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.
Gopal Singh Vs. Dular Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All354
Spankie, J.1. There was some preliminary argument, though the objection cannot be said to have been distinctly raised by respondent's pleader, as to whether the auction-purchaser was in a position to appeal. By Section 311 of Act X of 1877 the decree-holder or any person whose immoveable property has been sold may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale. In this case the judgment-debtor objected, and notice was served upon the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser. Upon the judgment-debtor's objection the sale was set aside. An appeal against the order setting aside the sale is admissible under letter (m), Section 588 of the Civil Procedure Code. The auction-purchaser appeals. It is true that the auction-purchaser as such cannot apply under Section 311 to set aside & sale on the ground of irregularity. That application is confined to the decree-holder and the person whose immoveable property has been sold....
Sham Chand and ors. Vs. Bahadur Upadhia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All430
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.1. This was a suit by the zamindar to recover his haq-i-chaharum, which was payable by the custom of the place to the zamindar on a sale. The suit was brought more than three years after the sale and within six years from the sale. The question is whether Article 62 or Article 120 of the second schedule of Act No. XV of 1877 applies. The Courts below applied Article 62. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation: the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the same ground.2. The Courts below relied upon the decision of this Court in Raghunath Prasad v. Girdhari Das Weekly Notes, 1893, page 65. A Division Bench there decided that Article 62 applied to the suit. On behalf of the plaintiffs appellants it was contended that Article 62 did not apply. Article 62 is as follows: 'For money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use.' The Full Bench of this Court in Na...
Taj Muhammad Vs. Ali Muhammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All283
1. The 'talab-i-mawasabat,' or immediate demand, should be made when a person entitled to pre-emption has hoard of a sale, on the instant, whether there is any one by him or not, and when he remains silent without claiming the right it is lost, Baillie's Digest of Muhammadan law, Bk. vii, ch. iii. The 'talab-i-ishhad,' or demand with invocation of witnesses, is a calling on witnesses to attest the immediate demand and must take place in the presence of the purchaser or seller or of the premises which are the subject of sale,--Baillie's Digest of Muhammadan Law, Bk. vii, ch. iii.2. The Munsif dismissed the claim because it was obvious from the examination of the plaintiff that he did not, on hearing of the sale, immediately, on the instant, claim his right of pre-emption. He heard of the sale in the morning but did not assert his right until 7-30 or 8 in the evening. The plaintiff appealed and contended that the delay in making affirmation of his demand did not destroy his right of pre-...
Nanheju Vs. Bhujbal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All450
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blair, J.1. This is a reference from the District Judge of Jhansi. The plaintiff is a resident of Gwalior and a subject of that State. The defendant is a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, living within the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge of Jhansi. The plaintiff brought the suit in which this reference is made for a decree for rent which had accrued due in respect of land let by the plaintiff to the defendant in Gwalior territory. The District Judge desires to be instructed as to whether or not the suit is maintainable in British territory.2. The suit being one for rent which had accrued due, and the parties being the parties between whom the contract was made for the letting and for the payment of rent, the suit in our opinion, lay in the Jhansi Court, within the jurisdiction of which the defendant was living. A suit for rent as between lessor and lessee, whether the lease is determined or not, and a suit for the use and occupation of land, was...
Narsingh Das Vs. NaraIn Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All763
Oldfield, J.1. I hold that the decree which is now being executed is the decree of the High Court, and the law of limitation which will govern the case is Article 179(2), Act XV of 1879--'(Where there has been an appeal), the date of the final decree or order of the Appellate Court.' In the case before us there was an appeal to Her Majesty in Council who affirmed the decree of this Court, the date of the order on that appeal being 12th August 1876, and the present application is within time from that date.2. I see no reason to doubt that the words 'appeal' and 'Appellate Court' in Article 179(2) are intended to include appeals to Her Majesty in Council, since we find that these appeals are made the subject of legislation in the Act, which in Article 177 * provides the limitation for the admission of such appeals, and in Article 180 provides the limitation for enforcing orders of Her Majesty in Council made in course of such appeals. Were it otherwise and were appeals referred to in Art...
Queen-empress Vs. Chittar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All389
Dillon, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by Pandit Prem Nath, Deputy Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar, convicting the petitioners of an offence under Section 215 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment each, which order was confirmed upon appeal by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur on the 14th of March 1898.2. The facts upon which the conviction was had are as follows: A bullock belonging to Boli, the complainant in this case, was stolen on the night of the 2nd of January of this year. Boli, who was a resident of Bhahisa, took with him certain of the residents of that village and proceeded to the adjoining village of Harya Khera, of which the petitioner Chittar is the headman and the petitioner Nisar the lambardar. There a panchayat was called, at which the two accused were present. What happened at that meeting of the villagers is deposed to by the witnesses for the prosecution in this case. It is in evidence, and ha...
Abdullah Vs. Salaru and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All4
Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. This is an application made by one Abdullah praying this Court to exercise, in respect of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 14th of May 1894, the powers of revision vested in it under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or the powers of superintendence conferred upon this Court by Section 15 of Statute 24 and 25 Vic., Cap. 104. The circumstances of the case are extraordinary, and the manner in which it has been dealt with by the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore is of a very exceptional character. In order to understand the position which the parties now occupy it would be necessary to state the exact nature of the case and the action which has been taken upon it. Abdullah, the petitioner before us, was plaintiff in a suit for dissolution of partnership. He framed his plaint upon the lines laid down in form No. 113 of schedule IV of the Code of Civil Procedure. He prayed the Court to decree a dissolution of the partnership, and t...
Sugra Bibi Vs. Masuma Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All573
Pearson, J.1. The first two grounds of the appeal appear to be incontrovertible. The plaintiff is doubtless entitled to the whole of the dower which her late husband agreed to give her, and which was fixed not in reference to his means at the time of marriage, but to the value which she possessed in the matrimonial market, that value being mainly determined by the local position and traditions, the surroundings and antecedents of her family. The contract cannot be set aside or treated as a nullity because he was comparatively poor when he married, or has not left assets sufficient to pay the debt, but on the contrary may be enforced so far as is possible. But in this instance it happens that, if a dower of Rs. 51,000 had not been agreed to by him, she would have been entitled to a dower of that amount, because such an amount has been customarily fixed as dower for ladies belonging to the family of which she is a member. Her claim is maintainable irrespectively of any contract on the pa...
Kadir Bakhsh Vs. Ilahi Bakhsh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All284
Pearson, J.1. We see no sufficient reason to interfere with the lower Appellate Court's decision which is in conformity with the terms of the law, and is supported by this Court's ruling dated the 20th December 1870 (unreported). The appeal is therefore dismissed....
Ramjiwan Mal and anr. Vs. Chand Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All227
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This suit is for dissolution of a partership. This is in effect asking the Court to give effect to the partnership agreement. This is a relief which can be sought in the ordinary Civil Courts. Section 265 of the Contract Act is intended to meet a different state of things. The winding-up of a partner' ship is the taking by the Court into its own hands the settlement of the partnership concerns. It is a jurisdiction which is created by statute. If this was an application under Section 265 of the Contract Act, I am inclined to think that the District Court only could entertain it.Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.,2. Were of opinion that the suit, being one for dissolution of partnership, was cognizable in the ordinary Civil Courts.Mahmood, J.3. Judging by the allegations in the plaint and the nature of the reliefs prayed for, I am of opinion that this suit is congnizable in the ordinary Civil Courts. It is a suit of a civil nature, within the meaning of Section 11 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 164
- 165
- Next ›
- Last »