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.
Bhup Singh and ors. Vs. Chedda Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All84; (1920)ILR42All596; 58Ind.Cas.171
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is a simple one but is by no means easy of solution.2. The facts are these:On the 10th of February, 1904, Haidar Shah executed a mortgage in favour of Lachman Prasad, the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, and among the property mortgaged was a share in the village of Hasanpur Ladauki the extent of which was two-fifths of 8/15. The present suit is for enforcement of this mortgage.3. The property comprised in the mortgage originally belonged to Sardar Bahadur Mir Khan who died on the 14th of June, 1889, leaving considerable property and a large number of heirs, namely, eight) sons, eight daughters and three widows. Among the sons were Haidar Shah aforesaid and Amir Muhammad Khan, 'The latter executed a mortgage on the 7th of March, 1889, in favour of Sant Lal and Moti Lal in respect of several items of property, one of which was an eighth share in the aforesaid village of Hasanpur Ladauki, Sant Lal and Moti Lal b...
Lalta Prasad and ors. Vs. Raja Sheoraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All54; 57Ind.Cas.26
ORDER1. The office report is clear and, in our opinion, correct. In First Appeal No. 364 of 1915 there has been an overpayment of Court-fee to the extent of Rs. 160. This Court has no power to direst a payment of this amount. The appellant must go to the Collector of the district and apply for a refund there, and as the overpayment has clearly been made, there can be no doubt that the refund will be ordered by the Collector. So far as Court fee paid on the other appeal in which the decree of the first Court was set aside and the case was reminded to that Court for trial de novo, the appellant is entitled under the law to a refund of the Court-fee of Rs. 215 paid by him in that appeal. We, therefore, direct that Rs. 215 be refunded to him....
Makundram Vs. Naubat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All215(1); 57Ind.Cas.200
1. In the course of a suit for sale on a mortgage the parties on the 6th September 1918 applied to the Court to refer the dispute to arbitration. On the 28th October 1918 the arbitrators filed their a ward. Objections were taken by the plaintiff within time, but on the 30th of November 1913 these objections were dismissed for default. Immediately after dismissing the objections for default, the Court went on to record that the suit was dismissed in accordance with the award. On the 2nd of January 1919, the plaintiff applied to the Court for restoration of his petition of objections, alleging in an affidavit various grounds which prevented his appearance in Court on the 30th of November 1918. On the 26th of April 1919 the Court rejected this application, not on the merits, but in these word: 'The objections to the validity of the sward being dismissed on 30th November 1918, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in accordance with the award. The restoration of the objections, which is ...
Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Bhola Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All6; 59Ind.Cas.359
1. The plaintiffs brought this suit in the Court of Small Causes at Kasganj to recover damages from the defendants, residents of Delhi, for an alleged breach of contract. The defense to the suit for the purposes of this application was that the Court at Kasganj had no jurisdiction to try it, as no part of the cause of action accrued in Kasganj. The Court held that it had no jurisdiction and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiffs some here in revision.2. The admitted facts relevant to this part of the case are as follows:The plaintiffs are shop-keepers at Kasganj and the defendants are merchants in Delhi dealing in dyes among other things. There had been previous dealings between the parties but these need not now be considered. On the 6th of November 1918, the plaintiffs wrote a letter, which is on the record from Kasganj, asking the defendants to send them four boxes of a particular dye. Nothing was said in the letter a...
Fateh Chand Vs. Anup Singh and ors. and Jai Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All575
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage alleged to have been made some time between 1833 and 1839 by Albela and Lachman in favour of Ganga Ram and Ram Dayal. It is stated that the property which is the subject matter of the suit was the subject of the mortgage, that the amount of the mortgage was Rs. 561-4-0 and that the mortgage was redeemable upon payment of the mortgage money in the month of Jeth of any year. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the equity of redemption from the successors in title of the original alleged mortgagors. The principal defendants,, who are the representatives of the mortgagees, deny the fact of the mortgage and deny that the claim is within limitation. Undoubtedly it is for the plaintiff who comes into court for possession of property by redemption of a mortgage to prove two things: first, that a mortgage answering substantially to the description of the mortgage alleged in the plaint was created, and, seco...
Aziz-un-nissa Bibi Vs. O.M. Chiene
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All593
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal in an insolvency matter. The insolvents are father and son, Muhammad Murtaza and Muhammad Khalil. It is sufficient to say that they were declared insolvents in separate proceedings. Muhammad Murtaza's wife, Hajra Bibi, was possessed of some immovable property. She died on the 1st of November, 1918. The receiver has taken possession, we are told, of certain shares in mauza Sarai Abdul Malik as having devolved upon the two insolvents by inheritance from this lady. There were one or two other properties of lesser consequence involved when the case was heard in the court below, but practically we are concerned only with the share's in the village above referred to. The receiver's action is challenged by Musainmaij Aziz-un-nissa Bibi, the daughter of Musammat Hajra Bibi and therefore the daughter of one insolvent and sister of the other. She says that the whole of the properties in question have passed to her under a will, executed by her mother on...
Musammat Aziz-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Mr. O.M. Chiene, Official Receiver of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.296
1. This is an appeal in an insolvency matter. The insolvents are father and son, Muhammad Murtaza and Muhammad Khalil. It is sufficient to say that they were declared insolvents in separate proceedings. Muhammad Murtaza's wife, Hajira Bibi, was possessed of some immoveable property. She died on the 1st of November 1918. The Receiver has taken possession, we are told, of certain shares in Mauza Serai Abdul Malik as having devolved upon the two insolvents by inheritance from this lady. There were one or two other properties of lesser consequence involved when the case was heard in the Court below, but, practically, we are concerned only with the shares in the village above referred to. The Receiver's action is challenged by Musammat Aziz-un-nissa Bibi, the daughter of Musammat Hajira Bibi, and, therefore, the daughter of one insolvent and sister of the other, She says that the whole of the properties in question have passed to her under a Will executed by her mother on the 27th of Octobe...
Anup Singh and ors. Vs. Fateh Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All92; 56Ind.Cas.986
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage alleged to have been made some time between 1833 and 1839 by Albela and Lachhman in favour of Ganga Ram and Ram Dayal. It is stated that the property which is the subject matter of the suit was the subject of a mortgage, that the amount of the mortgage was Rs. 561-4 and that the mortgage was redeemable upon payment of the mortgage money in the month of Jeth of any year. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the equity of redemption from the successors-in-title of the original alleged mortgagors. The principal defendants, who are the representatives of the mortgagee?, deny the fact of the mortgage and deny that the claim is within limitation. Undoubtedly it is for the plaintiff who comes into Court for possession of property by redemption of mortgage to prove two things, first, that a mortgage answering substantially to the description of the mortgage alleged in the plaint was created, and, secondly, that the m...
Nanhey Lal and anr. Vs. Jagannath Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All235(1); 58Ind.Cas.134
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order permitting a plaintiff to withdraw from a suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. It is impossible to distinguish this case on the facts from the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Jhunku Lal v. Bisheshar Das 46 Ind. Cas. 71 : 16 A.L.J. 495 : 40 A. 612, except that the present is a stronger case in favour of permission to withdraw being granted than was the one then under the consideration of this Court. We have been asked, to reconsider the decision above referred to on the strength of a number of other reported cases. In particular, our attention has been drawn to four case s of thin Court, three of them decided by learned Judges sitting singly and one by a Bench, of two Judges. The facts in almost every case could be more or less distinguished, but the not result, is that two learned Judges of this Court, either sitting singly or sitting together, have on occasions exercised the revisional, jurisdiction...
Sheo Sampat Pande Vs. Thakur Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All574
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for partition of certain trees existing in two villages, under the following circumstances. One Jagmohan Lal alias Jagat Lal, who was one of the four co-sharers in the villages in question, sold to the plaintiff, Sheo Sampat Pande, his fourth share in certain trees which formed a jungle. As the other co-sharers did not agree to a division of the trees and objected to the plaintiff cutting down and removing a fourth share of the trees, the plaintiff, the purchaser, brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal for partition of the trees. The court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not cognizable by the Civil Court and that the plaintiff's remedy was to go to the Revenue Court for partition. The original plaintiff's appealed from this decision and contended that the suit was maintainable only in the Civil Court and could not be entertained by a Court of Revenue. The original plaintiff is all...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »