Allahabad Court December 1969 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.
Pran Nath Ghose Vs. Jado Nath Bhattacharji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All189
Aikman, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made under the Probate and Administration Act of 1881 for probate of a will. On the 20th of December 1895, Musammat Sonamani, a Hindu lady, executed a will, in which she named the appellant Pran Nath Ghose and the respondent Jadu Nath Bhattacharji executors of the will. On the 9th of May 1896, the latter applied for and obtained probate of the will from the District Court of Benares. On the 17th of March 1897, the appellant also applied for probate of the will. This application was refused by the learned District Judge, and the applicant appeals to this Court. The appeal must succeed Section 9 of the Act provides-that when several executors are appointed probate may be granted to all simultaneously or at different times. If the applicant is an executor named by the will and is under no legal incapacity to act, the Court has no option but to grant him probate. Section 85 of the Act enacts that it is within the discretion of the Court...
Shib Lal Vs. Radha Kishen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All898
Straight and Tyrrell, JJ.1. This appeal is presented under the following circumstances: The plaintiff-respondent sued the defendant-appellant and certain other persons. He got a decree against those other persons, but the defendant was exempted from the decree, and costs were awarded to him against the plaintiff-respondent, and the former was thus a decree-holder for the amount of coats against the plaintiff-respondent. This decree was dated the 24th December 1878. On the 16th June 1880, the plaintiff sought to execute his decree against those other persona, and he sought to set off the costs awarded to the respondent against the amount due to him. On the 6th August 1880, the appellant preferred objections to his costs being set off in this manner, and, on the 2nd September 1880, his objections were disposed of. The appellant then, on the 19th July 1883, applied for execution of his decree for costs. The application has been rejected on the ground that it was not made within three year...
Ram Autar Vs. Deo Dat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All502
Mahmood, J.1. The contention urged before us on the defendant's behalf raises three main points for determination:1. Whether the defendant was entitled to claim interest on the mortgage-money for the period between 30th August 1882, the date of the mortgage, and the 23rd August 1883, when he enforced his pre-emptive decree by depositing Rs. 699, the principal consideration-money of the conditional pale in respect of which he enforced his pre-emption.2. Whether the defendant was entitled to claim any interest after the 21st August 1884, when the deposit by the plaintiff, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, amounted to Rs. 743.3. Whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to costs.4. I will dispose of each of these points in the order in which I have mentioned them. The first of these questions depends upon the determination of a very important point of the law of pre-emption. That a successful pre-emptor stands in the shoes of the original ve...
Shankar Dat Dube Vs. Radha Krishna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All195
John Edge, C.J. and Blair, J.1. Rai Radha Krishna brought a suit against Shankar Dat Dube, then Raja of Jaunpur, on a bond alleged to have been given by the Raja's deceased elder brother. The Raja entered an appearance, filed a written statement and appointed pleaders to act for him. One of those pleaders was one Satish Chandar, a pleader practising at Benares. The suit in question was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares, and the vakalatnamah which was given by the Raja authorised Satish Chandar and the other pleaders therein named to conduct the suit on behalf of the Raja, and to answer any questions, &c.; Satish Chandar obtained more than one adjournment, and on the 31st of January 1896, he obtained an adjournment until the 19th of March in that year. On the 19th of March when the suit was called on for hearing and disposal, Satish Chandar stated that no one had come near him on the part of the Raja, and that he had no instructions. Thereupon the Subordinate Judge ...
Chunna Lal Vs. Anandi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All196
Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for sale under a mortgage which comprised two items of property, namely, a piece of homestead land and a shop. The mortgagee held a simple decree for money against the mortgagor, in execution of which he caused the land and a two-thirds share in the shop to be sold by auction subject to his mortgage. He himself purchased the land, and the share in the shop was purchased by the defendant No. 5, who subsequently sold it to the defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The remaining one-third share was sold afterwards to the second defendant by the first defendant, the motgagor.2. In the present suit the plaintiff mortgagee has made an apportionment of the mortgage money with reference to what he alleges to be the value of the two items of property mortgaged to him, and, after making a deduction of what according to him was chargeable on the property purchased by him, has claimed the balance and has prayed for the sale of the mortgaged property for realization of the balance....
Queen-empress Vs. Tulla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All904
Tyreell, J.1. It is obvious that the trial of this case has been in all respects inadequate, and, so far as regards the evidence for the prosecution, only half completed. In view of the order that I must make in the case, I refrain from comment on the evidence on the record further than to remark that, as it stands, it would not be sufficient to prove that the accused had the stolen articles in their possession, so as to make them guilty under Section 411 of the Penal Code. It has not been established that the stolen goods were in such places that the accused must necessarily have been privy to their deposit there, or that the places are not equally accessible to other persons; but in the imperfect state of the record, it is impossible to say whether these defects in the proof of the case for the prosecution might or might not have been removed by the evidence which has been excluded. It is true that the rule of the Criminal Procedure, Code simply requires in general terms that the wit...
Ramadhar Vs. Ram Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All535
Mahmood, J.1. The exact effect of the Full Bench ruling was recently discussed and summarized by me in Jokhu Ram v. Ram Din ante p. 419. It is clear from the report of the Full Bench ruling that the application, which was under consideration in that case, was the first made under the present Code after the decree had become twelve years old, and in view of this circumstance the learned Judges constituting the majority of the Full Bench observed: 'In the execution proceedings to which this reference relates, the respondent-decree-holder's application to execute the decree of November 1870, was not only the first preferred by him under Section 230 of Act XIV of 1882, but the first he had made after the expiration of twelve years from the date of the decree, and as such was, we think, entertainable.' That this was not a mere obiter dictum, but formed a part of the ratio decidendi, is apparent from the judgment itself, and the same conclusion is derivable from what Straight, Offg. C.J., on...
Abbasi Begam Vs. Afzal Husen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All457
Blair and Burkitt, JJ.1. This is a second appeal of a plaintiff in a preemption suit. The lady who is the pre-emptor and appellant here has open defeated by a finding of the Lower Appellate Court that she has not fully satisfied the requirements of the Muhammadan law in making the talab-i-ishtishhad. The facts are, as found by the Lower Appellate Court, that the lady was-inside her house when she received intelligence of the transaction which gave rise to her pre-emptive right. She at once declared that she was the shaft. That is beyond doubt a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law as to the immediate demand See Ali Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Said Husain I.L.R. 18 All. 309.--ED. She thereupon instructed an agent to communicate to the vendee, who was outside the house, her intention of exercising her right. The learned Judge says that certain persons appear t& have accompanied the agent as witnesses. It is admitted that when the second demand was made to the vendee no wo...
Hira and anr. Vs. Kallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All916
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This appeal must be dismissed with costs. I agree with the learned Judge in his decision, but not altogether for the reasons assigned by him. The suit was based on a wrong idea as to the custom of pre-emption asserted by Hindus. Pre-emption is a right which is known to the Muhammadan Law. It is not fixed to the land or country, but follows the persons of Muhammadans wherever they may be in the world. Among Hindus, on the other hand, it is a matter of contract or custom agreed to by the members of a village or community. When it is said that such a custom is attached to the land, I do not think that is a correct description. A community of Hindus may agree to be governed by the custom of pre-emption, but the moment they sell to a stranger to the agreement, there is no pre-emption attaching to the land. I think there is no ground for declaring such a custom to exist. The Judge was right in his decision, and this appeal must be dismissed with the costs.Tyrrell, J...
Ram Autar Vs. Dhanauri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All540
Straight, Offg. C.J.1. It has been found as a fact by both the lower Courts, and the appellant's pleader admits it to have been so found, that the plaintiff took his mortgage of the 20th June 1883, with notice of the defendant's possessory mortgage of the 17th January 1881. Both these instruments were for sums of money below Rs. 100, and both were optionally registrable, that of the 20th June 1883, being, in fact, registered, and that of the 17th January 1881, being unregistered.2. The question then arises, whether the plaintiff, having taken his document of the later date with knowledge of the prior title of the defendant and of his possession, in virtue of it, of the land to which the suit relates, is entitled to enforce the provisions of Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1877? In support of the contention that he is, his pleader referred to Nallappa Goundon v. Ibram Sahib I.L.R. 5 Mad. 73; Madar Saheb v. Subbarayalu Nayudu I.L.R. 6 Mad. 88 and Kota Muthanna Chetti v. Ali Beg Sahib...
- ‹ Prev
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- Next ›
- Last »