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.
Mathura Singh Vs. Bhawani Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All248
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. The only question in this case which has been referred be the Full Bench is whether the suit is barred by limitation, or whether it is protected from being barred by the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. The suit was a suit for contribution based on a registered agreement executed on the 19th March 1887. The plaintiff sues, alleging that he and the defendants were liable under a decree held by the Maharaja of Dumraon, that certain zamiudari property of his was sold in excess of his liability under the decree, and that under the agreement he is entitled to recover that excess from the other executants, that is, the defendants. The suit was instituted on the 23rd September 1896. It is admittedly barred by limitation unless the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the time during which he was prosecuting a former suit. The Court below has held that he is not entitled to exclude that time, and has therefore dismissed the suit. From that decisi...
Ghansham Singh Vs. Lal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All61
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. The applicant for review of judgment in this case was absent at the hearing before the Full Bench, and we are satisfied that his absence is accounted for by a mistake which was made in not serving him with notice of that hearing. We are of opinion that, under the circumstances, the applicant's absence at the hearing comes within the words 'any other sufficient reason 'used in Section 623 of the Civil Procedure Code. The review of judgment is granted, and the appeal will be restored to the file of pending appeals and heard before the Full Bench. Let next Saturday week be fixed for the hearing and notices issue to the parties.Straight, Oldfield, Brbdhurst, and Tyrrell, JJ.2. Concurred....
Deocharan Singh and ors. Vs. Beni Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All247
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether Mr. Justice DILLON was right in holding that the plaintiffs had no right of appeal under Section 189 of the N.W.P. Rent Act, XII of 1881, from the decision of the Collector dismissing their suit on appeal from the Assistant Collector of the second class. Its solution depends on the exact nature of the matter in issue and decided in the suit, and this is not altogether easy to determine. The suit was in terms one for arrears of rent for three years, under Section 93(a) of the Rent Act. The written statement of the defendants is not very clearly expressed. Its principal plea is thus stated: 'The rent of the land, in respect of which rent is claimed, has all along been enjoyed by the defendants' ancestor and subsequently by the defendants in lieu of interest under a mortgage deed of 23rd December 1886, executed by the former zamindar from the time of the execution of the said deed of mortgage. No zamindars of the mahal ever re...
Har Prasad and anr. Vs. Jafar Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All345
Oldfield, J.1. Article 164 of the Limitation Act provides thirty days, as the period of limitation for an order to set aside a judgment ex-parte, from the date of executing any process for enforcing the judgment, and by Section 4 of the Act it is enacted that 'subject to the provisions contained in Sections 5 to 25 inclusive, every suit instituted, appeal presented, and application made after the period of limitation prescribed there for by the second of the Act, shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.'2. When therefore a Court has admitted an application to set aside an ex-parte judgment in contravention of the Law of Limitation it must be held to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally within the meaning of Section 622, and, there being no appeal to this Court in the case, this Court has, in my opinion, powers of revision under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. In the case before us the Judge erred in his application of the ...
Jiwa Lal and ors. Vs. Magni Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All336
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Oldfield, Brodhurst, Mahmood and Duthoit, JJ.1. This appeal cannot, proceed under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, because the Privy Council has decided in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bnkhsh Singh I.L.R. 11 Cal. 6 that only questions relating to the jurisdiction of the Court can be entertained under that section. The appeal will be laid before a Division Bench for orders under Section 551....
Kamrakh Nath Vs. Sundar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All299
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an application asking the Court to revise, under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur rejecting an application for leave to sue as a pauper. The applicant alleged that he was the eldest chela of the deceased mahant; that whilst he was on a pilgrimage the mahant died and the proposed defendant to the suit had wrongfully usurped the gaddi and the position of mahant of the temple, and the applicant alleged that he was entitled to the gaddi by law and custom. We may observe here that that was a very loose allegation. In nearly all these cases of succession to the gaddis of temples the succession is governed by the custom of the class to which the temple is appropriated. Sometimes the mahant nominates his successor, and that successor on the death of the mahant becomes entitled by virtue of the nomination. In other cases the successor is appointed by the representative of the founder of the templ...
Ram Dial and ors. Vs. Ram Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All181
Pearson, Turner and Oldfield, JJ.1. We proceed to consider in the first place the issue on which the learned and honourable Judges differed.2. The provisions of Section 254, Civil Procedure Code, declare that, if the purchaser of immoveable property at an auction-sale held in execution of a decree, after payment of the deposit, fails to make good the full amount of the purchase-money before sunset of the fifteenth day from that on which the sale took place * * * the deposit after defraying the expenses of the sale shall be forfeited to Government, and the property shall he resold * * * and that, if the proceeds of the sale which is eventually consummated be less than the price hid by such defaulting purchaser, the difference shall he leviable from him under the rules for enforcing the payment of money in satisfaction of a decree of Court.2. Had the law simply declared the liability, of the defaulting purchaser without going on to declare how that liability should be enforced, the proce...
Queen-empress Vs. Ahmadi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All264
Knox, J.1. Musammat Ahmadi Begam was suspected of having committed the offence of murder. The case was under inquiry with a view to commitment, if necessary, to the Court of Sessions. The evidence produced in support of the prosecution had apparently been put forward up to the 4th of December. On the date a petition was put in by Musammat Ahmadi Begam asking the Court to take the evidence of her witnesses under Section 208* of the Criminal Procedure Code before taking her statement. Upon that petition the first order passed is dated the 4th of December, and was as follows: 'It is too late to pass an order now, as it is about 5 p.m.' With this order apparently the proceedings of the 4th of December came to a close. I understand that the accused had witnesses present in Court on that day who could have been then and there produced and examined. In that case I do not understand what difficulty the learned Magistrate could have had in passing the only proper order under the circumstances, ...
Balbhadar Prasad Vs. the Maharajah of Betia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All351
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This was an action by which the plaintiff sought to recover from the representative of the Maharajah of Betia a sum of Rs. 1, 253-6. The action arose in this way. It appears that the deceased Maharajah, when on a visit to Allahabad for the purpose of religious observances, was accompanied by a servant or retainer against whom the plaintiff had obtained a money-decree. After the arrival of the Maharajah in Allahabad, the present plaintiff, the decree-holder, arrested the retainer of the Maharajah. On that the Maharajah requested the plaintiff to discharge his servant from arrest, offering to pay the amount of the debt. The plaintiff consented to release the retainer upon the Maharajah becoming liable for the amount of the debt, and insisted on having the Maharajah's promissory note at six months for the debt and interest. On this the Maharajah executed the promissory note, which is found to be not stamped. Under these circumstances the two Courts below held that t...
Tika Ram Vs. Megh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All127
Burkitt, J.1. In my opinion the decision of the Officiating District Judge in this case is wrong. When the rent of a tenant (in this case an occupancy tenant) is in arrear, the landlord is, I think, entitled to distrain any crop growing on the tenant's holding, no matter by whom that crop was sown. This seems to me to be the clear meaning of the words 'the produce of all lands in the occupation of a cultivator shall be deemed to be hypothecated for the rent payable in respect of such land.' In my opinion it makes no matter whether such crop was sown, as in this case, by (be sub-tenant of an occupancy tenant or by the occupancy tenant himself. This is the view that was taken by this Court in the case of Geetum Singh v. Buldeo Kahar (1872) 4 N.W.P. H.C. Rep. 76 and in the observations of the late Chief Justice in the case of Fatima Begam v. Hansi (1887) I.L.R. 9 All. 244; at p. 247. A similar rule has been adopted by the Board of Revenue. It may be that the wording of Section 56 is open ...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »