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.
Crosthwaite Vs. Hamilton
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All87
1. The first issue had reference to the institution of the suit on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council. That personage, it was argued, was not a party to the bond or interested therein. The Government Advocate admitted the force of the argument, and was allowed to amend the plaint by substituting the present Judge of the Small Cause Court, Mr. Crosthwaite, as plaintiff. By this amendment of the plaint, the objection taken to the competency of the plaintiff to maintain the suit has been removed.2. The Government Notification of the 6th June 1866, prima facie determines the second issue in the affirmative. It is argued that the permanent investiture of the Judges of the Small Cause Courts of Agra, Benares, and Allahabad, ex officio, with the powers of a Principal Sudder Amin by a single order was not within the scope or in accordance with the spirit and intention of Section 51, Act XI of 1865, which provides that 'whenever the state of business in any Court of Small Cau...
Harsukh Rai Vs. Ezid Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All59
Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.1. The plaintiff-respondent has instituted this suit for damages against the defendant-appellant on account of a malicious prosecution with reference to certain proceedings he took against him in the Magistrate's and Sessions Judge's Courts.2. The appellant found the respondent's cattle trespassing in his field and drove them off. The respondent's servants complained to the Police charging the appellant with theft of the cattle. The charge was dismissed by the Magistrate, who gave sanction to the appellant to prosecute certain persons, namely, Lai Muhammad, servant of the respondent, and the witnesses who had given evidence. On this, on the 3rd October 1883, the appellant charged the respondent and others in the Magistrate's Court for offences under Sections 193 and 211 of the Penal Code. The charges were dismissed on the 3rd December 1883.3. In the meantime, and before disposal of the charges, the Judge, on the 1st December, cancelled the sanction to prosecu...
Bisheshur Dial and anr. Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All284
Banerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen in a suit brought under Section 88 of Act No. IV of 1882 for sale upon a mortgage, dated the 3rd of November 1885. A moiety of the mortgaged property was sold by auction on 21st of November 1893, in execution of a simple decree for money held by other creditors of the mortgagor, and was purchased by the mortgagee subject to the above mortgage. The plaintiffs, who represent the mortgagee, seek in this suit to bring to sale the other moiety of the mortgaged property for recovery of a moiety of the amount due upon the mortgage. The Court of First Instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiff's for one-half of the principal amount of the mortgage and dismissed the claim for interest. Upon the appeal of the defendant, who represents the original mortgagor, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The Court found that the market value of the moiety of the mortgaged property purchased by the mortgagee, if sold as unincumbered property, was Rs. 3,0...
Wazir Vs. Ratan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All165
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. I am clearly of opinion that objections to findings on remand, whether in writing or taken orally at the hearing of the appeal, may, with permission of the Court, ho considered. Whether such objections may be allowed as of right may he doubted. I am rather inclined to think that the hard line drawn by the language of the Code excludes them. But that, on the other hand, we may, in our judicial discretion and in the interests of justice and the legal requirements of a suit, permit such objections to be taken, I should be sorry to think there can be any doubt. This is a High Court of Judicature, and when the Code of Procedure is merely silent, and does not expressly prohibit any particular action, we are entitled to use all necessary and proper means and appliances, the power to permit or refuse which must reside within the inherent authority of a Court of Record.2. My answer to this reference, therefore, is that the objections to which it refers, whether in writing ...
Empress of India Vs. Mulu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All646
Straight, J.1. I had at one time the intention of disposing of the case in its present condition, but upon carefully going over it I feel that to do so would be to countenance an irregularity of procedure that ought not to be passed over. I refer to the reading of the deposition of Ganga Prasad in the Sessions Court to prove the loss and identity of the articles found in the possession of the accused. It was absolutely inadmissible under Section 249 * of the Criminal Procedure Code, and there is no evidence upon the record, nor do I believe was there any taken, to permit the application of Section 33 of the Evidence Act. As to Section 249, * that has no applicability to a case like the present, and is intended to provide for the contingency, that may arise, when a witness, who is produced before the Court of Session holds back information and evidence and tells a different story to that which he gave in the preliminary inquiry before the Magistrate. With regard to s. 33 of the Evidence...
Fatima Begam Vs. Hansi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All244
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an action which was instituted in the Revenue Courts against an ex-proprietary tenant, and a person who had been put in possession by that ex-proprietary tenant under a document purporting to be a mortgage of the ex-proprietary tenancy. The Revenue Court decreed possession as against the ex-proprietary tenant, and it appears to have given no decree as against the person whom we may call the mortgagee, possibly because the suit against the mortgagee might not have been maintainable in the Revenue Courts. Against that decree in the Revenue Court an appeal was brought to the Judge of Allahabad, who reversed the decision of the Revenue Court and dismissed the claim. The so-called mortgagee was not a party to the appeal before the Judge of Allahabad, or to the appeal which is before us from the decision of the Judge of Allahabad. In this case a preliminary question has been raised as to whether the Judge of Allahabad exercised his discretion properly in admitt...
Ghanshiam Singh Vs. Daulat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All240
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Aikman, J.1. The only question in this appeal is: Is the plaintiff entitled to have interest upon the rent decreed to him? The defendant being a thekadar, Clause (a) at Section 34 of Act No. XII of 1881 did not apply. The non-application of Clause (a) of Section 34 did not exempt the thekadar from his liability under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. Illustration (w) of Section 73 shows that where a person breaks his contract to pay another a sum of money on a day certain or specified, he is liable for the principal sum due together with interest up to the day of payment. We decree the appeal with costs, and restore the decree of the first Court with costs in all the Courts....
Sheo NaraIn Vs. Chunni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All243
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the Court below has rightly made the plaintiff's decree conditional on the payment by him to the respondents of the amount due under their decree of the 30th September 1885. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage of the 5th June 1885. The respondents were prior mortgagees under a mortgage of 1882. At the time when the mortgage to the plaintiff was executed a suit on the respondents' mortgage was pending. The respondents obtained a decree on their prior mortgage on the 30th September 1885. In paragraph 8 of the plaint in the present suit for sale the plaintiff states that the respondents 'are impleaded as defendants on account of their decree of the 30th September 1885, and that the entire amount of the said decree was satisfied without anything remaining due, but nevertheless they say their debt is still due; the plaintiff therefore is willing to pay the portion of their demand found in the Court's opinion to be still remain...
Jiwan Singh Vs. Sarnam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All97
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. I was a party to the decision of 1st May 1874, and to the opinion I then expressed I advisedly adhere. With regard to the present reference, I cannot say that an application for the execution of a decree is not a suit within the meaning of Section 15, Act IX of 1871. I think it is. It has been repeatedly held in England that the word 'suit' does include any proceeding instituted for the purpose of obtaining any beneficial order or relief, and that a petition presented for this purpose was a suit; and I observe it has been used in that sense in the practice of the American Courts. In Kent's Commentaries on the American Law, vol. i, p. 314, note (d), 11th ed. published in 1867, two cases are referred to in which it was decided that a mandamus is a 'suit, for it is a litigation in a Court of Justice seeking a decision,' and in the Calcutta case referred to by the Officiating Judge of Ghazipur (Hurro Chunder Roy Choudhry v. Shoorodhonee Debia 9 W.R. 402), the followin...
Ramlal Vs. Radhey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All330
Duthoit, J.1. The order of the Lower Appellate Court cannot be maintained. The powers which the foreign Court has, under 8 228 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are confined to the execution of the decree. It cannot question the propriety or correctness of the order directing execution, nor can it (Section 239 of the Code) stay execute in except temporarily.2. We reverse the order of the Lower Appellate Court and restore the order of the Court of First Instance....
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »