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.
Umrao Begam Vs. the Land Mortgage Bank of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All547
Pearson, J.1. The lower Court's view that Section 9 of the Rent Act applies to private transfers of occupancy-rights only and not to sales of such rights in execution of decree is, in the general form in which it is stated, opposed to the Full Bench ruling of this Court, dated 19th February 1877 in Ablakh Rai v. Udit Narain Rai I.L.R. 1 All. 353. But in the case out of which that ruling arose the person who sought to bring to sale an occupancy right possessed by his judgment-debtor in a holding was not the zamindar, the proprietor of the land. In the present case the decree-holder is himself the zamindar. The section appears to have been enacted in the interest of landholders, who may presumably waive the privilege it confers on them. It would be unreasonable to hold that a landholder should not be free to cause the sale in execution of his own decree of the occupancy right of his own judgment-debtor in land belonging to himself. Such a case cannot fall within the scope of the Full Ben...
Shankar Lal and ors. Vs. Dalip Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All33
Blair, J.1. This case has been referred to a Bench of two Judges on account of the importance of the question involved. It is substantially the same question as was raised in the first Bench before the learned Chief Justice and myself in Letters Patent Appeal No. 40 of 1893, dated the 24th July 1894. The judgment does not in terms rule upon the disputed question. The hearing of that case ended in an order of remand directing the Court below to find who, according to general Hindu Law, was the heir of the deceased occupancy-tenant. That remand is only comprehensible upon the supposition that we consider no person was qualified as successor in the occupancy-holding who did not combine with his claim as a sharer in the cultivation the further title as heir; and indeed in the course of the argument the interpretation which we put upon Section 9 of the N.W.P. Rent Act, XII of 1881, was abundantly manifest. The question raised is this: 'Is a collateral who has shared in the cultivation of la...
Safdar HusaIn Khan Vs. Muhammad Habibullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All25
Duthoit, J.1. (After stating the facts, continued): With regard to the appeal on behalf of defendant in respect of the character in which defendant held the property, it seems clear that the plaintiff and defendant joined in the purchase in 1865, and each had equal interests in the properties until 1868 when the plaintiff's interest was reduced to one-third. The defendant paid the entire purchase-money in the first instance, and incurred expenses in conducting suits for possession of the property, and for registration of the deed; and ultimately obtained possession in 1869 or 1870, and took the profits from that date. The plaintiff does not appear to have paid any part of the money up to 1870; he subsequently paid Rs. 3,500, and it was not till 1871 that the rest of his share of it was subscribed; and he seems to have paid little or nothing towards the expenses.2. Under the above circumstances, there was a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendant became liable to a...
Chunni Lall and anr. Vs. Ajudhia Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All240
Knox and Burkitt, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order rejecting a plaint purporting to have been passed under Section 54, Clause (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff sued for possession of certain lands and houses. One of the defendants in the written statement filed by him set out that the relief sought had been undervalued. In course of time the Court proceeded to determine the question thus raised by inspection of the house property in dispute. It came to the conclusion that the property bad been undervalued, and fixed what it deemed a correct value, and directed that the plaintiff should within four days supply the deficient Court fee stamps. This order was passed on the 23rd of November 1894. On the 26th of November, that is, before the four days granted had expired, the plaintiff brought a portion of the deficient Court fees into Court, and asked permission to withdraw his claim to a portion of the house property with leave to sue again for the portion thus omitted...
Vaughan Vs. Heseltine and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All753
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. This is a regular appeal from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dehra Dun in a suit by the plaintiff, Vaughan, against the defendants, Heseltine and Hurst, to recover Rs. 19,427-8-0 principal and interest alleged to he due on a mortgage on certain property called the Ellenborough Hotel estate, under the following circumstances : The plaintiff, Mr. Charles Frederick Vaughan, sued as one of the executors of the late Mr. J.N. Heseltine, who died on the 8th March 1865, leaving a will, dated the 16th February 1864, and a codicil thereto bearing dated the 24th February 1865. By the will the testator disposed of his estate and effects, and various legacies were left to different parties, and among others two sums, both of Rs. 6,000--Rs. 12,000 in all--on certain conditions and contingencies, to the testator's grand-children, Joseph Hurst and Isabella Hurst, but in the event of their deaths, as therein explained, he directed the said two sums of Rs. 6,000 to be paid '...
Jeoni Vs. Bhagwan Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All541
Spankie, J.1. The first plea would fail if he hold that the suit should have been brought within one year from the date of the order passed under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859. For it is the order then made which, if contested at all, must be contested within one year, and after that date cannot be questioned. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Badri Prasad v. Muhammad Yusuf I.L.R. 1 All. 381 has conclusively settled this point. Whether the decree was settled after the order was made has no bearing on the point at issue. Having examined the record of this case and the order made under Section 246, Act VIII of 1859, there cannot be a doubt that the plaintiff was, and now is, entirely bound by that order, and that she cannot now re-assert her title to the house, which was not allowed as against the judgment-debtor and decree made in 1874....
imdad Khatun and ors. Vs. Bhagirath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All159
Straight and Tyrrell, JJ.1. For the purpose of determining this appeal, it must be taken to have been found as a fact that the first set of defendants are occupancy tenants of the land on which the trees stand, that such trees were planted by themselves or their ancestors, that only the trees were sold to the second defendant by the sale-deed of the 20th March 1884, and that by the decree of the 19th May 1885, obtained by him on confession of judgment against the first set of defendants, he has dispossessed them from their cultivatory holding. Now it has been ruled by this Court in Jagrani Bibi v. Ganeshi I. L. R., 3 All., 435, that a suit for possession of trees is a suit for possession of land within Section 29 of Act IX of 1871, and this principle has been more or less recognised in the Full Bench ruling that standing timber is immoveable property--Umed Ram v. Daulat Ram I. L. R., 5 All., 564,--by Mahmood, J., in Deoki Nandan v. Dhian Singh I. L. R., 8 All., 472, and by another Pull...
Kuar Sen Vs. Mamman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All87
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this appeal under Section 10 of the Letters Patent, brought his suit for the possession of a piece of land, which, he alleged, formed art of the court-yard of his kothi, and for the demolition of a chabutra thereon, which the defendants claimed the right to maintain and use. The defendants in their written statement denied the plaintiff's title, and alleged that they always used the chabutra as a sitting place, and that during the Moharram the tazias and alums were exhibited upon the chabutra and a takht was placed upon it. At the trial in the Court of the Munsif it was orally pleaded on behalf of the defendants that they had obtained a title to the land and chabutra by adverse possession.2. The Munsif found that the land in question was the plaintiff's and was part of the court-yard of his kothi and that the defendants had not acquired any title to it by adverse possession. This is what the Munsif said on th...
Binda Prasad Vs. Madho Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All129
Turner, J.1. The appellant, being the holder of a mortgage for Rs. 4,800 and interest, brought this suit to recover the debt by the sale of the mortgaged property, and also by the ordinary process of execution against the person and property other than that mortgaged of the debtor. The term of the mortgage had expired, and the defendant made no defence save that interest was not payable after the expiry of the term, but he prayed the Court would order the payment of the debt by instalments of Rs. 700 per annum, and without interest. The Court below held that, even if the terms of the mortgage-deed did not distinctly provide for the payment of interest after the expiry of the term, the plaintiff was entitled to recover interest as damages, and to this finding no objection has been taken on appeal, but it has also considered that, inasmuch as the defendant was hard pressed, it might fairly award that the debt should be payable by instalments of Rs. 800, and should bear interest at the ra...
Pragi Lal Vs. Maxwell and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All284
Oldfield, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff against the partners of the Elgin Mills Company, for recovery of the price of wood supplied under two contracts dated the 22nd October 1878 and 27th July 1879. A certain amount of firewood was to be supplied by certain dates, and each contract contained a clause by which the plaintiff contracted to indemnify the defendants for loss arising by reason of failure, on his part to supply the wood as contracted for.2. It is admitted that the plaintiff did not supply all the wood contracted for, and as a matter of fact the defendants did not keep hira to the strict terms of the contracts, but received wood after the dates specified in the contracts had expired, and it appears that the plaintiff received payment for what he supplied from time to time, and on the 11th November 1879, he presented a bill to the respondents for Rs. 1,367-10-9 alleged due to him on that date, and was met by a counter-claim on the defendants' part for a sum due for dama...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »