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.
Wajid Ali Shah Vs. Nawal Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All213
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. The question which has been referred to the Full Bench in this case is: Is it necessary to the validity of an application for the review of a judgment under Section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the application should be accompanied by a copy of the decree or order to which it relates, and by a copy of the judgment, unless the Court dispenses therewith? The section upon which it is contended that ah application for the review of a judgment must be accompanied by a copy of the decree or order, and, unless the Court dispenses with it, by a copy of the judgment is Section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section is as follows: 'The rules hereinbefore contained as to the form of making appeals shall apply mutatis mutandis to applications for review.' It is contended that the words 'form of making appeals' as used in that section mean the manner of making appeals, and that 'the form' in Section 625 is not restricted to the sense in which the word 'fo...
Gumani and anr. Vs. Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All555
Spankie, J.1. We think that the lower Appellate Court has too readily assumed that, because the auction-purchaser was no party to the contract to sell to plaintiff, the suit is bad for misjoinder. It is part of the plaintiff's case that the auction-purchaser at the time of his purchase was aware of the original contract in favour of the plaintiff, and that ho and the defendant Ram Charan were acting in collusion and to the injury of the plaintiff. Under Clause (b), Section 27,* Act I of 1877, a contract may he enforced against any party to it or any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. The claim therefore is not necessarily bad for the reason assigned by the lower Courts. The defendants who were parties to the original contracts in the cases before us may be said to have admitted them, as Ram Charan did not defend the suit against h...
Kishan Singh and ors. Vs. Aman Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All42
Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal in an execution of decree case. The decree was one which directed the payment of the decretal amount by twenty half-yearly instalments on certain fixed dates, and it gave the decree-holders a power to execute the whole decree, or so much of it as was unpaid, on the occurrence of default in the payment of any instalment. The decree-holders have now applied, in pursuance of the power reserved to them, for execution in respect of the amount remaining due after the payment of the eighth instalment. Their allegation is that the judgment-debtor paid eight instalments regularly and then ceased paying, and they apply for execution for the whole sum remaining due under the decree, The judgment-debtor in reply denies that he paid any of the first eight instalments and sets up limitation as a bar. The lower Court has rejected the application for execution, chiefly on the ground that payment of the eight instalments alleged by the decree-holders to have been paid wa...
Udaising Vs. Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All135
Robert Stuart, C.J., Pearson, Turner and Oldfield, JJ.1. It appears that Mr. Currie as Collector allowed a reduction of the yearly revenue, subject, it may be presumed, to the sanction of Government. In 1278 fasli sanction was refused, and a demand was made on the respondent, the lambardar, who however did not pay the arrears due until 1281 fasli. Meanwhile he retained in his hands the profits of 1278 fasli, 1279 fasli, and 1280 fasli, and not improbably for the purpose of meeting the Government demand if pressed. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the appellants, the patnidars, sue the lambardar for their profits of the years 1278, 1279, and 1280; and he pleads that, out of the sums collected in these years and remaining in his hands, he has paid the arrears of revenue above-mentioned; and the question which principally calls for decision in this appeal is whether he is or is not entitled to be allowed this payment. We are of opinion that he is. The lambardar is, in this vil...
Empress of India Vs. Budh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All101
Turner, J.1. It is found that the petitioner, in order to appropriate the wall of his neighbour, the complainant, to which he knew he had no right whatever, caused workmen to cut niches in the wall, to lay rafters on the wall, and to put water-spouts in the wall; and that he also caused workmen to remove bricks belonging to the complainant from the yard of the complainant and to place them on the wall, in order to form a parapet for buildings he was erecting on the other side of the wall; and that he threatened the complainant with violence when he attempted to interfere to protect his property. The Magistrate on these findings convicted the petitioner of criminal trespass and of mischief, and sentenced him in respect of each offence to pay a fine of Rs. 100, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. In appeal the Sessions Judge affirmed the convictions and sentences.2. Revision of the orders of the Courts below is now sought on the following grounds:--It is argue...
MatadIn and ors. Vs. Chandi DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All188
Straight, J.1. This is a first appeal on the execution side from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Banda refusing an application of the judgment-debtors, appellants, the nature of which I will presently explain. Before doing so it is necessary to state the facts connected with the litigation out of which it arose. In the year 1863 Raghunath and others, the ancestors of the now decree-holders, respondents, brought a suit in the Court of the Judge of Fatehpur against Hatti Dubai and others, now represented by the judgment-debtors, appellants, for a declaration of their right to and possession of certain immoveable property and mesne profits valued at Rs. 76,099-12-1 3/4, and on the 28th July of that year the Judge gave the plaintiffs a decree in full for their claim. The defendants appealed to the Sadr Diwani Adalat, and that Court, on the 26th November 1864, so far modified the Judge's decree as to hold the defendants entitled to retain one-third of the property with proportional mes...
The Himalaya Bank Limited Vs. Muhammad Yusuf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All198
John Edge, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Saharanpur dismissing the defendant's appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dehra Dun. The suit was brought to obtain payment of a debt due upon a note which had been discounted by the Himalaya Bank, Limited. Before the suit was brought the Himalaya Bank, Limited, had gone into liquidation, and Mr. W. D. Henry had been appointed official liquidator. As tire plaint was filed originally the plaintiff was thus described: 'Official Liquidator, Himalaya Bank, Limited, in liquidation, plaintiff:' An objection was subsequently taken on behalf of the defendant that the official liquidator was not entitled to sue describing himself as plaintiff. The plaint was subsequently amended, and the plaintiff was by the amendment thus described: 'The Himalaya Bank, Limited, in liquidation, plaintiff.'2. In this appeal on behalf of the appellant it has been contended that the plaint as originally filed was not in com...
Bhichuk Singh and ors. Vs. Nageshar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All112
Turner, J.1. I cannot say that, if the point raised in this case had come before the Court in the absence of authority, I should not have been disposed to hold that the language of Section 27 of Act XXIII of 1861 prohibited a special appeal in suits of the nature triable by Courts of Small Causes instituted prior to the passing of Act XLIII of 1860. It appears to me that, on a strict construction of the terms of Section 1 of that Act and of the analogous provisions of Section 27 of Act XXIII of 1861, it would be held that the language of the Acts was prospective and applied to suits which should be thereafter instituted rather than to suits which had been already instituted and determined.(So held in Bholanath Datt v. Mokadeb Sheet 3 W.R. Mis. 19. But seeing that it has been ruled by a Full Bench of the High Court of Calcutta * that the terms on which the appellant relies are merely words of description and do not relate to the time of institution, for such I take it is the effect of t...
Asghar Ali Khan Vs. Khurshed Ali Khan and anr. and Two ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All27
Robertson, J.1. This litigation between the appellant and the respondents has lasted for fifteen years; it has increased in volume and complexity as it proceeded in the devious courses recorded in the printed book and yet the essential facts are not of unusual complication. It would be unprofitable to recite all the stories, true and false, which have gathered round the transactions of the two brothers, Khurshed and Asghar, and it is only necessary at first to ascertain what were the relations of the one to the other out of which the disputes have arisen.2. First of all then, in 1875, the uncle of the two brothers, Husain Ali Khan, paid to the elder of them, Khurshed, the sum of Rs. 74,800, being the amount due to the two as their share of the profits of estates which their father and Husain, and afterwards the two brothers and Husain, had held jointly. From 1875 there was separation between Husain and the two brothers, but the two brothers remained joint in all their estate until 1882...
Matru Mal and anr. Vs. Tulsi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All210
Knox, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Aligarh, confirming an order passed by an Assistant Collector of Aligarh. The Assistant Collector had before him certain partition proceedings. In the coarse of these proceedings, the appellant raised a claim to the effect that the land which was being partitioned should be made subject to the payment of certain malikana and not be released from the payment of that malikana. The Collector decided that he was entitled to make any record which seemed to him just and proper under the circumstances and decided that the share of the respondent should not be burdened with any portion of the malikana in question. The District Judge held that this order of the Assistant Collector was an order not of a judicial character but of an executive character, and therefore not open to an appeal to the District Judge.2. In appeal before me it is urged that the order was one from which an appeal lay to the Lower Appellate Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »