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.
The Government, North-western Provinces Vs. Shugan Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All79
1. It appears to us that the pleas taken in appeal fail. The money was paid under a mistake, and, therefore, the provisions of the 72nd section apply. The Treasury Officer would certainly not have paid the money unless he had believed the requisition was duly signed and countersigned, and the signatures which he believed to be genuine are admitted to he false. He, therefore, paid the money under a mistake of fact. It is immaterial whether he believed the bearer of the requisition to he the messenger sent by Mr. Johnson or by the appellant; and, indeed, the circumstance that the messenger was the servant of a respectable native banker would have been calculated to disarm rather than excite suspicion. Looking to the course of business, we cannot find any ground for the contention that the Treasury Officer neglected any precaution he could reasonably have been expected to take, nor that he was in any way guilty of carelessness. The Officer was imposed on by a gross fraud, and paid the mon...
Gulzari Lal Vs. Daya Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All46
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken by the pleader of the respondents, namely, that no appeal lies from the order made by the Judge.2. It is admitted by Pandit Bishambhar Nath that the appellant before us is a representative of the judgment-debtor, who was one of the parties to the original suit, under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code. So we need not inquire further as to what his position was. It is also admitted that the appellant did, on the application under Section 282, oppose the transfer, and on the ground that the respondent was not entitled to have execution of decree. There was thus distinctly a question arising between the parties or their representatives. In order to see if it comes under Section 244, let us see what it was about. The application by the assignee of the decree was made under Section 232 for transfer and execution, made with the object of having the fruits of the decree transferred to him. Under these circumstances there were questi...
Kishen Lal and ors. Vs. Nehalo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All162
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. After repeated consideration of the arguments and authorities referred to in this case, I feel that I can add nothing to what is clearly laid down in the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. But in expressing this opinion I desire to confine myself to the principles and authorities of the Hindu law, for I can derive no useful analogy from any rule or principle of the law of England or from any other European system of jurisprudence.Pearson, J.2. The question referred to the Full Bench has been exhaustively considered and discussed by the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court. It seems unnecessary to repeat at length the arguments used by them on both sides of the question and impossible to add thereto. After full consideration, the conclusion to which I have come is that the question was rightly answered in the negative by the majority of those learned Judges, and that we should return the same answer to the Bench which has put the question to us.3. The opposi...
Mahesh Partab Singh Vs. Dirgpal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All232
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The appellant, who was the defendant in the. Court below, is the Raja of the Anowla raj, in the Gorakhpur district, admitted 'to be an impartible raj. The plaintiff is one of his younger brothers. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiff, and he prayed that property yielding an annual income of twelve hundred rupees be determined to be property out of which he should obtain his maintenance as a junior member of the family, and he be put in possession of such property, or in the alternative a maintenance allowance of twelve hundred rupees a year should be fixed and charged on the property mentioned in the plaint. The plaint contained other prayers also, with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The defendant denied the plaintiff's right to maintenance and disputed the propriety of the amount claimed as the proper amount of plaintiff's maintenance. The Court below has made a decree in the plaintiff's favour, declaring him...
Man Singh and anr. Vs. Ghure and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All226
Knox, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Agra in an appeal before him, whereby he set aside a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Agra and remanded the case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for determination of certain issues which were raised before the Subordinate judge, and which issues the Subordinate Judge, in consequence of his finding upon the first issue raised, had not determined. In order to understand the case it will be necessary to briefly set out the contentions between the parties. The respondents before us were plaintiffs in the Court of First Instance. Their claim was to enforce a right of pre-emption over certain land which had been sold by one Umrao Beg to one Ghure. The respondents before us and Umrao Beg were none of them residents in the village of Chanderbhanpore. Chanderbhanpore originally consisted of one mahal. In 1881 this mahal was divided by perfect partition into three perfect mahals, respectively te...
Yusuf Ali and ors. Vs. Farzand Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All669
Pearson, J.1. We regret to be obliged to interfere in a case which appears to have been unduly protracted by irregular procedure, but we cannot refuse to admit the validity in the main of the grounds of appeal.2. The case after being originally tried by the Munsif appears to have been remanded to him by the Officiating Judge in appeal in contravention of the terms of Section 564, Act X of 1877. The second decision of the Court of First Instance was again the subject of an appeal which terminated in a second order of remand in contravention of the section aforesaid. The Munsif's third decision was also appealed; and the Judge in disposing of the third appeal has once more remanded the case for retrial in contravention of the same section with a direction to cause the plaint to be amended. The present appeal is the seventh stage which the proceedings have reached.3. The claim as brought was for the restoration of a pond, which it was alleged that the defendants were wrongfully filling up...
Ramanand Vs. the Bank of Bengal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All377
1. This is a miscellaneous regular appeal from an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore in execution of a decree, and a preliminary objection is taken by the respondent's counsel that the appeal cannot be heard inasmuch as no appeal lies from such an order.2. The circumstances appear to be these. The judgment-debtor, being indebted to the Bank of Bengal in a very considerable sum, upwards of Rs. 76,000, made an agreement for the liquidation of the debt under Section 52 of Act XX of 1866* which agreement was duly registered. It is here to be observed that although that Act was repealed by Act VIII of 1871, the procedure for such cases as the present is thereby expressly saved and is provided by the subsequent Sections 53, 54 and 55 of the Act. Under Section 53 of that Act the Bank obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor, and as that section provides that such a decree may be enforced forthwith under the provisions for the enforcement of decrees contained in the Code of C...
Munni Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All260
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought by the respondent to recover possession of the property which once belonged to her father Bansidhar. She alleged that Bansidhar had made a will in writing before his death under which she acquired a right to his property; she also said that she was Bansidhar's heir according to Hindu law and was, as such, entitled to the property. The defendants claimed to be the heirs of Bansidhar, on the allegation that the property was the joint ancestral property of them and Bansidhar, and they denied the will. The Lower Court has found the will to be genuine, it has also found that the property was the separate property of Bansidhar, and it has decreed the claim.2. The learned Counsel who has appeared here for the defendants appellants has not questioned the finding of the Court below as to the genuineness of the will. What he contends is that the plaintiff, not having obtained probate of the will on which she relies, i...
Kali Charan Rai and ors. Vs. Ajudhia Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All150
Pearson, J.1. The value of the subject-matter in dispute in this suit appears to us to be the difference between Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 6,000 or thereabouts. We are therefore of opinion that the appeal preferred to the Zila Judge was cognizable by him, and we accordingly allow this application with costs, set aside the lower Court's order, and direct it to replace the appeal on its file and to dispose of it according to law....
Chuni Lal Vs. Kheta Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All181
Spankie, J.1. Respondent admitted in his plaint that he agreed to the arbitration and the award made by the arbitrators, in which a composition was made between the creditors of defendant, appellant, and defendant himself. He admits that he signed the award, and it is certain that he accepted payments towards the satisfaction of his debt, due by defendant on his failing to meet two hundis when they fell due. But plaintiff avers that several of the creditors did not accept the award, and some had sued and recovered debts due to them in spite of the award : also the defendant had acted dishonestly, and had made away with some of the goods over which he was placed in charge by the award and the creditors who signed it: plaintiff was therefore compelled to sue, as there were not sufficient assets left to satisfy his debt and the debts of the others who were also suing defendant.2. But it appears to me that the plaintiff and all persons who signed the award and were parties to and signed th...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »