Allahabad Court May 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.
Nasib-ullah Vs. Kunwar Anand Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All182(2); (1920)ILR42All642; 57Ind.Cas.45
Piggott and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Local Government under Section 17 of the Kumaun Rules. It appears that one Kunwar Anand Singh was adjudicated an insolvent on the 5th of February, 1917. In his schedule of creditors he specified a debt of Rs. 5,800 as due to one Nasib-ullah. When notice went to the latter, Nasib-ullah came before the insolvency court with a promissory note for Rs. 5,900, dated the 24th of February, 1913, and executed in his favour by Kunwar Anand Singh. There is nothing in the terms of the document itself, or in the description of the executant, to indicate that he was incurring this liability otherwise than in his personal capacity. On account of this promissory note, with interest, Nasib-ullah claimed a sum of Rs. 10,400.2. At a later stage an objection was taken on behalf of the receiver, to the effect that the debt evidenced by the promissory note of the 24th of February, 1913, was not really due from Kunwar Anand Singh at all but from his ...
Lachmi Narayan Vs. Deoki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All296; 59Ind.Cas.797
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is, whether a certain mortgage-bond executed by Gokla, the father of the defendant-appellant, for Rs. 550 was executed for legal necessity. The Court of first instance found that no legal necessity had been established. The lower Appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that out of the sum of Rs. 550 secured by the mortgage there was a legal necessity to the extent of Rs. 325 which had been paid to a prior creditor named Raghunandan. In the mortgage bond in suit it is recited that Rs. 325 were left with the mortgagee for payment to Raghunandan on account of four prior usufructuary mortgage-deeds. These mortgage-deeds were produced but not proved. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant contends that, if Rs. 325, for which a legal necessity has been found by the Court below to have been established, were paid in satisfaction of those prior usufructuary mortgage-deeds, that payment cannot be taken to be a pa...
Musammat Sarasuti TewarIn Vs. Musammat Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.99
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Musammat Nandar, the mother of a deceased Hindu, Shishmul Prasad, who died on the 9th of July 1912. She brought a suit originally against the two widows of her deceased son, namely, Musammat Sarasuti and Musammat Ramjota, and she claimed her maintenance as the mother of the deceased. Musammat Sarasuti practically did not contest her claim except as to the amount which was demanded. Musammat Ramjota, on the other hand, pleaded that a son had been born to her after the death of her husband whose name was Brij Kishore and that, under the Hindu Law, Brij Kishore, was the owner of the entire estate and that she was not liable, and that if she were in possession it WBS on behalf of the infant son who was the real owner of the estate. It may be noted here that on the death of Shishmal Prasad the names of the two widows were entered each against half of the estate and, according to the judgment of the Court below, the elder widow, Musammat Sar...
Bihari Lal and ors. Vs. Chokhe Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All634
Piggott and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the zamindars of a certain village. The defendant is a a tenant of the village and is in possession of two plots of land constituting a grove or groves, It is not clearly stated anywhere whether the plots of land are Contiguous, but from the pleadings and the manner in which evidence was adduced it would seem that they must be, At any rate it will be convenient to speak of the 'defendant's grove.' It is alleged in the plaint that at the time of the settlement in 1301 fasli there were 383 trees standing in the grove and that now there are only 108 scattered trees. The plaintiffs, relying on their rights as proprietors of the land and on the provisions of the wajib-ul-arz prepared at settlement, claimed that the defendant's grove, or at least some unspecified portion of the same, had become , denuded of trees and had lost the character of a grove. They sought relief by way of a declaration and also by way of an injunction re...
Musammat Kundan Vs. Kandhaiyta Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All639
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. Musammat Kundan brought a suit to set aside a mortgage and sale of a house which she had subsequently executed in favour of the first defendant. The court of first instance gave her a decree on certain conditions. On appeal to the District Judge that court ordered, on the 17th of February, 1919, that the plaintiff should get possession of the house on condition that she paid a sum of Rs. 600 into court within one month. On the 13th of March, 1919, that is, four days before the term mentioned in the decree expired, the plaintiff made an application to the court in which she stated that she had been unable to get a copy of the decree up till then, and that as she was a pauper, she had not money herself to satisfy the decree and could not get a loan from the local bankers without showing them the copy of the decree. She, therefore, prayed that she might be permitted to deposit; the money within a month of her receiving a copy of the decree. On this applicatio...
Kandhya Singh Vs. Musammat Kundan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All173; 57Ind.Cas.16
1. Musammat Kundan brought a suit to set aside a mortgage and sale of a house which she had subsequently executed in favour of the first defendant. The Court of first instance gave her a decree on certain conditions. On appeal to the District Judge that Court ordered, on the 17th of February 1919, that the plaintiff should get possession of the house on condition that she paid a sum of Rs. 600 into Court within on) month. On the 13th of March 1919, that is four days before the time mentioned in the decree had expired, the plaintiff made an application to the Court in which she stated that she had been unable to get a copy of the decree up till then and that as she was a pauper, she had not money herself to satisfy the decree and could not get a loan from the local bankers without showing them the copy of the decree. She, therefore, prayed that she might be permitted to deposit the money within a month of her receiving' a copy of the decree. On this application the Court passed the foll...
Lokman Das Vs. Ganga Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All294(2); 60Ind.Cas.96
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to muafi plot No 1268 situate in Qusha Bisauli, The allegation of the plaintiff was that he was the exclusive owner of that plot and that the defendant wrongfully got himself reworded as the owner of a half hare therein in June 1917. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the exclusive owner of the said muafi plot and that the defendant had no right to it. He also sued for the ejectment of the defendant from the same. The defendant pleaded that the plot in question belonged to Kunj Behari from whom it devolved on his three sons, Hira Lal, Duli Chand and Timed Rai, that Umed Rai died Childless, and that he, as the son and legal representative of Duli Chand, was entitled to half share.2. The plaintiff relied in support of his exclusive title on the deed of gift, purporting to have been exclusive by Pran Sukh in favour of Sri Kishen Das and Duli Chand on the 10th of August 185. His statement was that Pran Suka was the owner of a large plot, ...
Chokhey Lal Vs. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All17; 60Ind.Cas.115
1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the Zemindars of a certain village. The defendant is a tenant of the village and is in possession of two plots of land constituting a grove or groves. It is not clearly stated anywhere whether the two plots of land are contiguous, but from the pleadings and the manner in which evidence was adduced it would seem that they must be; at any rate, it will be convenient to speak of the 'defendant's grove.' It is alleged in the plaint that, at the time of the Settlement in 1301 Face, there were 383 frees standing in the for and that there are only 1311 scattered trees. The plaintiffs, relying on their rights as proprietors of the land and on the provisions of the wajib-ul-arz prepared at Settlement, claimed that the defendant's grove, or at least some unspecified portion of the same, had become, denuded of trees and had lost the character of a grove. They sought relief by way of a declaration and also by way of an injunction restraining the defendant from pl...
Sundar and ors. Vs. Habib Chik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All112; (1920)ILR42All626
Piggott, J.1. The matter now before us arises out of the following facts. An appeal had been filed in the court below by certain persons who are the respondents in F. A. F. 0. No. 84 of 1919 now before us. The opposite party, who are the appellants now in this Court, made an application to the court below asking that the appellants there should be required to furnish security for the costs of the appeal and of the court of first instance. This application came before the court below on the Ist of February, 1919. It is clear that the present respondents were there represented by a pleader who was very imperfectly instructed. He made no attempt to contest the application for security, but stated that his clients would furnish security if suitable time were given, For some reason, not now apparent, the court only gave one week and ordered security to be filed by the 8th of February. By that time the presiding officer of the court who had passed the order of the 1st of February had been tr...
Sundar and ors. Vs. Habib Chick and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.81
Piggott, J.1. The matter now before us arises out of the following facts. Au appeal had been filed in the Court below by certain persons who are the respondents in First Appeal from Order No. 84 of 191, now before us. The opposite party, WHO are the appellants now in this Court, made an application to the Court below asking that the appellants there should be required to furnish security for the costs of the appeal and of the court of first instance. This application a me before the Court below on the 1st of February 1919. It is clear that the present respondent were there represented by a Counsel who was very imperfectly instructed. He made no attempt to contest the application for security, but stated that his clients would furnish security if suitable time were given. For some reason not now apparent, the Court only gave one weak and ordered security to be filed by the Such of February. By that time the Presiding Officer of the Court who had passed the order of the 1st of February h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »