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.
Ali Shah Vs. HusaIn Bakhsh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All588
Pearson, J.1. It seems to us very doubtful whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies in this case. The decree passed by the Munsif in the suit brought by the heirs of Ghulam Husain against the heirs of Rajbibi and her decree-holder, Behary Lal, was passed before the present plaintiff had acquired a title to the rights and interests of Rajbibi aforesaid as auction-purchaser by the confirmation of the auction-sale. Moreover, that doctrine appears to be applicable to cases in which the alienation is of a voluntary nature, and not to an alienee who has bought a property sold in execution of a decree.* Doubtless also there is irresistible weight and force in the last ground of appeal. The rights and interests purchased by the plaintiff at auction-sale, which may be assumed to represent an eight-biswas share, fetched a price of Rs. 15,000. The one and a half biswa claimed in the present suit is valued at Rs. 2,784-6-0. It cannot then be doubted that the value of the three biswas claimed in...
Dwarka Das Vs. Kameshar Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All69
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal brought by Babu Dwarka Das, the plaintiff in the suit, from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Benares dismissing the suit with costs.2. The memorandum of appeal had been originally presented to the Court of the District Judge of Benares. The District Judge returned the memorandum of appeal to the plaintiff for presentation to this Court, holding that the appeal lay to this Court and not to the Court of the District Judge. The plaintiff thereupon presented the memorandum of appeal to this Court; the memorandum of appeal was admitted and the appeal was registered under Section 548 of Act No. XIV of 1882.3. Upon the appeal being called on for hearing, Mr. Madho Prasad, vakil for the appellant, contended that the appeal lay to the Court of the District Judge, and not to this Court, and that we should return the memorandum of appeal to the appellant for presentation by him to the Court of the District Judge of Benares. On the oth...
Chhab Nath Vs. Kamta Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All333
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I think that this appeal must be allowed. As I understand the matter, the principal and interest are claimed at Rs. 15,000 by calculating compound interest for a period of three years, and simple interest at Rs. 13-8 per cent, from the end of that period to the date of the institution of the suit. The tetms of the bond are rather more wide than 1 at first supposed, and they appear to me to amount to a covenant to pay interest at the stipulated rate after the period of three years, so long as the principal remained due. The terms of the bond seem to bring it within the case cited by Mr. Hill; and, if so, we are bound to follow the decision in that case But our own view is the same. If the bond contains an express covenant for the payment of interest at this rate, then the interest will not be affected by the considerations of the reasonableness or otherwise of the rate, because the amount was agreed upon by the parties. It is also well within what would have be...
Brij Bhukhan Vs. Durga Dat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All258
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1 The zamindar of the village in which Brij Bhukhan Pande, the plaintiff in this suit, claims to be a tenant, sued Brij Bhukhan and other persons for arrears of rent. Brij Bhukhan's co-defendants denied that he was a tenant of the holding, which apparently was a fixed rate holding. That we do not decide. The first Revenue Court decreed the claim for arrears of rent against the other defendants, but dismissed the claim against Brij Bhukhan on the ground that he had not been properly entered in the Revenue papers as a tenant, and that a decree for rent could not be made against him until he had obtained an amendment of the record of rights and had been properly entered in the record as a tenant. It is obvious that the Revenue Court did not actually or impliedly decide that Brij Bhukhan was not in fact a tenant of the land in respect of which the rent was claimed. There was an appeal to the Collector, which was dismissed, but the Collector did not decide whe...
Badri Prasad Vs. Muhammad Yusuf and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All381
Robert Stuart, C.J., Turner, Spankie and Oldfield, JJ.1. The 246th section of the Code of Civil Procedure declares that when a claim is made to immoveable property attached in execution of a decree as not liable to be sold in execution of a decree against the defendant, the Court shall, subject to the proviso contained in the next succeeding section, proceed to investigate it, and if it shall appear that the property was in the possession of the party against whom execution is sought, as his own property, at the time when the property was attached, the Court shall disallow the application. This follows the clause out of which the question before the Court arises. The order which shall be passed by the Court under this section shall not be subject to appeal, but the party against whom the order may be given, shall be at liberty to bring a suit to establish his right, and the Limitation Act prescribes that such a suit must be brought within one year from the date of the order.2. Two ques...
Koji Ram Vs. Ishur Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All354
Brodhurst and Tyrrell, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this action is the purchaser of an actionable claim held by one Ram Lal under the following circumstances. Ram Lal brought a pre-emption suit against the appellants here and obtained a decree from the first Court, conditionally on his payment to the appellants of Rs. 1,595, the price of the property that he was interested in. He procured the payment to the appellants of this money by a third person, and in concert with the appellants, he certified this payment to the Court in the sense of sections 257 and 258, Civil Procedure Code. But in the meantime, and prior to such payment, the appellants had appealed against the decree, fixing the price of the property which they had purchased at Rs. 1,595, and they obtained from the appellate Court a decree, raising that price, and declaring Rs. 1,994-4 to be the true price payable by Ram Lal to the appellants for the estate. Ram Lal never paid the difference between his deposit Rs. 1,595, and the su...
Jhamman Lal Vs. Himanchal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All136
Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This appeal raises a very nice question upon the true construction and meaning of Section 205B of the N.W.P. Land Revenue Act. The property of the defendant at the time when the plaintiff obtained a decree against him on the 14th July, 1898, was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. In September, 1899, this property was released by the Court of Wards. Subsequently the rents and profits of this and other shares in the property were collected by the Court of Wards, and in the year 1307 Fasli certain profits were collected which belong or are alleged to belong to the judgment-debtor. These accrued due after the release of his share of the property from superintendence, and it is contended by the decree-holder that he is entitled now to attach such rents and profits. On the part of the defendant it is contended that this case is governed by a decision of this Court in Himanchal Singh v. Jhamman Lal (1900) I.L.R. 22 All. 364 between the same partie...
Daryai Vs. Sukhai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All374
1. If this matter rested solely on the plea in special appeal there would be no difficulty in disposing' of the case. For if the first Court's order in execution of decree setting aside the sale was final, there could have been no appeal to the Judge, and any order made by him might have been cancelled under Section 35 of Act XXIII of 1861. But here the order made by the Munsif setting aside the sale was not one that could be legally made under Section 257 of Act VIII of 1859, since no material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale and consequent substantial injury to the objector, by reason of the irregularity, were established. The Munsif's order, therefore, setting aside the sale, because the sale price was inadequate, no material irregularity being proved, was in excess of the power granted to him by the section. But it was certainly not an order made, as the District Judge assumed in miscellaneous appeal, under Section 11 of Act XXIII of 1861, because there was no ques...
Abadi Begam Vs. Asa Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All164
Spankie, J.1. The plaintiff's husband, by a deed registered on the 29th April 1866, settled upon her a sum of Rs. 12, in lieu of dower, to be paid monthly from the income of the rent-free land of Nagla Asadnagar, in mauzas Nurpura, Jasmai, Asmatpur, and Dhalawal, by himself, and his heirs and successors after him. If either he or any of his heirs or successors failed to make the payment monthly, the lady was at liberty to sue for the sum due in the Civil Court. The deed further provides that no transfer of the property shall be made unaccompanied by a condition providing for and securing the required monthly payment of Rs. 12 from the profits. When the plaintiff's husband, Maujad Ali Shah, had subsequently mortgaged the property to Lachman Singh, one of the defendants, and to Madho Singh, on the 1st December 1870, it was recorded in the deed of mortgage that a monthly allowance of Rs. 12 was to be paid to the plaintiff. The first mortgagee acknowledged this fact. The first mortgagee su...
Hashmat Begam and anr. Vs. Mazhar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All343
Straight, J.1. In the suit to which this appeal relates there were two plaintiffs, the appellants before us, Musammat Hasmat Begam and Musammat Ishrat Begam. The defendants to that suit, who are respondents before us, were Mazhar Husain, the brother of the plaintiffs, Husaini Begam, wife of Mazhar Husain, Musammat Khudayat-ul-Kubra, the sister of the plaintiffs, and Musammat Wajid-un-nissa, the second wife of Kamar-ud-din, the deceased father of the plaintiffs and defendants (l) and (3). It may be convenient also to state here that Kamar-ud-din, the father of the plaintiffs and defendants (1) and (3) and the husband of defendant No. (4), had a brother of the name of Zain-ul-Abid; and that his first wife was one Musammat Sakina Bibi, who predeceased him. The property, which is the subject of the present suit is of two kinds: first, the interest which the plaintiffs claim as the daughters of Musammat Sakina Bibi in their deceased mother's estate; and secondly, their shares in the estate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »