Allahabad Court November 1920 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.
Reoti Ram Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All44; 60Ind.Cas.894
1. In our opinion there is authority of this Court in the case of Dabi Din Bai v. Muhammad Ali 3 A. 850 : A.W.N. (1881) 100 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 576, which justified the learned Judge in the Court below in holding, that the condition had been complied with. The case of Shooshee Bhusan Rudro v. Gobind Chunder Roy 18 C. 231 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 164 and the case of Sambasiva Chari v. Ramasami Reddi 22 M 179 : 8 M.L.J. 265 : 8 Ind. Dec.. (N.S.) 127, bear out this view. The argument on behalf of the appellant seeks to confine the judgment-debtor in tone alternative, to only 29 days to pay the money. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Kalu Alias Kallan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.1002
Ryves, J.1. In this case Kallu has been ordered to be bound down under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The notice issued against him under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that he is a thief by profession and habitually commits extortion. A large number of witnesses for the prosecution were produced and they generally say that Kallu has the reputation of being a harbourer of thieves and commits extortion. They go on to say that he has no other means of livelihood, and in cross-examination, most of them said that he had no cultivation or business, The learned Magistrate has accepted this evidence and on the strength of this evidence has passed the order under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was confirmed in appeal, but it is quite evident from the learned District Magistrate's order that the evidence against Kallu is extremely slight; indeed, he says so himself, The accused, who is a man of sixty years, had apparently never been suspected b...
Jagannath Prasad and Hanuman Prasad Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All305
Walsh, J.1. In this case a suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore by a firm named Jagannath Prasad, etc. against one Kanhaiya Lal, who was alleged to be 22 years of age, for damages for non-delivery of goods. The defendant alleged infancy, and a written statement was filed on his behalf by one Lachmi Narain, in which the contract was denied, and the defences of infancy and of wagering were set up. Issues were settled by the Judge on the 9th of January, 1919. The question of the defendant's minority was separately tried and was decided against him in March. When the day for the trial in May arrived the parties decided to refer their dispute to arbitration, and the issues which had been struck were, by order of Court, referred to an arbitrator, who made an award on the 23rd of June in favour of the defendant, holding that, although the defendant was of age, there had been no contract, and dismissing the suit.2. On the 25th of June, the plaintiff filed objectio...
Ratan Lal and anr. Vs. Muhammad Hamidullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All65; 60Ind.Cas.899
1. This is an application in revision against an order by which a Court of first appeal, setting aside the decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit, substituted for that decree an order under Order XXIII, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of the same. The jurisdiction of an Appellate Court to pass such an order has not been challenged, at any rate since the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Afzal Begam v. Akbari Khannm 28 Ind. Cas. 857 : 13 A.L.J. 444 : 37 A. 326. It is contended that the lower Appellate Court, in the present instance, acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, because it has not, given any reasons for granting the plaintiff permission to withdraw, such as to satisfy the requirements of Order XXIII, Rule 1, Clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case has been referred to a B...
Kanhya Lal Vs. Firm Jagannath Pershad, Hanuman Pershad Through Jaganna ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All16; 60Ind.Cas.857
Walsh, J.1. In this case a suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore by a firm named Jagannath Prasad, etc., against one Kanhya Lal, who was alleged to be 22 years of age, for damages for non-delivery of goods. The defendant alleged infancy, and a written statement was filed upon his behalf by one Laobmi Narain in which the contract was denied, and the defences of infancy, and wagering were set up. Issues were settled by the Judge on the 9th January 1919. The question of the defendant's minority was separately tried, and was decided against him in Marsh, When the day for the trial, in May, arrived the parties decided to refer their dispute to arbitration, and the issues: which had been struck were, by order of Court, referred to an arbitrator, who made an award on the 23rd June in favour of the defendant, holding that, although the defendant was of age, there had been no contract, and dismissing the suit.2. On the 25th June the plaintiff filed objections in the...
Asa Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All288
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The applicants to this Court were defendants in a suit in the court of the Munsif of Koil. The suit was decreed on the 7th of March, 1919, and the defendants filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge on the 4th of April, 1919. On the 21st of June, 1919, they applied for a review of judgment to the trial court, alleging grounds sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, Having filed this application they withdrew their appeal on the 8th of July, 1919, and their application for review came up for disposal on the 20th of September, 1919. The trial court refused to consider it on the merits, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain any such application, because on the date on which the application for review was made an appeal had been preferred to the court of the District Judge and was pending. The application before us is against this refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The case of Parta...
Ram Prasad and anr. Vs. Asa Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All197(1); 61Ind.Cas.334
1. The applicants to this Court were defendants in a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Koil. The suit was decreed on the 7th of March 1919 and the defendants filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge on the 4th of April 1919. On the 21st of June 1919 they applied for a review of judgment to the Trial Court, alleging grounds sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having filed this application, they withdrew their appeal on the 8th of July 1919, and their application for review same up for disposal on the 20th of September 1919. The Trial Court refused to consider it on the merits, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain any such application, because, on the date on which the application for review was made, an appeal had been preferred to the Court of the District Judge and was pending. The application before us is against this refusal to exercise jurisdiction, The case of Partap Singh v. Jaswant Singh 52...
Syed Madad Ali Vs. Sheikh Shamsher Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1920
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.103
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises onto a suit for profits brought by the plaintiff-appellant in a Court of Revenue. The property in respect of whish profits have been claimed belonged to one Debi Din Lal In 1875 he executed a usufruatuary mortgage of it in favour of several persona who were in possession in proportion to the amounts advanced by them. The plaintiff's father was one of these mortgagees and he was entitled to the profits relating to his share. This is claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit and there is no dispute in regard to it. Two of the other mortgagaes were Ilahi Baksh and Musammat Jhanduli Bibi. They are dead, and the plaintiff says that he is one of their legal representatives and is entitled to the portion of the profits to which those persons were entitled. He accordingly claims profits in respect of the mortgagee rights of his own father and of his alleged legal share in the estate of Ilahi Baksh and Jhanduli Bibi. As I have said above, there was no di...
Mohammad Munir-ud-dIn Khan Vs. Mahmood Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1920
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.91
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff, whose claim for actual possession by partition of a share in a certain house, along with mesne profits by way of damages, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The share in question belonged to one Amir-ud-Diri, who was adjudicated an insolvent by an order of the 6th of January 1914. Amir-ud-Din, along with other owners of the house, had mortgaged the same by a simple mortgage and a suit on this mortgage has been instituted prior to the order of adjudication. A decree for sale was passed in the month of May 1914, followed by a decree absolute in the month of June 1915. In the meantime, that is to say, on the 13th of May 1915, the Receiver appointed by the Court purported to sell the snare of the insolvent Amir-ud-Din in the mortgaged house to the present plaintiff. An attempt made by the mortgagee to realise his mortgage money out of the sale consideration paid by the plaintiff failed, and the question of his right to do this...
Babu Lachmi NaraIn and anr. Vs. Durg Bijai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All397; 65Ind.Cas.365
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the next reversioner and his assignee of a portion of his reversion any rights in the property in suit which originally belonged to one Beni Prasad.2. The circumstances under which plaintiff No. 1 comes to sue as next reversioner, and the array of parties, are fully and accurately detailed in the lower Court's judgment. A genealogical table has been annexed to the plaint which gives the relationship of the various branches of the family of which Beni Prasad was a separated member.3. The case for the plaintiffs is that Beni Prasad died in 1853 leaving surviving him two widows, Musammat Latkan Koer who died in 1835, and Musammat Bijai Koer who, the plaintiffs assert, died on the 21st of January 1904. The alienations in suit which it is sought to contest are described in the schedule annexed to the plaint and were made by Musammat Bijai Koer under circumstances which will afterwards be stated, in the year 1873.4. Broadly put, the claim of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »