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.
Udit NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Shib Raj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All198
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This was a suit for damages based upon an allegation that the defendants wrongfully out and appropriated the plaintiff's crop. The facts of the case, so far as they are material, are as follows:--The principal defendant, namely, Raja Udit Narain Singh, obtained an order or decree from a competent Court of Revenue establishing his title to possession of the land and establishing the fact that the plaintiff had got no title, and, the plaintiff being in possession, the Court of Revenue decreed possession to the Baja and gave him formal possession. At that time a crop of the plaintiff's was growing on the land, and the amin, apparently overlooking the fact that Section 42 of the Rent Act (Act No. XII of 1881) did not apply to the case, allowed the plaintiff to continue in such necessary possession as would be requisite for gathering and removing the crop: possession of the land was given to the Raja. The plaintiff gathered and removed the crop, and thereaf...
The Court of Wards on Behalf of the Raja of Kantit Vs. Gaya Prasad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All107
Turner, J.1. The first question arising in this appeal is whether or not the appeal so far as it affects Ram Manorath is barred by limitation. By some carelessness he was not at first made a respondent, and the period prescribed for appeal had expired before he was brought on the record as a respondent. By the 22nd section of the Limitation Act it is provided that when after the institution of a suit a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall as regards him be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party. There is no analogous provision with respect to appeals, and therefore it is competent to the Court to exercise its discretion in allowing a party to be added to the record after the period prescribed for the admission of an appeal has elapsed. The lower Appellate Court throughout its judgment alludes to the decree held by Gay a Prasad and Ram Manorath as 'the decree of Gaya Prasad,' and omits any mention of Ram Manorath, and this circumstance m...
Janki Kuar Vs. Sarup Rani and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All99
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings. The decree-holder obtained a decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. His opponents appealed to the High Court. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was confirmed by the High Court with costs. The-decree-holder subsequently applied for execution of the decree of the Court of First Instance. An order for execution was made and execution proceeded. This is a subsequent application to further execute the same decree, by the assignees, of the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor objects that the decree which could be executed was not the decree of the Subordinate Judge, but the decree of the High Court. It is perfectly true that the decree of the Subordinate Judge did merge in the decree of the High Court, but this point is not open to the judgment-debtor now. It was a point which the judgment-debtor could have taken in the previous application. It was not taken by her, and the principle of r...
Shaikh Ewaz and anr. Vs. Mokuna Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All132
1. (Sheo Preshad Lall v. Thakoor Rai H.C.R. N.-W. P. 1868 p. 254). The first plea hardly arises in the shape in which it has been thrown. But it has always been the practice of our Courts in these Provinces to insist upon the payment of purchase-money in cases of the nature within the period prescribed by the Court. We are understood to follow the ruling of this Court marginally noted. There a pre-emptor obtained a decree from the first Court which provided a certain time within which the sum ascertained to be the purchase-money was to be deposited. The pre-emptor appealed against the amount fixed by the Court but failed. He did not deposit the money within the fixed time, and the Judge declined to enlarge the time. It was held by this Court that the plaintiff, in appealing from the original decree, could not escape from the obligation which it imposed, and the lower Appellate Court was not bound by law to insert in its decree any special direction concerning such deposit unless occasi...
Queen Vs. Gholam Ismail and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All1
Turner, Officiating C.J.1. In the course of the argument the learned Government Advocate has contended that the Court has no discretion to admit or reject an appeal duly preferred by an officer on behalf of Government, under the provisions of Section 272 ?, Code of Criminal Procedure, and that consequently the order of this Court calling for the record is tantamount to an admission of the appeal. I believe the Court is agreed that the provisions of Section 278 apply equally to appeals presented under Section 272 against judgments of acquittal, as to other appeals. The point is, however, immaterial because whether the Court merely calls for the record, which is the effect of Mr. Justice Oldfield's order in the present case, or whether the appellate Court decides to hear the appeal, the Magistrate has no greater power in the one case than in the other to order the detention of the accused. Whether he has or has not the power in the view I take of Section 297, this Court is not now called...
In Re: Reference Under Act No. I of 1879 (Indian Stamp Act), Section 4 ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All211
ORDERJohn Edge, Kt., C.J. and Mahmood and Knox, JJ.1. The case reported in I.L.R. 10 Mad. 158, does not apply to the facts of this case. The document in this case is not in our opinion 'attested by a witness' within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of Act No. I of 1879. What is said to be an attestation is merely a statement in writing by the scribe of the document that the document was correct and was written by his pen. We therefore answer the question referred to us by saying that the document in question cannot be treated as a bond as denned in Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of Act No. I of 1879....
Hawal Pande Vs. Sadho Saran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All98
Judge Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal arising in proceedings for the execution of a decree. The appeal was referred for disposal to the Full Bench of the Court. There are four grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal. No argument has been addressed to us on behalf of the appellant in support of the first, second and fourth grounds. So far as we are concerned those grounds have not been supported. The third ground of appeal raises the question as to whether an order passed on a previous application for execution of the decree was not a bar to the present application. That ground was framed on the supposition that the order referred to decided finally that the decree had been satisfied in full. My brother Judges who are acquainted with the vernacular have considered the application upon which that order was made, and the order, and they tell me that the order related only to the application for execution in the proceedings in which it was made and that the satisfaction therein refe...
Batul Begam Vs. Mansur Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All17
Robertson, J.1. The sole question in this appeal is whether the suit, brought to declare a right of pre-emption against the heir of a mortgagee by conditional sale, who has foreclosed, is time-barred, six years having elapsed from the expiry of the year of grace after foreclosure; and the main controversy comes lo be whether the 120th article of the second schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877 applies to the case. Admittedly it does apply, unless either Article 10 or Article 144 applies; and the real question is whether the appellant is right in affirming that the case falls under Article 10. There is, however, a subordinate question as to the period from which the six years run, assuming Article 120 to apply.2. The appellant is the wife of the nominal respondent, Mansur Ali Khan, and she derives from him by gift a six-pie share of his original interest in the villages now in dispute, the remainder of his interest being still vested in him. This Mansur Ali Khan and his brother, Zahur ...
Durga Prasad Vs. Khairati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All545
Oldfield, J.1. It appears that the defendants, respondents, executed a deed of mortgage in favour of plaintiff on the 9th June 1873, for a consideration of Rs. 1,000, which was payable in one year, and the purport of the deed is to give possession to the plaintiff. On the same date another deed was executed by which the defendants agreed to take a lease of the property on payment of rent, for the due payment of which the property was hypothecated in the deed. The rent not having been paid, the plaintiff sues to recover arrears of rent, principal and interest, Rs. 164-7-1, by enforcing the charge on the property, together with interest, subsequent to institution of the suit, and to obtain possession of the mortgaged property. The defendants appeared in the Court of First Instance by their pleader and asked for an adjournment to enable them to put in their defence; this was refused, and they failed to put in any reply to the claim, and the Court of First Instance decreed the claim for po...
Thakur Das and anr. Vs. Kishori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All164
Oldfield, J.1. A preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal has been preferred by the respondent, which has reference to Section 549 of the Code. The respondent, it appears, on the 19th April last, applied for an order that the appellants, should be required to give security for the costs of the appeal. No amount was stated as the security required, and oh the 13th May following, a Judge of this Court made an order on this application in the following words:I am satisfied that the respondent is justified in asking for an order under Section 549 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it is ordered accordingly. The security may be lodged at any time before hearing.2. The case has now come on for hearing to-day, and the respondent objects to the hearing, and urges that in consequence of security not having been lodged, this Court should reject this appeal.3. In my opinion the objection has no force. I do not find that any order, such as is contemplated in Section 549, has been made. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »