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.
Baldeo Ram and ors. Vs. Ganga Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All347
Straight, J.1. This is a suit for declaration of title to, and possession of, 1 bigha 12 pie kham land numbered 98 in the revenue registers. It, will be seen that there are two defendants to the suit, one Ganga Prasad and the other Mital Kahar, and their position in regard to the litigation will be explained by a statement of the following facts, which the learned pleaders for the parties at the hearing informed me were the facts out of which the suit has arisen. It appears that some time before 1881, the plaintiffs had under the provisions of the Rent Act made a distraint for rent which they alleged to be owing from the defendant Mital Kahar. Mital contested the legality of that distraint by a proceeding in the Revenue Court, and under section 84 of the Rent Act the defendant Ganga Prasad intervened, and the question therefore came up for determination as to whether before and up to the time of the commencement of that suit in the Revenue Court the defendant Ganga Prasad had been in a...
J.G. Harman and Co. Vs. Shankar Dat Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All245
Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal in a case of execution of a decree. The facts are as follows:2. On the 31st of March 1890, Messrs. Harman & Co. obtained a decree against the late Rajah Hari Har Dat Dube. The first application for execution was made on April 15th 1890, by the decree-holders, who asked that certain immoveable property (a house) should be attached and sold in satisfaction of the decree. The application was granted, and the attachment of the house was effected on the 24th of April 1890. Those execution-proceedings were struck, off on June 30th, 1891, probably to clear the Court's file of pending cases at the end of the half-year; but the attachment was maintained.3. The second execution-application was made on July 7th, 1891. In it that decree-holders asked chat the house already under attachment should be notified for sale and brought to sale to satisfy the decree. This was allowed, and September 3rd 1891, was fixed for the sale. Subsequently the sale was twice postponed ...
Raghu Nath Vs. Shib Charan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All174
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. Raghu Nath, who is the respondent to this appeal, brought in the Court of the Munsif of East Budaun the suit in which this appeal has arisen and made Cheda Lal, Ramji Lal, Sundar Lal, and Shib Charan Lal, defendants to the suit. Shib Charan Lal is the appellant here.2. In his plaint Raghu Nath alleged that a certain pacca house had been the property of one Mansukh, deceased, that Mansukh died without male issue and left two daughters, viz., Muaammat Kishna and Musammat Biba, him surviving, who, having obtained possession of the house for their interest as the daughters of a deceased sonless Hindu, died. Raghu Nath further alleged that he was the son of Musammat Biba, who died in 1890, and that Cheda Lal, Ramji Lal and Sundar Lal were the sons of Musammat Kishna, and that on the death of Musammat Biba, who was alleged by Raghu Nath to have survived her sister Musammat Kishna, he, Raghu Nath, and the defendants Cheda Lal, Ramji Lal and Sundar Lal as...
Tej Ram and ors. Vs. Harsukh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All101
1. It is not contended that an appeal lies to this Court from the order of the Judge, or that under the Code of Civil Procedure this Court has any power of interference. It is argued that the Court is authorized to exercise jurisdiction in the matter in virtue of the provisions of 24 and 25 Vic, c. 10-4, Section 15. These provisions have frequently been urged as justifying the interference of this Court with orders of a Subordinate Court, on the grounds that the orders of the Subordinate Court has proceeded on an error of fact or law, and that no further appeal is given by the Code, and so far as we are aware the Court has uniformly declined jurisdiction.2. The provisions of Section 9 of the Statute above-mentioned declare that High Courts established under the Act shall have and exercise all such civil, etc., jurisdiction, etc., and all such powers and authority for, and in relation to, the administration of justice, etc., as Her Majesty may by Letters Patent grant and direct, and tha...
Janki Vs. the Collector of Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All64
Brodhurst and Tyrrell, JJ.1. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of this appeal by the learned pleader for the respondent, on the ground that the case does not come within the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, and therefore no appeal lies under that section, none also being allowed under Section 588 id. We held that, having regard to Section 411 of the Code, the respondent may be deemed to have been a party to the suit in the sense of Section 244 supra. We therefore entertained the appeal. The facts of the case are fully and correctly given by the Subordinate Judge, whose order is under appeal before us. Briefly stated, the case stands thus: In suit No. 359 the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad practically made three decretal awards; (a) he decreed to the plaintiff Chedi Rs. 1,439-2-6 with costs thereon against the defendant Musammat Janki, now appellant here; (b) he decreed to the same defendant her costs on the large portion of Chedi's cla...
Dondh Bahadur Rai and ors. Vs. Tek NaraIn Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All251
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. The question raised by this appeal is whether a decree in a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, not being a conditional decree for redemption under Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but simply dismissing the 3uifc on the ground that the mortgagor had not prior to its institution paid or tendered the whole of the mortgage money at a time authorized by the deed, has the effect of foreclosure or of res judicata so as to bar a second suit for redemption, the deed expressly authorizing redemption on payment of the mortgage money in a particular month in any future year after due date, and the plaintiff having tendered the whole in that month between the dismissal of the first suit and the institution of the second.2. The mortgage of which redemption was sought was a usufructuary mortgage of a fixed rate holding, and was executed by the tenants on the 25th May 1872, to secure the sum of Rs. 200. It provided that the principal money with int...
Mulchand Vs. Ram Piyari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All114
Duthoit, J.1. This appeal and appeal No. 1756 are cross-appeals from a single decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri. They may be conveniently disposed of together.2. The facts, so far as our present purpose is concerned, may be thus stated: Badridayal' was the owner of a house in kasbeh Patiali. He died in March 1881, leaving two widows, Chandan Kuar (senior) and Earn Piyari (junior), and a daughter by Chandan Kuar. On the death of Badridayal his estate passed to his widows, between whom there has been no partition. On the 29th November 1882, Chandan Kuar sold the house in kasbeh Patiali to Mulchand for Rs. 200. The house is described in the deed of sale as part of the estate left by Badridayal, and now the sole and exclusive property of the vendor: and the reason for the sale is stated to be the need of money to defray the expenses of the marriage of Badridayal's daughter--a pious duty.3. Mulchand did not succeed in obtaining delivery of the property so purchased by him, and he ...
Dhiraj Singh Vs. Manga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All300
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case advanced moneys to the widow of a separated Hindu, partly to defray the expenses of the marriage of her grand-daughter, partly for agricultural purposes and to some small extent for the payment of Government revenue. It is found by the Court below that the Hindu widow could and ought to have paid out of her own money the expenses of the marriage of her grand-daughter. Our judgment, however, does not turn upon that finding. The defendants to the suit are the reversioners, who have succeeded to the possession of the ancestral property on the death of the widow. The widow gave no mortgage and executed no document which created a charge on the ancestral property in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the advance made by him to the Hindu widow of money for agricultural purposes, and for the payment of Government revenue, was an advance made for such necessary purposes as would have enabled the Hindu widow to have made a mortgage of...
Uda Begam Vs. Imam-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All82
1. In special appeal it has not been objected that the circumstances from which the appellant's knowledge is inferred were insufficient to warrant that inference, and, therefore, we need not consider this point; the case has been argued on the hypothesis that the erection of the building commenced with the appellant's knowledge a year or two before the institution of this suit. The pleas recorded in the memorandum of special appeal are inaccurately drawn, but the contention of the appellant at the hearing' was that her consent ought not to he inferred merely from her inaction, and that, inasmuch as she has brought her claim into Court within the term allowed by law for the institution of such claims, she is entitled to a decree. The rulings of the Sudder Court as to the effect of delay in the assertion of a right have been considerably modified or explained by more recent decisions of this Court, which have, however, we believe, escaped the observation of the reporter. We propose, ther...
The Maharaja of Benares Vs. Angan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All112
Oldfield, J.1. The only question raised in appeal is whether the suit is cognizable by the Civil Court, and we are clearly of opinion that the Courts, below have rightly held that it is not.2. The plaintiff admits that the defendant is his tenant, but asserts that he is a tenant-at-will, and he seeks to have it declared that the defendant is neither a tenant at fixed rates nor a tenant with rights of occupancy, but a tenant-at-will, and he further seeks to eject him.3. The pleader for the appellant is unable to support the plea that a suit on the part of the plaintiff to eject the defendant will lie in the Civil Court. Such a suit is clearly barred by the provisions of Section 95 of the Rent Act, the remedy being by application to eject under Section 35, or to have notice of ejectment served under Section 38. Suits for ejectment have only been allowed in a Civil Court in cases in which the plaintiff has denied that the relation of landlord and tenant has existed, and in which the Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »