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.
Sri Ram Mitter Vs. Agra Saving Bank Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All388
Pearson, J.1. I am of opinion that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 11 of Act XXIII of 1861. The money now claimed by the plaintiff in this suit was claimed and realized from him in execution of a decree which the defendant had obtained from the Small Cause Court. Whether it was rightly so claimable and realizable was a question to be determined by the Court executing the decree, and cannot be made the subject of a separate suit. The precedent cited 4 B.L.R. 111--Ekowri Singh and Ors. v. Bijay Nath Chattapadhya. See also Kunhi Moidin Kutti v. Ramen Unni I.L.R. Mad. I. p. 203 by the lower Appellate Court in support of the contrary opinion does not support it. I need not discuss the other questions raised by the pleas in appeal. The appeal should in my opinion be decreed with costs, the lower Appellate Court's decree being reversed, and that of the Court of First Instance being restored.Robert Stuart, C.J.2. The impression made upon me at the hearing of this appeal was tha...
Abdul Ghafur Vs. Raja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All262
Knox, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken in execution of a decroe passed on the 7th of December 1896 in favour of one Babu Raja Ram, respondent to this appeal. In order to understand the points which arise for determination, it will be necessary to state briefly the circumstances which gave rise to the suit in which this decree was passed. One Musammat Saheb Jan was the original owner of the property, over which between the years 1882 and 1884 she made three successive mortgages in favour of the ancestor of Raja Ram. Upon these mortgages Raja Ram obtained a decree for sale on the 4th of August 1890. After the decision had been passed, Saheb Jan, on the 7th of November 1890, executed a lease over the same property in favour of Sheikh Abdul Ghafur, the present appellant, and three days later she preferred an appeal to the High Court from the decree in favour of Raja Bam. This appeal was eventually dismissed. Upon its being dismissed, Raja Ram put the property to sale and hi...
Sarfraz and ors. Vs. Daia Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All117
Turner, Officiating C.J. and Oldfield, J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether or not there has been a sufficient acknowledgment of the mortgagor's title or his right to redeem to prevent the operation of the law of limitation, or rather to give the representatives of the mortgagors a new period from which limitation should ho computed.2. The terms of the law, an acknowledgment of the mortgagor's title or an acknowledgment of his right to redeem, were not, it may be presumed, intended to be mere tautology. An acknowledgment that a certain person, or his representative, is the proprietor of the estate is an acknowledgment of his title. An acknowledgment that the mortgage is a subsisting mortgage would be an acknowledgment of his right to redeem, if he established his title.3. The provisions of the English Statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, Section 28, require, in order to enlarge the statutory period of limitation, that an acknowledgment of the title of the mortgagor or of h...
Gokal Prasad Vs. Radho
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All358
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought his action alleging that the defendant had wrongfully built a new house in such a way that certain eaves of that new house projected over the plaintiff's land, and that a verandah and certain doors of that house interfered with the privacy of those portions of the plaintiff's house and premises which were occupied and used by the females of the plaintiff's family, and claimed to have the eaves in question, and the verandah removed, and the doors which were complained of closed. The females of the plaintiff's family are parda-nashin women. The plaintiff's house was admittedly an old one. The eaves of the defendant's new house do in fact project over the plaintiff's land. The doors in question open on to and afford access to the verandah. The doors, as admitted by the defendant in her deposition, interfere with the privacy of the plaintiff's female apartments. The Officiating Munsif of Allahabad, having considered some of the auth...
Kauleshar Panday Vs. Girdhari Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All338
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that the appeal must be allowed. The suit raises the question whether the land to which the suit relates 19 sir-land. This is land in respect of which no occupancy rights can be created except by contract. The plaintiff contends that he granted a lease of the land to the defendants. The question is, whether the land is sir-land, and the defendants are the plaintiff's lessees. The question whether the defendants are the plaintiff's lessees is a question purely of contract, and is one which is cognizable in the Civil Courts....
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. Lalli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All74
Mahmood, J.1. After stating the facts of the case and the plea of the appellant as above, continued: I am of opinion that this contention is only plausible, but has no real force, and cannot prevail under the circumstances of this case. It is perfectly true that there is no real question of penalty, in its strict sense, involved in this case, and the law upon the subject has been consolidated for us in Section 74 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872). I also concede the obvious proposition that ever since the repeal of the usury laws, Courts of Justice will not interfere with private contracts in regard to the rate of interest on pecuniary obligations. But the case presented here does not seem to me to rest upon any such principle, for I hold that the nature of the transaction is such as calls for interference of that equitable jurisdiction which the Courts of Chancery possess in England, and which the Courts of Justice in India are also entitled to exercise by the nature of their constitut...
Madan Lal Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All235
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. We do not think that we ought to allow the questions decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Hargu Lal Singh v. Gobind Rai (1897) I.L.R. 19 All. 541, so recently as July 1897, to be now reopened. The only question therefore upon which we have heard the learned pleaders on both sides is whether the present case is distinguishable from that decided by the Full Bench. The conclusion at which we have arrived is that there is no material distinction in principle between the two cases. Certain differences have been suggested in reference to the title set up by the defendant here; but these cannot make the oases distinguishable, for the decision of the Full Bench was necessarily irrespective of any view of the defendant's title, and based exclusively upon the failure of the plaintiff to prove a title to present possession at the date of his ejectment suit. Here, as there, the only title of the plaintiff was derived from a simple mortgage which did not entitle the mo...
In Re: Kalyan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All265
Blair, J.1. This is a petition for revision. I am invited to lay down the general proposition that a Magistrate having before him formally and categorically evidence which discloses a case for trial in some Court to which such Magistrate might in his discretion commit, is bound so to commit, and that he is wrong in point of law in exercising a discretion and considering the sufficiency of the evidence. The proposition is dangerously large. It is not the practice of Magistrates within the range of my experience, nor I have heard the law so laid down in England. That is the only question I have to answer, for it is not in this case suggested that the Magistrate who refused to commit did not exercise a judicial discretion when he found that there were not sufficient grounds for commitment. The petition is dismissed....
Bachchu Vs. Madad Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All649
Oldfield, J.1. The defendant borrowed from the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 125 at one per cent. interest per mensem, pledging as security an annuity of Rs. 106-2-0, called 'nankar' allowance, which the defendant received from the firm of Sadaranji and Jairamji, and the plaintiff has brought this suit to recover the money lent with interest, by enforcement of the lien on the annuity pledged in the bond and against the defendant personally. The Court of First Instance decreed the claim, with costs and interest at eight annas per cent. per mensem, but in the decree allowed the defendant a period of two years for payment of the amount decreed. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the decree. The plaintiff in second appeal has objected to that part of the decree allowing the defendant the option to pay within two years, and there is no doubt the objection is valid.2. The effect of the order of the Court is that the decree-holder is debarred from taking out execution of his decree or having it sa...
Chaudhri Raj Kumar Vs. Jugal Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All241
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. Chaudhri Raj Kumar appeals against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Farakhabad. In the order appealed against the Subordinate Judge rejected an application presented by the appellant praying that a decree which had been passed ex parte against him might be set aside. The Subordinate Judge held that the decree in question had not in fact been passed ex parte, and the contention raised in this appeal is that the decree was indeed an ex parte decree, there having been no appearance in the suit by or on behalf of the appellant.2. It appears from the record that a summons was issued in the original suit for service on Chaudhri Raj Kumar; that the serving officer went to the place indicated in the summons, and made a return setting out that he could not find the defendant; that there was no agent empowered to accept the service of the summons and no person on whom service could be made. He therefore affixed a copy pf the summons on the outer door of the house...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »