Allahabad Court May 1919 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.
Jwala Singh and ors. Vs. Sardar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All317; 51Ind.Cas.216
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents to recover possession of two cultivator holdings, namely, the whole of Khata No. 32 and a fourth share in Khata No. 50. The holding in Khata No. 32 has been found to have been the non-occupancy holding of one Patpal Singh. The plaintiffs are the illegitimate sons of Patpal Singh. The defendants are his brothers. It has been found that Patpal Singh was the son of one Debi Singh who was a Kshatriya. Patpal Singh's mother was a Shudra and the question is what was the status of Patpal Singh. If he was a Shudra his illegitimate sons, the plaintiffs, would succeed to his holding. If he belonged to some higher caste the illegitimate sons would have no right of succession. The point does not appear to have been decided by this Court, but it was considered in an elaborate judgment of the Madras High Court. In the case of Brindavana v. Radhamani 12 M. 72 ; 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 399 it was held that the illegitimat...
Bindeshri Rai and ors. Vs. Jhumak Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All626
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. The plaintiffs' case is that they have been deprived of their rights by the fraud of the defendants. The question arises out of partition proceedings in the Revenue Court. The allegation is not that the partition proceedings were wrongly decided, but that, by an improper entry in the papers made through the dishonest intervention of the defendants by a clerk or some official in the administrative department, the effect of the partition has been injuriously to affect the rights of the plaintiffs. The fraud as stated is a remarkably simple and yet an ingenious one. The question was as to the destination of certain trees. If the trees were to go with the land allotted to any particular party no entry was made in the column provided for remarks, but if the trees were reserved or allotted to some party other than the party who took the land, then an entry was made appropriating the trees to him. The plaintiffs' case is that that entry was made n...
L. Ram Chander Sarup Vs. Munshi Mazhar HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All264; 51Ind.Cas.55
1. This is a plain case. The question arises as to whether the present appellant is now in a position under the law to establish what he claims to be the true amount of his debt, namely, some Rs. 6,000 odd. It was stated originally at about that amount by the debtor. In 1913, the creditor himself, who ought to know better than anybody else, stated the amount at Rs. 3,418 odd and supported that claim by affidavit, at which amount it was allowed. He now says that it was a mistake.2. No doubt the Insolvency Court has the same jurisdiction that the ordinary Courts of law possess under the Civil Procedure Code to correct any mistake either of a clerk or of the parties themselves upon a question of fact, when a mistake is established. It would appear that this creditor took three years or a little less to discover this serious error. But having discovered it, he applied to the Insolvency Court to rectify the amount of his debt in the Schedule. Whether without extending the 21 days which is g...
Jhumak Rai and anr. Vs. Bindeshri Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All272; 51Ind.Cas.125
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. The plaintiffs' case is that they have been deprived of their rights by the fraud of the defendants.2. The question arises out of partition proceedings in the Revenue Court. The allegation is not that the partition proceedings were wrongly decided but that by an improper entry in the papers made through the dishonest intervention of the defendants by a clerk or some official in the administrative department, the effect of the partition has been injuriously to affect the rights of the plaintiffs. The fraud as stated is a remarkably simple and yet an ingenious one. The question was as to the destination of certain trees. If the trees were to go with the land allotted to any particular party, no entry was made in the column provided for remarks, but if the trees were reserved or allotted to some party other than the party who took the land, then an entry was made appropriating the trees to him. The plaintiffs' case is that that entry ...
Piari Lal Vs. the Muir Mills Company Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All619
1. In this case a slight difficulty seems to have arisen as to who is entitled to be placed on the register of share-holders in a limited liability company in the event of the death of the head of a joint Hindu family. The facts are quite simple. One Sheomukh Rai who was a holder of 80 shares in the Muir Mills Co., Ld., Cawnpore, recently died, leaving surviving him Piari Lal, his son, who is sui juris, and a grandson who is a minor. So far as we know these are the only parties concerned in this application. The company, perhaps naturally, not wishing to decide one way or the other whether the son was entitled to be registered, left him to make the necessary application to the court having jurisdiction under the Companies Act, to determine whether Piari Lal was entitled to be so registered. Piari Lal made an affidavit which, with the exception I will mention in a moment, is the only material we have before us with regard, to the facts. However, such as it is, this material is uncontrad...
L. Pearey Lal Vs. Muir Mills Company, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All240; 51Ind.Cas.322
Walsh, J.1. In this case a slight difficulty seems to have arisen as to who is entitled to be placed on the register of shareholders in a limited liability company in the event of the death of the head of a joint Hindu family. The facts are quite simple. One Sheomukh Rai, who was a holder of 80 shares in the Muir Mills Company, Limited, Cawnpore, recently died leaving surviving him Pearey Lal, his son, who is sui juris, and a grandson who is a minor. So far as we know, these are the only parties concerned in this application. The Company, perhaps naturally not wishing to decide one way or the other whether the son was entitled to be registered, left him to make the necessary application to the Court having jurisdiction under the Companies Act to determine whether Pearey Lal was entitled to be so registered. Pearey Lal made an affidavit which, with theexception I will mention in a moment, is the only material we have before us with regard to the facts, However, such as it is, this mater...
Arbindakeb Rai Vs. Jageshar Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All242; 51Ind.Cas.829
Walsh, J.1. We think this appeal must he dismissed. We do not think that it is necessary to discuss all the authorities which have been mentioned in the judgment of the Court below and in the argument before us. We do not mean by this that the argument has exceeded in the least the limits of what was reasonable having regard to the difficulty of the point raised, but we think the difficulty of the point raised has been largely accentuated by a tendency on the part of some Judges to travel a little beyond the actual province within which they are called upon to determine the question. The real question we have to determine in this suit is whether the acknowledgment relied upon by the plaintiff as extending the period of limitation was given within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, that is to say, was it given by some person through whom the defendant derives title or liability? We have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to say that it is not, and that it is impo...
Parmal Vs. Chahlu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All611
1. This appeal must be allowed. The facts are that one Khaman, who died many years ago, left surviving him four sons, Parmal, Hazari, Gokul and Pransukh, who divided his property amongst themselves. Hazari, the second son, died first leaving surviving him a widow named Musammat Mulo, who subsequently was married to the eldest son, Parmal. Afterwards Pransukh died without issue, leaving a widow, Musammat Indo. A question having arisen as to the legal effect of the remarriage of Musammat Mulo, the two surviving brothers came to an arrangement by which, in consideration of his being allowed to retain the property of Hazari, Parmal, the present) plaintiff, agreed to make no claim against Gokul to the property of Pransukh on the death of the widow, Musammat Indo. This arrangement was drawn up in a deed, dated June, 1897, duly executed and registered. This deed has given rise to the question of law we have to decide. Musammat Indo died in 1918. Parmal brought this suit against the defendant,...
Chabli Vs. Parmal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All371; 51Ind.Cas.919
Walsh, J.1. I agree that this appeal must be allowed. The facts are that one Khamani, who died many years ago, left surviving him four sons Parmal, Hazari, Gokul and Pransukh, who divided his property amongst themselves. Hazari, the 2nd son, died first, leaving surviving him a widow named Musammat Mullo, who subsequently was married to the eldest son, Parmal. Afterwards, Pransukh died without issue, leaving a widow Musammat Indo. A question having arisen as to the legal effect of the re-marriage of Musammat Mullo, the two surviving brothers same to an arrangement by which, in consideration of his being allowed to retain the property of Hazari, Parmal, the present plaintiff, agreed to make no claim against Gokal to the property of Pransukh on the death of the widow Musammat Indo. This arrangement was drawn up in a deed dated June 1897 duly executed and registered. This deed has given rise to the question of law we have to decide. Musammat Indo died in 1913. Parmal brought this suit agai...
Ajudhia Puri Vs. Brij Bhukhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All258; 51Ind.Cas.143
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:--The defendants respondents are the Zemindars of the village Bidhuna. The plaintiff appellant was, prior to 1313 Pasli, entered in the revenue papers as muafidar of plot No. 757. In the year 1313 Fasti when he was a minor, one Raghubarpuri entered into an agreement with the Zemindars on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant as his guardian, undertaking to pay rent in respect of plot No. V 57. Ever since then the plaintiff's name has been shown in the revenue papers as that of a tenant in respect of plot No. 757. In 1915 the Zemindars distrained the crops of the plaintiff for arrears of rent. Thereupon the plaintiff contested the distraint under Section 142 of the Tenancy Act and raised the question of his tenure with regard to plot No. 757. He stated that he was a muafidar of the plot and that Raghubarpuri was not his guardian and had no right to enter into an agreement with the Zemindars on the 24th of October 1905, giving ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »