possibly an arguable point whether the particular decree against which the petition of appeal was presented in the Court of the District Judge, was really a decree in the suit as originally instituted, or whether it could be troated as a decree in a separate suit or proceeding which had arisen out of the former one and fell under the purview of Serial No. 38 of group C of the Schedule already mentioned, being governed by the provisions of Section 150/158 of the Tenancy Act. In any event, the pe...
Muhammad Maqbul HusaIn Vs. Abdullah Khan and Musammat Shafiqa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All565
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff came into court claiming to be the owner of a residential house, fully described in the plaint, and sued for recovery of possession and damages against certain defendants alleged to be in possession as trespassers. , The plaintiff asserted that the defendants were the heirs and representatives of two persons whom he had let into possession of the premises in the month of April, 1917, on a three years' lease. He pleaded that in a subsequent suit, brought to enforce the terms of the alleged covenant of lease, the defendants had denied his title. He, therefore, sued for ejectment of the defendants as trespassers and for a sum of Rs. 46 by way of damages on account of their use and occupation of the house. The defendants put the plaintiff to proof of his title and pleaded further that they and their predecessors had held possession of the house in suit adversely to the plaintiff for a period of 40 years. The...
Muneshar Tewari Vs. Musammat Mahesha Kueri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.197
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiff is alone entitled to collect the entire rent from the tenants. This has been clearly found by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge, however, was of opinion that though the plaintiff was entitled to the entire rent he was not entitled to eject the defendant without the concurrence of the entire body of co-sharers. It is hardly necessary to point out that this view, if correct, would be productive of great inconvenience, especially in the eastern districts where co-sharers ere often very numerous. The learned District Judge gives two reasons in support of his decision. The first is that Section 194 only makes an exception in the case of money-suits, and the other that the word landholder does not occur in Section 58 of the Tenancy Act. The reference to Section 194 is doubtless to Sub-section (3). This sub-section, however, only applies where one of...
Abdullah Khan Vs. Muhammad Maqbul HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All603; 74Ind.Cas.822
1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff came into Court darning to be the owner of a residential h use, fully described in the plaint, and sued for recovery of possession and damages against certain defendants alleged to be in possession as trespassers. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants were the heirs and representatives of two persons whom he had let into (possession of the premises in the month of April 1917 on a three years' lease. He pleaded that in a subsequent suit, brought to enforce the terms of the alleged covenant of lease, the defendants had denied his title. He, there fore, said for ejectment of the defendant as trespassers and for a sum of Rs. 46 by way of damages on account of their use and occupation of the house. The defendant: pat the plaintiff to proof of his title am pleaded further that they and their predecessors had held possession of the house in suit adversely to the plaintiff for a period of 40 years. The Trial Court fixed two issu...
Muhammad Siddiq Ali Khan Vs. Anwar-ul-hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All563
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:2. Ibrahim Ali Khan owned property, some of which is in wait. He died leaving 3 sons and 3 daughters, one of whom was Musammat Batul-un-nissa who was entitled to l/9th of the property owned by Ibrahim Ali Khan at his death. She died leaving a sou Anwar-ul-Hasan, who became entitled to 2/3rds of the 1/9th share inherited by his mother. He sold his share to Muhib Ali, who sold to Mazhar Husain, who in turn sold to the plaintiff. This is a suit by the plaintiff for declaration and for possession of the property. The defendant No. 1. is Anwar-ul-Hasan, the transferor of the property. Defendants 2 to 9 are the persons who represent the sons and daughters of Ibrahim Ali Khan. Defendants 10 to 25 are subsequent transferees from the sons of these defendants. Nos. 22 to 25 are wards under the Court of Wards. Defendants 22 to 25 alone contested the suit, on the ground that the notice required by Section 54 of the C...
Seth Mahabir Prasad Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All99; 74Ind.Cas.372
1. Gulab Singh was the mortgagor, and Gopi Ram was the mortgagee, who is now represented by the plaintiff. Mahabir Prasad was joined as a defendant in the suit by the plaintifi for sale on the mortgage executed by Gulab Singh, as a subsequent purchaser of part of the mortgaged property. He set up, among other defences, that he had a prior mortgage on the property. The plaintiff's suit was decreed subject to his paying off the prior mortgage set up by Mahabir Prasad. A preliminary decree was passed on the 1411 of March 1916. From that decree the plaintiff appealed against so much of the decree as directed him to pay off the prior mortgage set up by Mahabir Prasad. That appeal was decreed by the District Judge on the 2nd of June 1916. From that decree Mahabir Prasad appealed to the High Court and his appeal was dismissed on the 1st of August 1918. Then the plaintiff applied for a final decree on the 14th of April 1920. Both Courts have allowed the application. The defendant, Mahabir Pras...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »