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.
Pirbhu Lal Vs. Genda Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All97
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the defendants in the suit under Section 10, of the Letters Patent. In the Court of the Munsif the plaintiff asked permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The Munsif declined to give such permission, and finally made a decree dismissing the suit. The plaintiff appealed from that decree, and in the Court of first appeal he urged that there were sufficient grounds for the granting of permission to him to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The Judge of the Court of first appeal, holding that view, gave permission under Section 373 of Act No. XIV of 1882, to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit, and stated that the result would be that the decree of the Munsif would be set aside. That order was within the power of the Court of first appeal by reason of Section 582 of the Code. From that order granting permission the defendants appealed to ...
The Muncipal Board of Cawnpore Vs. Lallu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All200
Blair, J.1. This suit is brought by Lallu and Murli Dhar, two brothers, for the relief that, by a declaration of the rights of the plaintiffs and removal of the illegal interference offered by the defendants and the invalidation of the orders of the Municipal Board of Cawnpore, a decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs allowing them to sit whenever they please at their old seats mentioned below at the Sarsaiya ghat on the bank of the Ganges in the city of Cawnpore to attend to their jajmans at the time of bathing and other religious performances, and to receive their dues and presents, &c;, as usual from them with their consent.2. The plaintiffs are Gangaputras, and have no doubt themselves; as have, it is alleged, their ancestors, exercised their functions upon the Sarsaiya ghat. Others of the same class have done the same. What they claim is a right as Gangaputras to occupy to the exclusion of all other persons certain particular defined and measured spots upon the ghat. The...
Bhairon Singh Vs. Lalman and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All23
Straight, Offg. C.J.1. Upon full consideration of all the circumstances of this case and by the light of the findings returned to us upon the issues remanded we are of opinion that the decree of the Judge, which is impeached anneal should be sustained. The single question for our determination is whether after having notice of the intended sale to the respondent-vendee, the appellant's conduct was such as to warrant the inference that he either expressly or impliedly acquiesced in or relinquished his claim, to pre-emption. It is found by the Judge that he made no communication whatever to the vender after he became aware that a sale was being negotiated, nor did he make it known to him that, while he stood upon his pre-emptive right, he declined to the Rs. 4 000 because it was not the consideration agreed on between the vendor and 'the vendee. The offer to him having come to his knowledge, as is now found by the 30th March, we think he was bound, instead of remaining silent, to communi...
Kishen Sahai Vs. Bakhtawar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All237
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are respondents here, brought their suit against their landlord, who was the zamindar, the appellant here, to recover compensation for their property which was sold in execution of a decree for rent made by a competent Court. The first Court dismissed the suit, holding that the suit did not lie. The Court of First Appeal set aside the decree of the first Court and made an order of remand under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From that order this appeal has been brought.2. The facts of this case are these: The zamindar applied to a revenue officer to commute the rent theretofore paid by these plaintiff's as his tenants in kind to a fixed money rent to be paid in future. The Assistant Collector made the order, and fixed the money rent to be paid in future. After that order had been made, the zamindar brought a suit for arrears of rent against his tenants, these plaintiffs, in the Court of Revenue and obtained a decree for ...
Raja Barda Kant Rai Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All344
1. The plaintiff has appealed only with reference to that part of the judgment fixing a period for payment. We are of opinion that his objection cannot be maintained. As the Lower Court's decree stood, the payment might be made so long as the decree remained capable of execution, the Judge's order limiting the period to a fixed one of one month from the date of his decision appears to be proper and judicious; a conditional decree of this nature cannot be claimed as of right by the mortgagor, who ordinarily should be ready at once with his money, and it scarcely lies in his mouth to question the order of the Court as exercising a discretion in this respect.2. The respondents have preferred objections under Section 348, Act VIII of 1859, to the effect that Regulation XV of 1793 does not apply to the mortgage in suit so as to limit the interest in any way, and that the cost of improvements should have been allowed to them, and that a conditional decree should not have been given.3. On the...
Chuhi Bibi Vs. Shams-un-nissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All19
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for possession of immovable property and for the cancellation of a mortgage. The suit was brought against a Muhammadan widow and two men who held as, mortgagees under her. She 'was in possession of the property in lieu of her Muhammadan dower, and had no other title to it. She, however, granted a mortgage to the other two defendants. The plaintiff would be the person entitled to possession of the property, if the widow had no right to possession in lieu of her dower.2. The Privy Council have held that where a Muhammadan widow is lawfully in possession in lieu of her dower, her possession cannot be disturbed except on payment of the dower debt: consequently this suit, so far as it claims possession, must fail, the dower debt being still due.3. It has been held on several occasions in this Court that a Muhammadan widow in possession in lieu of her dower cannot sell any portion of the property. She cannot give a good title to any port...
Empress of India Vs. Mula
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All105
Turner, J.1. The petitioner Mula is a money-lender in Shahjahanpur, with whom Chattar Singh, thakur, had had dealings, but prior to the date of the occurrence which led to the present charge Chattar had discharged his debt to the petitioner In a suit instituted by Mula against Netha and Dhaunkal, Chattar gave evidence on behalf of the defendants, and thereupon Mula threatened him he would make him pay Rs. 50. On the 28th July Zabar, a debtor of Mula, applied to Mathura Prasad for a stamp of the value of four annas. He gave his name as Chattar Singh, thakur, and the name of Chattar Singh's father, and also Chattar Singh's address. These details were, in accordance with the usual practice, endorsed on the back of the stamp. As Zabar was leaving the stamp-vendor's shop, it occurred to the stamp-vendor again to question him as to his name. He then made a mistake and gave a different name as the name of Chattar Singh's father. The suspicions of the stamp-vendor being excited, he further que...
Hafiza Bibi Vs. Sahib-un-nissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All213
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Judge of Allahabad, who confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The action was one for the establishment of the plaintiff's right to receive a share in pension which is payable by the Government, and which was originally granted by the Kings of Dehli to particular persons. A portion of the case of the defendant was that Abdul Rahman, in 1879, was in receipt of the whole pension, although only entitled to receive a portion of it; and was, de facto, receiving the whole of it, and that he assigned the whole to his wife. It is contended that the assignment was a good assignment in law of the interest of the plaintiff, who was not party to that assignment. I do not understand that contention. The Judge is quite right in holding that Abdul Rahman could assign nothing more than his own interest. He had no power to assign, and his assignee could take nothing more than his interest.2. As regards the statute of limitatio...
Balwant Singh Vs. Umed Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All203
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an application for the sanction of a prosecution of a party to an appeal in the High Court for using a forged document and for giving false evidence. The appeal was disposed of by a Full Bench of this Court on the 18th of February 1895. The application was made on the 23rd of November 1895, and to-day an affidavit, which was sworn on the 23rd of December 1895, was filed, the object of the affidavit being to account for the delay.2. The second and third paragraphs of the application are as follows: 'That in the judgment of the said Bench delivered on the said date it was found that the suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent was a false suit, baaed on a, forged document and supported by false, oral and documentary evidence.That circumstances are detailed in the body of the said judgment which furnish strong prima facie ground for the belief that the promissory note, the basis of the suit, was a forged document, and that the plaintiff's boo...
Banke Lal and ors. Vs. Jagat NaraIn and Damodar Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All168
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. These two first appeals are connected appeals in connected suits, the same persons being plaintiffs and appellants in both. They are also connected with second appeals Nos. 405 and 633 of 1897, in which the same persons are plaintiffs, Each case raises the question of the rights of the plaintiffs under a purchase at an execution sale of certain zamindari property as against other purchasers who claim to have respectively bought at other sales certain portions of that property. It will be convenient to consider separately the two first appeals, as to which one judgment will suffice, as it did in the Court below.2. The litigation arises out of the failure of the firm of Lachmi Narain of Bareilly. Several suits were brought against the firm by creditors, who obtained decrees. One of the decree-holders was one Kalka Prasad. He put in execution his decree against Ram Sarup and Piare Lal, the representatives of the debtor Lachmi Narain, and on the 20th November 1885, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »