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.
Thakur Das and ors. Vs. Achhan Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All125
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The plaintiffs in 'the suit, in which' this appeal has been brought by the defendants, brought their suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly to recover Rs. 86,338-130, with costs of suit, interest during the pendency of the suit and future interest, by sale of certain ancestral property of the defendants, and they further prayed for, decree against the defendants personally. The suit was brought upon two mortgage bonds, dated respectively the 2nd of December 1877 and the 1st of April 1881. The bond of the 2nd of December 1877 was alleged to have been made by Raja Lalji on his own behalf, and by Rani Hulas Kuar, Rani Achhan Kuar and, Kuar Inayat Singh through Raja Lalji as their general attorney. The consideration was stated in the bond to be Rs. 10,000, the details of which, as given in the bond, were: Rs. a. p.On account of hundis ... ... ... 7,000 0 0On account of interest upon the hundis ... 188 3 0On account of the interest of t...
Muhammad HusaIn Khan Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All9
Mahmood, J.1. We must, I think, hold that the ratio decidendi of the case of Gansham v. Mukha I. L. R., 3 All., 320, where it was held that when the application was made by the judgment-debtor it was a 'step in aid of execution,' justifies us in the view that when the application is made by the decree-holder, that is equally a step in aid of execution, such as will keep the decree alive. Section 257 of the Code shows that a payment out of Court to the decree-holder may be regarded as a payment under a decree; and Section 258 shows how the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder can each take proceedings to have payment out of Court; recognized by the Court. The case of T. D. Bandyopadhya v. B. L. Mukhapadaya I. L. R., 12 Cal., 608, seems to me to be exactly applicable to the facts of the present case. I must, however, frankly say that if the matter was res integra, and a matter to be decided on first impression, I should be inclined to consider whether a payment out of Court is more than...
In Re: Durga Charan, Pleadar and Section 12 of Act. Xviii of 1879
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All290
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Oldfield, Brodhurst, Mahmood and Duthoit, JJ.1. We do not consider that Durga Charan, pleader, should be either suspended or dismissed under Section 12 of Act XVIII of 1879, and the Judge may be informed accordingly....
Oochi and anr. Vs. Ulfat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All234
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. The plaintiffs sued the defendants to recover money and offerings received by the defendants in breach of an agreement between the parties. The parties were Maha-brahmans, and it is alleged that an agreement had been come to between the predecessors of the parties, the effect of which now, as applied to the present parties, is that the plaintiffs should collect and receive offerings during certain months; that during those months the defendants should refrain from receiving any offerings, and that in certain other months the defendants should collect and receive the offerings and the plaintiffs should refrain from collecting offerings. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that such a suit would not lie. The second Court set aside the decree of the first Court, and made an order of remand under Section 582 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From that order of remand this appeal has been brought.2. In the course of the argument we have been refe...
In Re: Madho Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All181
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. This is an application to the Court to set aside an order passed by the District Judge of Saharanpur under Section 36 of th6 Legal Practitioners' Act, XVIII of 1879, as amended by Section 4 of Act No. XI of 1896. That order of the District Judge was an order including the name of this petitioner in the list of persons proved to the satisfaction of the Judge habitually to act as touts. The only ground stated in the petition to us is: 'Because the finding is against the weight of the evidence.' We are of opinion that this Court ought not to interfere, on any such ground as that, with an order passed by a subordinate Court under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners' Act. The law gives no right of appeal to this Court from any such order. As regards revision, such cases are clearly not criminal proceedings to which the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply. They do not fall within the powers of civil rev...
Daulat Ram Vs. Anwar Husen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All241
Aikman, J.1. On the 18th January 1893, the appellant Daulat Ram purchased from the respondent Anwar Huaen his proprietary rights in a certain village. On the following day Anwar Husen executed in favour of Daulat Ram a kabuliat by which he undertook to hold his sir land as a tenant of Daulat Ram, for a term of three years, at a rental of Rs. 175, and then surrender it. It is found that the rental entered in the kabuliat is far in excess of the rate Anwar Husen would have been bound to pay under the provisions of Section 7 of the North-Western Provinces Rent Act. The object of the agreement on the face of it was clearly to defeat the provisions of that section, and the agreement was therefore, under the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, unlawful and void. In the following year Daulat Ram sued Anwar Husen to recover rent at the rate agreed upon. The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, but on appeal was decreed by the then District Judge of Mainpuri. I must e...
Tejpal, Guardian of Kundan Lal, Minor Vs. Kesri Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All621
Pearson, J.1. A stipulation in a bond that the interest on the principal sum lent shall be paid six-monthly, and, if not paid, shall be added to the principal and bear interest at the same rate, has never been held to be one of a penal nature. We are, therefore, constrained to allow the plea in appeal and to modify the lower Appellate Court's decree by decreeing the claim in full with costs in all Courts....
Tirbhwan Singh and ors. Vs. Debi Baksh Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All238
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blair, J.1. This case really turns upon the construction of Clause 1 of Section 4 of Regulation XI of 1825. It appears that the Rapti flowed at one time between the land of the plaintiffs and the land of the defendants; that over a series of years it gradually encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs and threw up correspondingly land which became alluvion and adjoined the defendants' land, and that this went on gradually contracting the area of the plaintiffs' land, which was submerged and subsequently re-appeared adjoining the lands of the defendants. The parties during that course of years seem to have had no doubt of the application, as we read it, of Clause 1 of Section 4 of Regulation XI of 1825, for, as the land appeared on the defendants' side of the river, they obtained possession of it, cultivated it and treated it as their land. That in our opinion they were entitled to do by reason of Clause 1 of Section 4. That land became by gradual accession fro...
Bisheshar Singh and ors. Vs. Parmeshar Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All53
Turner, Officiating C.J. and Pearson, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are not claiming the estate of Janki Rai, the missing person, by right of inheritance. Were they claiming it, inasmuch as Janki Rai has been missing for only eight or nine years, their claim might be inadmissible under Hindu Law. But they are claiming nothing belonging to him. He is the next heir or reversioner to one Salig Rai, deceased, whose estate is retained during her lifetime by his widow Musammat Ablaki; and this suit is brought by the plaintiffs as next reversioners after the aforesaid Janki Rai, in consequence of his absence, for the avoidance of a deed of mortgage executed by Musammat Ablaki to the detriment of their reversionary rights. Under the circumstances, there seems to be no reason why the provisions of Section 108 of the Evidence Act should not be applicable. The death of Janki Rai may be presumed for the purposes of this suit, although, in a suit for the purpose of administering the estate, the ...
Gulab Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Dial and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All26
Turner, Officiating C.J., Pearson and Oldfield, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the Civil Courts are competent to entertain claims of this nature, and that the Munsif is in error in regarding it as a claim connected with or arising out of the collection of revenue within the meaning of that term in Section 241, Act XIX of 1873. Looking to the context, it appears to us that provision of the law may have been intended to apply to wrongs arising out of or connected with the collection of land revenue, such as suits against the revenue officers for the illegal exaction of revenue or for the illegal issue of process. In such cases, the claim arises out of a wrong done in the collection or connected with the collection. In the case before us the plaintiff seeks no remedy for a wrong done to him in the collection of revenue or arising there out, because assuming the revenue to have been due, he suffered no wrong in its collection, and certainly no wrong at the hands of the defendants; he sues be...