Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Mt. Ananti vs Chhannu And Ors. on 18 December, 1929

Bhola Ojha And Anr. vs Dhaneshwar Ojha And Anr. on 18 April, 1939

In Ananti v. Chhannu a Full Bench decision of this Court, reported in Ananti v. Chhannu (1930) 17 A.I.R. All. 193 it was held by the majority that the jurisdiction of the Court is to be initially determined by the allegations made in the plaint and the allegations made in the written statement cannot oust that jurisdiction unless and until the allegations of fact have been gone into, tried judicially and found to be true and the plaintiff's allegations have been found to be false.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Phal vs Ram Singh And Ohters on 28 August, 2025

Ananti's case(supra). Applying the principles laid down therein to the facts of the present case, I find that the order passed by the Court below was eminently justified and it was not incumbent on the Court to have dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court has rightly directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court after recording a finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter."
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Bageshar Misir And Ors. vs Mahabir Shukul And Anr. on 18 February, 1935

Whatever may have been the doubts which were dealt with in the case cited by the learned Counsel they have been: removed and set at rest by the Full Bench decision in Ananti v. Chhannu 1930 All. 193. As the valuation of this suit was below Rs. 200, no appeal lay to the Civil Court and consequently Section 268, Tenancy Act, does not apply. Permission to file a Letters Patent appeal is rejected.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bansraj And Others vs Moti And Others on 30 July, 2019

It will depend upon the facts of each case and the broad principles have been rightly laid down in the Full Bench decision in Smt. Ananti's case (supra). Applying the principles laid down therein to the facts of the present case, I find that the order passed by the Court below was eminently justified and it was not incumbent on the Court to have dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court has rightly directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court after recording a finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter."
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Jag-Narain Mallah vs Bhagauti Prasad Pandey on 2 August, 1957

In many cases it has been held that the forum depends upon the allegations made in the plaint for instance Ganga Din v. Gokul Prasad, AIR 1950 All 407 (B); Mt. Ananti v. Chhannu, AIR 1930 All 193 (FB) (C); Khushnud Husain v. Janki Prasad, AIR 1931 All 663 (D) and Ishwar Din v. Ch. Mohd. Ishaq, 1952 All LJ 202: (AIR 1952 All 496) (E), but only in the last case it was made clear that this is true only for the initial stage.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gorakhram Gokalchand vs Raizada Topandas on 19 October, 1959

6. It is well established that for the purpose of determining whether the ordinary civil Court or the Court constituted under a special Act has jurisdiction to entertain a particular suit, the nature of such suit has to be decided on the basis of the averments in the plaint and not on the basis of any defence that may be taken up by the defendants. This rule is so well known that we do not think that it is possible now to controvert it. In Ananti v. Chhannu (1929) I.L.R. 52 All. 501, F.B., a Full Bench of that Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court is to be initially determined by the allegations made in the plaint, and the allegations made in the written statement cannot oust that jurisdiction unless and until the allegations of fact have been gone into, tried judicially and found to be true, and that the plaintiff's allegations have been found to be false. Where therefore a plaintiff, alleging himself to be a tenant, sues in the civil Court a defendant, treating him as a trespasser, for possession and compensation regarding a holding or a part thereof, and the defendant pleads tenancy, then the suit is maintainable in the civil Court even after having regard to Sections 99 and 230 of the Agra Tenancy Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next