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.
Bitto Kunwar Vs. Kesho Prasad Misr
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All277
R. Couch, J.1. The present appellant is the widow and heir and legal representative of Sheo Dial alias Bachcha Tewari, the original appellant.1 On the 24th of March 1886 the respondent brought a suit against him and Raja Ajit Singh, a purchaser from him, to recover possession of property, consisting of houses and lands in the districts of Benares, Jaunpur, Azamgaih, and Ghazipur, of which he was in possession. The respondent in his plaint alleges that on the death of Bhawani Prasad Tewari, the owner of the property in suit, who died in November 1842 without issue, Rani Kuar and Dharma Kuar, the widows of his deceased brother, Debi Prasad Tewari, and Ram Kishen Misr, the son of the niece of Bhawani, who lived in commensality with him, obtained proprietary possession of the property left by him. They performed the services and managed the affairs of a temple which had been built by him, and of a bhandara attached to it, and after payment of the expenses of these institutions enjoyed the ...
Basant Ram Vs. Kolahal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All392
1. If it had been necessary to make Ram Kishen a defendant in this case, the procedure should have been as provided by Section 4 of Act XXIII of 1861, and the sanction of the proper Court in Calcutta obtained, but we do not consider that it was necessary to implead him at all even if he had not declared his bankruptcy, which it appears he did, when the hundi was presented to him for payment. The holder of a hundi, or, in other words, of a bill or note, is not bound, in the event of its dishonour, to sue all the parties liable to him under it, but he may, at his option, select his defendant or defendants, as he may judge best for recovery of the money. This is the law of England, where, although the holder of a bill may have issued the writs, or a writ, against all or any of his debtors, he is not bound to sign judgment against them all, but may select any one or more of them, and I am not aware that the law is different here. Besides, in the present case, the two defendants, Kolahal Ea...
Gopi Vs. Kassa Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All389
Mahmood, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the following: A suit was instituted by Musammat Gopi, plaintiff-respondent, judgment-debtor, for recovery of money and other reliefs of a cognate character to which I need not refer. The suit was finally dismissed in appeal by this Court on the 27th November 1886, by which decree a sum of about Rs. 1,000 was found due by the said Musammat Gopi to Kassa Mai, the decree-holder, appellant, before me.2. Thereupon, it is admitted before me by Pandit Sundar Lal on the one hand and Mr. Kashi Prasad on the other, that a suit was instituted by the aforesaid Musammat Gopi against the aforesaid Kassa Mai in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farukhabad, and during the pendency of the suit an application was made by the decree-holder, Kassa Mal, on the 4th January 1887, for the recovery of the above-mentioned item of Bs. 1,000 costs of the formar litigation. Thereupon, Musammat Gopi, by her application of the 25th January 18...
Thakur Das and ors. Vs. Chunni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All126
1. The lease is not a lease merely for agricultural purposes, but a transfer of the interest of the proprietor for a term of years. Is it a violation of the condition against alienation? It has been held that such conditions are introduced to protect the lien created by the mortgage, and that a transfer made in contravention of the condition is not absolutely void, but voidable so far as it is in defeazance of the mortgagee's rights. In the present case the mortgagees have obtained a decree for the sale of the estate in satisfaction of the loan. The existence of the lease may induce purchasers to offer a less price of the property than they would offer if they could obtain immediate possession. On the other hand, the lease may be an arrangement highly beneficial to the owner of the estate and thus a substantial increment to its value. The mortgagees will have obtained all that in equity they are entitled to, if the Court gives them a declaration that the lease will not be binding on a ...
King-emperor Vs. Kaliji Alias Kali Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All143
Banerji, J.1. The applicants have been convicted under Sections 147 and 325, I.P.C. It appears that a plot of land No. 266 had a grove on it which belonged to one Bhuneshar Singh, a minor, under the guardianship of two ladies, Musammat Rekha and Musammat Ram Piari. It has been found that the land was sown with sugarcane on behalf of the ladies in the year 1308F., that Ram Ghulam Singh and others claimed to be the cultivators of that land on behalf of the zamindars, and that consequently a dispute arose between the party of the ladies and the party of Ram Ghulam Singh. The applicants are the servants of the ladies. On the 27th of January, 1901, the party of Ram Ghulam Singh came to the land and began cutting the sugarcane crop. The applicants, who were headed by Kali Singh, resisted Ram Ghulam Singh's party, and a lathi fight took place, in which two persons sustained grievous hurt. The applicants have been convicted of the offence of rioting in consequence of the part taken by them in ...
Queen-empress Vs. Puran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All85
Brodhurst, J.1. This case has been referred merely because the Officiating Magistrate of the District is of opinion that the Magistrate of the first class, who originally received the complaint, and who dismissed it under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was not empowered to re-open the case on the mere application of the complainant, and without a further inquiry having been directed by the District Magistrate, the Court of Session, or the High Court, under Section 437 of the Code. The first complaint was made on the 25th May 1886. In his petition the complainant stated that the accused had given him a severe beating, had then falsely charged him with theft, and had taken him to the police-station. He added that the thanadar had made an inquiry, bad obtained no proof to support the charge of theft, and had therefore released him. His evidence was very briefly recorded by the Magistrate on the 28th May. He deposed to the same effect as stated in his petition, and he referred...
Ram Kunwar Vs. Ram Dai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All326
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The appellant, who is the widow of one Thakur Gir Prasad Singh, brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to recover arrears of maintenance from her husband's sons and from the estate left by her deceased husband, a part of which is in the possession of the respondent, who was the third defendant in the Court of First Instance, under a usufructuary mortgage executed by one of the sons on the 19th April 1894. Previously to the institution of the suit the plaintiff had sued the sons for her maintenance, and obtained decrees, the earliest of which was passed in 1887. The present suit was opposed by the respondent, who claimed to be a transferee for consideration, without notice of the plaintiff's right. The Court of First Instance decreed the claim against her, but the Lower Appellate Court set aside that portion of the decree which affected the respondent. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal, and the question we have to determine is, whether the p...
Ahmad Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Azizullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All353
Mahmood, J.1. The first ground of appeal has no force, because the record fails to show that the subject-matter of the suit exceeds Rs. 5,000 in value. Nor do the findings of the lower Courts on the merits of the evidence leave room for the entertainment of the question raised in the second, third, sixth, and seventh grounds of appeal. The lower Courts have found that the deceased Musammat Jamiyat was a Sunni; that upon the death of her husband, Ziaullah, she obtained, with the acquiescence of his heirs, possession of the whole of his estate in lieu of dower; that the houses (to which the seventh ground of appeal before us relates) form part of his estate, and were in possession of the deceased lady whose dower has never yet been paid, These findings, which are based upon the evidence before the lower Courts, cannot be disturbed in second appeal. But it is contended by the appellants in their fourth ground of appeal that, even upon the findings at which the lower Courts arrived, the pl...
Rudr Man Tiwari Vs. Bhagwanti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All145
Turner, Officiating C.J.1. The ninth section of the Rent Act XVIII of 1873 declares what powers of alienation and succession attach to the rights of occupancy described in the preceding sections. It deals first with tenants at fixed rates, and declares simply that their right is heritable and transferable. It then proceeds to declare that no other right of occupancy is transferable by grant, will, or otherwise, except to a particular class, namely, co-sharers in such right, and then declares, in respect of such last-mentioned right, that is to say, a right of occupancy other than the right of a tenant at fixed rates, that if the person entitled to it dies it shall devolve as if it were land, subject to the proviso that no collateral relative of the deceased who did not then share in the cultivation of his holding shall be entitled to inherit under this section; that is to say, it limits the right of succession under this provision of the Act to the lineal descendants of the deceased oc...
Chunni Lal Vs. Harnam Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All302
John Edge, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. On the 30th of March 1893 the respondent here obtained a decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, against the appellant here. By the decree six months were allowed for payment of the decretal sum. That period expired on the 30th of September 1898. On the 10th of March 1397, the respondent decree-holder applied for an order for sale under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. That was the first application made for the execution of the decree or to take a step in aid of the execution of the decree. The first Court held that the application was barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, and dismissed it. On appeal the Lower Appellate Court held, following the decision in Runbir Singh v. Drigpal I.L.R. 16 All. 23, that there was no period of limitation provided for such an application, and set aside the order of the first Court and made an order under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure remanding the case. From that order of r...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »