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.
Akhe Ram Vs. Nand Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All236
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. My answer to this reference is that a decree passed under Section 53, Act XX of I860, is and can only ho a mere money-decree, and that a sale in execution of such a decree can only give the purchaser the rights and interests of the judgment-debtor in the property hypothecated, arid that such purchaser cannot claim in virtue of his lien to defeat a second mortgagee. I hold this opinion so clearly, and it is suggested to my mind so simply arid directly by what I consider to be the true meaning of Section 53 of Act XX of 1806, and by the relative position of the two bond-holders, that I think it unnecessary to support it by any argument or by any reference to authorities. The Calcutta and Madras cases referred to at the hearing I do not, in my opinion, apply.Pearson, J.2. Section 53, Act XX of 1H0G, distinctly states the nature of the decree which may be given to a petitioner on production in Court of the obligation and the record of agreement mentioned in the preced...
Baldeo Singh Vs. Kishan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All411
Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.1. This appeal is instituted by Baldeo-Singh, a minor, through his guardian Balwant Singh, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, refusing to set aside a sale of immoveable property. The appellant, was a judgment-debtor represented by Balwant Singh, his guardian, who was also himself a judgment-debtor under the decree. Execution was taken of the decree by the respondents-decree-holders, and the property put up to sale, and sold on the 20th September 1885, and purchased by the decree-holders. The mother of Baldeo Singh filed objections to the sale under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the application was rejected on the ground that she did not legally represent the minor. The order was made on 11th January 1886. On the following day, the 12th January, objections were filed by Balwant Singh on the minor's behalf, and on the 2nd August following, the Subordinate Judge rejected the application, on the ground that he had, on the 11th Ja...
King-emperor Vs. Moti Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All155
Blair, J.1. Moti Lal Mallah and Bachcha Mallah have been convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40 each, or in default to be imprisoned for one and a half months. The matter came in revision before the Sessions Judge, and he was of opinion that the facts disclosed no offence within the meaning of Section 426. The facts, as found, are, that at a certain feast, which had been preluded by recitals from some religions books, after such recitals, the Brahmaas having first taken their food, a number of persons of the same caste as the persons who have been convicted, took their seats to the south--whether south of a room or courtyard does not appear. That for some reason unexplained, Moti Lal Mallah and Bachcha Mallah wanted the persons who were seated to move from the south to the north. They refused to do so--the refusal likewise is unexplained. The food which was going to be eaten was on the spot, and the two pers...
Kadir Baksh and anr. Vs. Ghazi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All212
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. The wrong date given to the decree in the application for execution must have been, J think, not so much a clerical error as a legal mistake on the part of the pleader or other person who prepared the application. But it is a mistake, an innocent mistake perhaps, which clearly appears as such on the lace of the record, and which, I think, we are entitled to disregard, being, as the reference suggests, a mere error which in no way prejudiced the judgment-debtor.Pearson, J.2. What is called a clerical error appears to me to have been rather erroneous procedure; but I am bound to admit that the ruling of which the propriety is called in question is not one which on reconsideration I am prepared to maintain, and that the view that the sale ought not to be set aside for an error which did not prejudice the judgment-debtor commends itself to my judgment.Turner, J.3. The decree which Mussammat Zahuran obtained in the Court of the Principal Sudder Amin in December 1864 wa...
The Official Liquidator of the Cotton Ginning Company, Limited, Cawnpo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All366
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. How do you show that there was an original letter of which this was a copy, or that if there was such a letter it was ever sent to the appellant2. By the Evidence of Manohar Chandra Chakarbati read with Sections 16 and 114 of the Evidence Act. The witness proves the existence of a particular course of business, viz., that the press-copies of which the copy in question was one, were taken from original letters which it was then the Secretary's duty to despatch. He proves that this document is a copy of an original letter, and that the course of business was for such originals to be despatched after being coined. Mr. Justice Cunningham in his commentary on the Evidence Act suggests that the illustrations to Section 16 were intended to supply the place of Sections 50 and 51 of Act II of 1855, the former of which provided that when a letter-book duly kept is produced, and it is proved that a letter copied into it was despatched in the ordinary course, the Court may p...
Kanhia Lal and anr. Vs. Hub Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All365
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a sale under Section 312 of the Civil Procedure Code. The first plea taken is, that the appellant was no party to the decree, and his property, which has been the subject of the sale, was not liable to be attached and sold, and therefore the sale is invalid.2. This is not an objection which is entertainable under Section 311, which permits a sale to be set aside for material irregularity in publishing or conducting it, and is not a ground, therefore, for setting aside the sale under that section. We cannot therefore hold that the order refusing to set aside the sale is wrong by reason of this objection.3. Moreover, it is now preferred for the first time, and, we may add, was an objection which the appellant might or should have taken under Section 278 at the time of attachment, and he would then have had his remedy as therein provided.4. The other pleas fail, as no material irregularity such as the appellant refers to...
Sheo Sampat Pande and anr. Vs. Bandhu Prasad Misr and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All321
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court cannot possibly be supported. The suit was one for sale upon a mortgage. The property mortgaged consisted of a house and certain zamindari property. Subsequently to the mortgage the mortgagor took takavi advances from Government which he did not repay. The Government therefore caused the said house, upon the security of which the takavi advanoe had been made, to be sold, and Sheo Sahai, defendant, purchased it. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim in respect of the house on the view that the purchase by Sheo Sahai conveyed to him the house free from the incumbrance created by the mortgage in suit. The learned Judge has relied on the provisions of Section 167 of Act No. XIX of 1873, and holds that as arrears of takavi are, by virtue of Section 5 of Act No. XII of 1884, realized in the same manner as arrears of land revenue, property sold for recovery of takavi loans is sold free of all incumbrances. The learned ...
Shah Muhammad Khan and ors. Vs. Hanwant Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All311
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This appeal has arisen in a suit for the partition of immoveable property not paying revenue to Government. The Court in which the suit was made a decree for partition, which we must construe as an interlocutory decree, but a decree nevertheless within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defining the interests of the parties to the suit; that is, it was in effect an interlocutory decree declaring the interests of the parties. Now in suits for partition of immoveable property not paying revenue to Government, the Court, no doubt, if it has the information before it necessary to enable it to make a decree not only declaring the rights of the parties but actually fixing the particular areas, or rooms, or parts of the houses, as the case may be, of which possession is to be given to the parties respectively on partition, may make such a decree without employing the procedure of Section 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the decree...
Baldeo Panday Vs. Gokal Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All603
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. In this case I think the appeal must be allowed. I am not sure that I quite follow the Subordinate Judge in the reasons he assigns for his judgment, but his order is clearly right and ought to be restored. The Judge, on the other hand, is as clearly wrong in allowing interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum 'from the date when the bond fell due,' evidently thinking that that was at the end of two years. He is also of opinion that the rate of interest stipulated in the bond, viz., twenty-one per cent., is excessive. I differ from him on both points. The bond is in the following terms: 'I, Gopal Rai, son of Bandhan Rai, do declare that, whereas Rs. 434 is due by me to Buldeo Panday on account of previous dealing's, and whereas I have borrowed from the said Baldeo Panday a further sum of Rs. 566 for the payment of revenue and to meet other household expenses, the whole sum amounting to Rs. 1,000, I therefore execute this bond in respect of the sum borrowed at ...
Sabhajit Vs. Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All222
John Edge, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 622 of Act No. XIV of 1882. The assignee of a decree-holder, plaintiff, brought the property which had been decreed to be sold to sale and purchased it himself. He obtained possession. Thereupon a party to the suit in whose favor the decree was in this sense that it directed that the sale should not affect his interests, which ware those of a usufructuary mortgage in possession, applied to the Court executing the decree to put, him again in possession and dispossess the auction-purchaser. The Court passed an order reinstating the usufructuary mortgagee in possession, and that is the order which is questioned in this application for revision.2. It was objected that this application does not lie, it being contended that the order in question was one made under Section 244 of Act No. XIV of 1882, Another contention in support of the objection was that, if the order was made under Section 335 of Act No. XIV of 1882, the auction-purchas...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »