Allahabad Court July 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.
Bansi Vs. Ganga Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All64
Pramada Charan Banerji and Wallach, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to a half share of a certain cultivatory holding. He alleged that he and the defendant were each-entitled to a half share of the holding and that the defendant had taken possession of a larger share than that to which he was entitled. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a declaration that he was entitled to a half share. He also claimed possession and mesne profits. The court below has granted him a decree declaring him entitled to a half share, but, in view of [the provisions of Section 32 of the Agra Tenancy Act, has [refused to grant him possession of a half share, as this might amount to a partition of the holding. A decree for mesne profits has also been granted. In this appeal, which has been preferred on behalf of the defendant, it is not urged that the declaratory decree passed in the plaintiff's favour is not a proper decree, but it is contended that a d...
Ganga Sahai Alias Khachroo Vs. Bansi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All79(2); 52Ind.Cas.649
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to a half share of certain cultivatory holding. -He alleged that he and the defendant were each entitled to a half share of the holding and that the defendant had taken possession of a larger share than that to which he was entitled. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a declaration that he was entitled to a half share. He also claimed possession and mesne profits. The Court below has granted him a decree declaring him entitled to a half share, but in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the Agra Tenancy Act has refused to grant him possession of a half share as this* might amount to a partition of the holding. A decree for mesne profits has also been granted. In this appeal, which has been preferred on behalf of the defendant, it is not urged that the declaratory decree passed in the plaintiff's favour is not a proper decree, but it is contended that a decree for mesne profits should not have been...
Ram Prasad Singh Vs. the Benares Bank Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All20; (1920)ILR42All98; 58Ind.Cas.600
George Knox, Acting C.J. and Piggott, J.1. Ram Prasad Singh appeals against an order passed by a single judge of this Court under the following circumstances. The appellant was one of three judgment-debtors in a decree obtained by the respondents (the Benares Bank, Limited), which decree was passed ex parte, on 18th of August, 1917, by the court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares. Between November, 1917, and April, 1918, the Bank got the decree transferred for execution to Patna, the appellant residing within the jurisdiction of the district court of that place, and immovable property belonging to the appellant was attached in execution of the decree. On 23rd of June, 1918, Ram Prasad Singh brought a suit against the Benares Bank in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares; the reliefs sought were that the decree of 18th of August, 1917, be set aside and that the Bank be restrained from proceeding against the property of the plaintiff, After the institution of the 'suit, and befo...
Alayar Khan Vs. Bibi Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All18; (1920)ILR42All61
Pramada Charan Banerji and Wallach, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought under the following circumstances One Jai Ram was the owner of certain immovable property. Upon his death in 1910 disputes arose between his widow, Musammat Bibi Kunwar, and his nephew, Baijnath. The former alleged that Jai Ram was separate and that she as his widow was entitled to Ms property. Baijnath, who was the brother's son of Jai Ram, asserted that he and Jai Ram were members of a joint family and that therefore upon Jai Ram's death he succeeded to the property by right of survivorship. These disputes were raised in mutation proceedings. The court of first instance held that the family was joint and ordered the name of Baijnath to be entered in the revenue papers. This order was passed on the 23rd of December, 1910. On appeal the aforesaid order was set aside and the appellate court held, on the 18th of April, 1911, that Bibi Kunwar was entitled to the property, her husband having been...
Alayar Khan Vs. Musammat Bibi Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.632
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought under the following circumstances. One Jai Ram was the owner of certain immoveable property. Upon his death in 1910 disputes arose between his widow Musammat Bibi Kunwar and his nephew Baijnath. The former alleged that Jai Ram was separate and that she, as his widow, was entitled to his property. Baijnath, who was the brother's son of Jai Ram, asserted that he and Jai Ram were members of a joint family, and that, therefore, upon Jai Ram's death he succeeded to the property by right of survivorship. These disputes were raised in mutation proceedings. The Court of first instance held that the family was joint and ordered the name of Baijnath to be entered in the revenue papers. This order was passed on the 23rd of December 1910. On appeal the aforesaid order was set aside and the Appellate Court held on the 18th of April 1911 that Bibi Kunwar was entitled to the property, her husband having been separate from his nephew, and directe...
Mahabir Prasad and anr. Vs. Basant Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All449; 70Ind.Cas.444
1. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has not correctly conceived the facts of the case, but we have gone into those facts and are of opinion that the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed by the Court of first instance and the lower Appellate Court's decree was a right decree. The facts which are somewhat complicated are these: In 1875 a nineteen biswa share in Mauza Hatampur was mortgaged by one Haider Baksh to four persons, namely, Har Sarup, Kishen Lal, Chiranji Lal and Shambu Nath. The defendant, Basant Lal, is the son of Har Sarup. The plaintiffs, Mahabir Prasad and Hira Lal, purchased the rights of some of the representatives of the mortgagor from those persons. Basant Lal transferred some of his rights to his wife, Musammat Rupdei, the second defendant, and both of them on the 6th of September 1907 executed a sale-deed in respect of a portion of the nineteen biswa in favour of Kishori Lal and Sundar Lal defendants. Part of the consideration for the sale was left wi...
Dalip NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Parmaoti Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All310; (1920)ILR42All58; 67Ind.Cas.931
Stuart and Ryves, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, are two minors. They sued Parmaoti Bibi, decree-holder, the auction-purchaser, and, pro forma, their father, who was the judgment-debtor. It appears that the decree-holder, Parmaoti Bibi, obtained a decree against their father on a promissory note in the Court of Small Causes and that in. execution of that decree the property in dispute was brought to sale and was purchased by the defendant No. 2. The father of the plaintiffs, that is, the judgment-debtor, made two unsuccessful attempts to have the sale set aside. This suit is now brought on behalf of the minors for possession of 2/3rds of the property on the ground that only the father's interest could be sold in execution of the decree, which is against him alone, and that their share in the property could not be sold.2. In the court below, it was stated in the plaint that the father was extravagant, of weak intellect, and a simpleton, and that the d...
Gajadhar Das Vs. Ram Sumiran Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All339; 52Ind.Cas.161
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision and has been brought under the following circumstances. The property of the respondent-judgment-debtor was sold by auction on the 20th of March 1918.. The sale was held by the Revenue Court as sale officer under the orders of the Civil Court. On the 20th of April 1918 the judgment-debtor filed an application before the sale officer offering to deposit the decretal amount and the penalty mentioned in Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the sale might be set aside. The sale officer was not competent to entertain the application and accordingly made an order that the application be forwarded to the Munsif's Court which had ordered the sale. As a matter of fact the application was not actually sent to the Munsif's Court until the 22nd of April 1918. On the 23rd of April 1918 the judgment-debtor filed an application in the Munsif's Court, in which he referred to the application presented by him on the 20th...
Raja Rattan Sen Singh Vs. Tripathi Ugarnath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.690
1. Tripathi Ugarnath, who is the head of a family of Tewari Brahmins in the Bansi Sub-Division of the Basti District, executed three deeds of conditional sale on the 8th June 1883, the 8th September 1884 and the 19th Jane 1885 in favour of Raja Ram Singh, who was then Raja of Bansi. By these deeds he mortgaged various properties. On the 17th March 1887 Tripathi Ugarnath executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of Raja Ram Singh. The Raja instituted a suit on the basis of the deed of the 17th March 1887. In the course of the proceedings he withdrew all claim for relief other than a simple money decree. He obtained a simple money decree on the 28th April 1894, and in execution of that simple money decree he brought to sale (in some instances) the whole of the equity of redemption in certain property mortgaged under the first three deeds, and (in other instances) a portion of the equity of redemption in certain other property mortgaged under the first three deeds, and purchased these ...
Jwala Prasad and ors. Vs. Shama Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All353(1); (1920)ILR42All55; 52Ind.Cas.235
Pramada Charan Banerji and Wallach, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on the basis of a promissory note, dated the 13th of June, 1913. The defendant No. 1, one Shama Charan, owed money to the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation, Limited, Gorakhpur, and in liquidation of this debt he executed the aforesaid promissory note for Rs. 700, on the 13th of June, 1913, in favour of his creditor. This promissory note was payable on demand, but on the same day the executant of the promissory note wrote a letter to the Manager of the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation stating that the period for suing on the promissory note should be postponed for one year, within which time he promised to pay the amount due on the promissory note. The promissory note was subsequently assigned to defendant No. 3, a relation and benamidar of the plaintiff. The suit was filed on the promissory note on the 25th of November, 1916. If the period of limitation be calculated from the date of the execution...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »