Allahabad Court June 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.
Jai Chand Vs. Girwar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All403(2); 52Ind.Cas.366
Walsh, J.1. This appeal must succeed. The plaintiff is the Zemindar of the village and his title has been held established in both Courts. He alleges that the defendant was put in possession for certain purposes, unnecessary to mention, by leave and license. The defendant denied the license in his written statement and set up an adverse title. Mr. Baldeo Ram for the defendant says that it is not proved that the license was ever granted or revoked. In our opinion that is now immaterial. The plaintiff based his case upon it and from the moment that the defendant repudiated the license and set up adverse possession, it was no longer possible for the defendant to rely upon the license or to deny its revocation. He was in the position of a trespasser without any defence to the suit, unless he succeeded in establishing his title by adverse possession.2. With reference to that part of the case, I propose to cite two passages from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. Having held that the...
Ramji Lal and ors. Vs. Khub Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All666
1. The property in dispute belonged to one Nihalo, who died on the 29th of December, 1914. The plaintiffs respondents were distant collaterals of Nihalo, who was a separated Hindu, and they claimed all the property left by Nihalo, as his heirs. Their claim was resisted in the mutation proceedings by the appellant on the ground that he was entitled to Nihalo's property. Mutation was granted in his favour, hence this suit. The plaintiffs claimed all the property left by Nihalo. The defendant asserted that on the 15th of December, 1891, Nihalo had executed a deed of gift of the bulk of his property in his favour and had put him in proprietary possession of it, and that subsequently on the 13th of January, 1912, he executed a registered will by which he left the remainder of his property to him. The defendant also stated that as a matter of fact he was the adopted son of Nihalo, and in proof produced a tabniatnamah or deed of adoption, executed on the 19th of January, 1913. The fact and le...
Khub Singh Vs. Ramji Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All391; 52Ind.Cas.311
1. The property in dispute belonged to one Nihalo, who died on the 29th of December 1914. The plaintiff a respondents were distant collaterals of Nihalo, who was a separated Hindu, and they claimed all the property left by Nihalo, as his heirs. Their claim was resisted in the mutation proceedings by. the appellant, on the ground that he was entitled to Nihalo's property. Mutation was granted in his favour, hence this suit. The plaintiffs claimed all the property left by Nihalo The defendant asserted that on the 15th of December 1891 Nihalo had executed a deed of gift of the bulk of his property in his favour and had put him in proprietary possession of it, and that subsequently on the 13th of January 1912 be executed a registered Will by which he left the remainder of his property to him. The defendant also stated that as a matter of fact he was the adopted son of Nihalo, and in proof produced a taluiatnama or deed of adoption, executed on the 19th of January 1913. The fact and legalit...
Abdul Rahim Vs. Sital Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All658
1. The appellant Abdul Rahim says that he kept a pedlar's shop in the city of Meerut. The goods from this shop were taken from time to time to fairs and exhibitions. His father Abdul Qayum carried on the same business. He was declared an insolvent some time prior to 1913. Abdul Qayum had his shop in the Meerut Cantonments, quite separate and distinct from the shop kept by Abdul Rahim. In the year 1913, Abdul Rahim took a large amount of goods (most of them woollen goods) to the fair or exhibition held at Bulandshahr. According to the plaint, Sital Prasad (respondent to this appeal and a creditor of Abdul Qayum, the insolvent) presented an application based on wrong allegations to the Additional Judge of Meerut. The date of the application, which is No. 35C on the record, was the 13th of February, 1913, and the prayer in it was that the goods of Abdul Rahim in the exhibition at Bulandshahr might be taken into the custody of the court, as the shop and the goods were the shop and the good...
Sukkhu Koeri Vs. Ram Lotan Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All663
1. This case seems to be a chapter of obstinacy and misfortune. It is difficult to imagine it happening in any other country and one is not surprised that the Code, which in some respect has gone out of its way to provide elaborate provisions for default, failure to appear and so forth, has not foreseen what in fact happened in this particular case in the year 1916, and there is really nothing to guide the courts in the present position. But every court has inherent powers, so far as it is not limited and prohibited by express provisions, to do what is right to both parties when there has been some failure or miscarriage, and to impose appropriate terms where that failure or miscarriage is clearly shown to be the fault of one party, so that any injury to the other party may be avoided.2. The plaintiff filed this suit some time in the month of February, 1916, making a claim which in substance turned upon the question whether he was a member of a joint or separate Hindu family, which doe...
Sukhu Koeri Vs. Ram Lotan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1915All252; 51Ind.Cas.850
1. This case seems to be a chapter of obstinacy and misfortune. It is difficult to imagine it happening in any other country and one is not surprised that the Code, which in some respects has gone out of its way to provide elaborate provisions for default, failure to appear and so forth, has not foreseen what in fact happened in this particular case in the year 1916, and there is really nothing to guide the Courts in the present position. But every Court has inherent power, so far as it is not limited and prohibited by express provisions, to do what is right to both parties when there has been some failure or miscarriage, and to impose appropriate terms where that failure or miscarriage is clearly shown to be the fault of one party so that any injury to the other party may be avoided.2. The plaintiff filed this suit sometime in the month of February 1916 making a claim which in substance turned upon the question whether he was a member of a joint or separate Hindu family, which does no...
Abdur Rahim Vs. Sital Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All70; 54Ind.Cas.792
1. The appellant Abdnr Rahim says that he kept a pedlar's shop in the City of Meerut : the goods from this shop were taken from time to time to fairs and exhibitions. His father Abdul Qayum carried on the same business sections He was declared an insolvent some time prior to 1913, Abdul Qayum had his shop in the Meerut Cantonments, quite separate and distinct from the shop kept by Abdur Rahim. In the year 1913, Abdul Rahim took a large amount of goods (most of them woollen goods) to the fair or exhibition held at Bulandshahr. According to the plaint Sital Prasad (respondent to this appeal and a creditor of Abdul Qayum, the insolvent) presented an application based on wrong allegations to the Additional Judge of Meerut. The date of the application, which is No 35C on the record, was the 13tb of February 1913, and the prayer in it was that the goods of Abdur Rahim in the exhibition at Bulandshahr might be taken into the custody of the Court as. the shop and the goods were the shop and th...
Sardanand Rai and ors. Vs. Sohawan Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All246; 51Ind.Cas.815
Walsh, J.1. This is a perfectly plain case. Two persons, many years ago, mortgaged two distinct and separate properties in which they were separately interested for one joint sum; in other words, they joined in mortgaging their separate estates. Shortly afterwards, the mortgagee died and his heirs, who, I am satisfied and, if necessary, should be prepared to find, were members of a joint Hindu family, took in what has been called by the lower Appellate Court a partner oc-sharer and somehow or another, which does not appear and the best persons to inform the Court about it were the present appellants, that partner became possessed of a moiety of the total mortgaged property by buying Sheoshankar Khan's share. With regard to the other moiety there would appear from the finding of the lower Appellate Court to have been a sort of partition, because one Sankata Prasad Rai is said to be in possession of one-anna two-ganda share, and one Mahesh Rai and the present appellants between them to b...
Jagdishwar Prasad and anr. Vs. Sheo Bakhsh Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All248; 51Ind.Cas.856
1. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be dismissed. There is nothing in the question of public policy raised. No doubt, it is the law in India as in England that a contract to provide a child in marriage in consideration of a money payment will not be enforced in a Court of law. That is a very different thing from saying that when a marriage has been arranged and performed, a payment by the parent of either the boy or the girl who is a party to the marriage is a contract which is void ab initio as being against public policy. No authority has been quoted which goes to this length and which would involve condemning a large proportion of marriage contracts in this country. Secondly, we cannot find anything in Section 92 of the Evidence Act against which this case, as found by the Courts below, offends. In substanse the document in question stipulated for consideration divided into three classes, Rs. 500 for pilgrimage to Gya, Rs. 500 for debts in connection with the lad...
Laltu Singh and ors. Vs. Kunj Bihari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All566
Piggott, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought on the following state of facts:One Raja Gur Sahai died in the year 1868 possessed of immovable property of considerable value in the districts of Moradabad and Bulandshahr. He left him surviving two sons and a widow. The sons died in 1873 while still minors and leaving no issue. The widow, Rani Kishori Kunwar, thereupon entered into possession of the estate, strictly speaking in succession to her sons, or rather to that one of her two sons who survived the other. For practical purposes it is sufficient to say that she took possession of the property with the estate of a Hindu widow. Shortly afterwards she went on a pilgrimage, in the course of which she visited Allahabad, Benares, Gaya, and Jagannath. At the last-named place she made an oral gift, or I should perhaps say the promise of a gift, to certain priests of the temple of Jagannath, and this transfer of property was carried into effect by a deed of the 8th of Ja...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »