Allahabad Court April 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.
Darbari Mal Vs. Mula Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All519
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. The facts of this ease are very simple. The appellant is a puisne mortgagee. He used and obtained a decree for sale on the basis of his mortgage deed, which was dated the 14th of April, 1906, on the 22nd of April, 1912. His suit was brought within six years of the mortgage. He obtained a final decree for sale on the 20th of January, 1915. He has now made the present application for a decree over under Order XXXIV, Rule 6. In the meantime he has not put his decree into execution in any way whatsoever nor has he attempted to bring the property to sale. The reason for this is that there was a prior mortgage upon the estate. The prior mortgagee sued and obtained a decree on the 2lst of January, 1918. The whole of the property was sold in satisfaction of the prior mortgage. The present appellant made no attempt to pay off the prior mortgage at any time. He has come into Court, as we have said above, asking for a decree under order XXXIV, Rule 6. Order XXXTY, Rule...
Gulshan Ali Vs. Zakir Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All185; (1920)ILR42All549
Tudball, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen is one to recover a debt due on a simple mortgage, executed in favour of one Musammat Allah Jilai. The creditor died, and two persons, Musammat Said-un-nissa and Musammat Wahid-un-nissa, claiming to be her heirs, sold their rights to one Masit Ali, and the latter transferred his right to the plaintiff, Zikir Ali. The latter's suit was dismissed by the court of first instance on the simple ground that he had not produced a succession certificate. The lower appellate court has taken the opposite view and has remanded the case for trial on its merits.2. The defendant appeals and the sole question is whether or not the plaintiff is bound to produce a succession certificate before he can receive a decree for the amount claimed. I should have had no difficulty in deciding this case, were it not for an expression of opinion by the two Judges of this Court who decided the case of Goswami Sri Raman Lalji v. Hari Das (1916) I.L.R. 38 All...
Jhammanlal Vs. Komal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All44; 57Ind.Cas.36
1. The facts of this case are very simple. One Tikam Singh executed a mortgage deed for the sum of Rs. 1,500 in favour of two persons, Jwala Prasad and Girdbari Lal. According to the deed Jwala Prasad advanoed Rs. 1,000 and, Girdhari Lal advanced Rs. 500. It was alleged that the Rs. 500 due to Girdhari Lal was a previous debt incurred by the mortgagor. The representatives of the mortgagees brought a suit impleading Tikam Singh and his three sons and grandsons. One son and 'his' sobs pleaded that they were separate from the father and had no concern with him. The Court held in their favour and dismissed the suit as against them. The other sons pleaded that there was no consideration whatsoever for the bond at all. Secondly, that if there was any consideration there was no legal necessity and, therefore, the mortgage was not binding upon thorn. In respect to the Rs. 1,000 advanced by Jwala Prasad the Court held that that was for legal necessity and the mortgage to that extent was binding...
Hanuman and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All18; 57Ind.Cas.103
George Knox J.1. Hanuman Kalwar and Brijmohan Kalwar have been found guilty under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. They have appealed to this Court and their case was represented by a learned Counsel. The story for the prosecution is that these two men went together to Nur Muhammad in the month of Phagun of last year. They took two nose-rings and said that these ornaments were of gold and wanted to pawn them to him. Nur Muhammad says that he took the ornaments and gave them Rs. 100 and a bargain was struck between Nur Muhammad and the accused that they should pay Rs. 2 per mensem as interest for the time when the nose-rings were lying with Nur Muhammad as security for Rs. 100. Within a week Nur Muhammad says the accused brought another nose ring and offered to pawn it as a gold ornament for Rs. 50. They offered to redeem in a month and the sum was paid to them. Nur Muhammad's suspicions were aroused. He had this ornament tested by a professional Sonar. The Sonar said it was gold, ...
Darbari Mal Vs. Moola Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All155; 56Ind.Cas.139
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. The facts of this case are very simple. The appellant is a puisne mortgagee. He sued and obtained a decree for the sale on the basis of his mortgage deed, which was dated the 4th of April 1906, on the 22nd of April 1912, His suit was brought within six years of the mortgage. He obtained a final decree for sale on the 20th January 1915. He has now made the present application for a decree over trader Order XXXIV, rule 6. In the meantime he has not put his decree into execution in any way whatsoever, nor has he attempted to bring the property to sale, The reason for this is that there was a prior mortgage upon the estate. The prior mortgagee sued and obtained a decree on the 21st of January 1913. The whole of the property was sold in satisfaction of the prior mortgage. The present appellant made no attempt to pay off the prior mortgage at any time. He has come into Court, as we have said above, asking for a decree under Order XXXIV, rule 6. Order XXXIV, rule 6...
Raja Bahadur Raja Brij NaraIn Rai Vs. Mangla Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All161; 56Ind.Cas.526
1. The value of the subject, matter of the proposed appeal exceeds Rs. 10,000, but this Court affirmed the decision of the Court below. We have, therefore, to see whether the case involves a substantial question of law. The question of law, which arises if, what constitutes antecedent debt so as to justify a transfer of joint family property by the manager of the family in the case of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law. This Court has applied in this case the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Sahu Ram Chandra v, Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 280 : 39 A. 437 : 21 C.W.N. 698 : 1 P.L.W. 557 : 15 A.L.J. 437 : 19 Bom. L.R. 498 : 26 C.L.J. 1 : 33 M.L.J. 14 : (1917) M.W.N. 439 : 22 M.L.T. 22 : 6 L.W. 213 : 44 I.A. 126 (P.C.) as contained in pages 447 and 448. The Madras High Court in the Full Bench case of Arumugham Chetty v. Muthu Koundan 52 Ind. Cas. 526 : 42 M. 711 : 9 L.W. 565 : (1919) M.W.N. 409 : 37 M.L.J. 166 : 26 M.L.T. 96 have taken a different ...
Anwar Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Dara Shah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All197(1); (1920)ILR42All514
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Bareilly refusing to remove a guardian from her post. A preliminary 'objection is raised that no appeal lies. We think there is considerable force in this argument, Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act gives a right of appeal against an order made by the District Court under Section 39 for removing a guardian, but it nowhere gives a right of appeal from an order refusing to remove a guardian. Section 48 distinctly says: 'Save as provided by the last foregoing section and by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order made under this Act shall be final and shall not be liable to be contested by suit or otherwise. ' It is, therefore, clear that no appeal lies from the order of the court below and we, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs....
Shah Mehdi Hasan Vs. Ismail Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All517
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. In our opinion the decision of the Court below refusing to decree the plaintiff's claim for redemption is erroneous. A mortgage was made on the 17th of February, 1895, in the form of a zar-i-peshgi lease in favour of Muhammad Siddiq. The mortgagee paid a portion of the zar-i-peshgi money and took possession of three of the mortgaged villages, namely, Imamnagar, Rahmatipur and Bhasaura Khurd. The mortgage was in respect of the whole of Imamnagar and shares in the other two villages. The present suit is one for redemption of the three villages, and it is alleged that the mortgage money has been discharged by the usufruct.2. The court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff's right of redemption in regard to all the three villages has become extinct. As regards Imamnagar, the court finds that a 2/5hs share has already been sold and the plaintiff does not own that share. As regards the remaining 3/5tha the learned ...
Jagmohan NaraIn Vs. Grish Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All210; (1920)ILR42All515; 58Ind.Cas.557
1. This appeal arises out of insolvency proceedings, Apparently there was a partnership firm whish, at the time of the application for adjudication, consisted of two partners, Banke Behari Lal and a minor called Grish Babu, Certain creditors applied for an adjudication, not that the firm itself had gone bankrupt, but that the two persons who constituted the firm had become bankrupt and should be adjudged insolvents. The application being in this form, the Judge separated the case into two parts. The case of Banke Bahari Lal has been settled otherwise. notice was issued to the minor's mother, but nobody appeared and the Judge passed a final order declaring the minor to be an insolvent Subsequently an application was made on behalf of the minor that he could not legally be declared an insolvent and, therefore, the order should be annulled under Section 42 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. This was opposed. The District Judge has held that a minor cannot be declared an insolvent and has a...
Syed Shah Mahdi Hasan Vs. Syed Ismail Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All136; 56Ind.Cas.172
1. In our opinion the decision of the Court below refusing to decree the plaintiff's claim for redemption is erroneous. A mortgage was made on the 17th of February 1895 in the form of a zarpeshgi lease in favour of Muhammad Siddiq. The mortgagee paid a portion of the zarpeshgi money and took possession of three of the mortgaged villages, namely, Imamnagar Rahmatpur and Bhasaura Khurd. The mortgage was in respect of the whole of Imamnagar and shares in the other two villages, The present suit is one for redemption of the three villages and it is alleged that the mortgage money has been discharged by the usufruct.2. The Court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff's right of redemption in regard to all the three villages has become extinct. As regards Imamnagar the Court finds that a 2/5ths share has already been sold and the plaintiff doe's not own that share. As regards the remaining 3/5ths the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the plaintiff's right o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »