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.
Sheikh Abdur Rashid Vs. Musammat Qudratunnissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All65; 57Ind.Cas.134
1. To this appeal Mr. Iqbal Ahmad takes a preliminary objection. The claim in the lower Court was by a relative of a deceased Muhammadan lady who claimed a share in the dower of that deceased Muhammadan lady. The dower-debt, which was a deferred one, was said to be Rs. 10,000 and of that the husband was entitled to one-fourth, the plaintiff in this suit entitled to another one-fourth and the daughter of the deceased entitled to the remaining half. The respondent applied for a succession certificate in respect of her share of Rs. 2,500, but she was met with the objection that succession certificates cannot be granted for fractional shares of a debt and it, therefore, became necessary for her to obtain a succession certificate for Rs. 7,500, which was as to Rs 2,500 the amount alleged by her to be personally due to her and as to Rs. 5,000 the amount said to be the portion due to the daughter of the deceased lady. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the present suit claiming Re. 7,600, namely...
Sheosampat Pande Vs. Thakar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All198(1); 57Ind.Cas.128
1. This was a suit for partition of certain trees existing in two villages, under the following circumstances. One Jagmohan Lal alais 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 cognisable by the Civil Court and that the plaintiff's remedy was to go to the Revenue Court for partition. The original plaintiff 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 alleged to have transferred his rights to his three sons...
Musammat Shama and anr. Vs. Ejaz Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All91; 57Ind.Cas.665
George Knox, J.1. On the 30th of January 1920 Musammat Shama, who describes herself as the wife of Tara Chand and daughter of Joti Prasad Bania, presented a petition to the Collector and Magistrate of Badaun. The language in which the petition is couched shows that it cannot be the production of Musammat Shama who, it is admitted, is a young woman some sixteen years of age. A glance shows that even if the subject-matter of it had any foundation in the statement made by Musammat Shama herself, it has been added to and embellished by some person other than Musammat Shama. The Magistrate of Badaun, before whom this petition was presented, took the statement of Musammat Shama on oath then and there, but it is unfortunate that he did not take that statement in further detail The subject-matter of the statement was that Musammat Shama was carried from the house in which she was living with her husband to the village of Sakhamai and there kept under confinement for some two days ; that the Da...
Emperor Vs. Gandharp Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All563
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. In this case Gandharp Singh has been convicted under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that he is by habit a robber, house-breaker and thief and a desperate and dangerous character. The evidence of ten witnesses, who have no apparent reason for coming into the box to state falsehoods, is conclusive against him. He is alleged by them to have been concerned in dacoities and to be a terror to the neighbourhood, and the Magistrate and Sessions Judge have accepted that evidence. The Magistrate, having regard to the fact that Gandharp Singh had previously in 1917 been convicted under this same Section 110, ordered him to furnish security in one personal bond for Rs. 200 and two approved sureties each for Rs. 200 to be of good behaviour for a period of three years. In default of finding such sureties the accused was to be rigorously imprisoned for three years unless in the meantime the sureties were forthcoming. The only matter of importance i...
In Re: Mr. Joshia Peters and M. Niaz Ahmad, Mukhtars
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All212(2); 57Ind.Cas.818
1. Joshia Peters, a Mukhtar of Meerut, has been called upon to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice or dismissed for having, on the 19th of December 1918, identified at the Treasury a certain person as belonging to the Supply and Transport Corps whereas in truth and in fact he had no knowledge of the person whatever and consequently was thereby guilty of professional misconduct. In the early part of the year 1919 by a complicated series of cheque frauds money was obtained from the Treasury by persons who were not entitled to it. One such cheque was dated the 16th of May 1919 and in the course of this fraud the supposed payee of the cheque had to be idantified. One Afzal Husain went and communicated with Joshia Peters and brought him forward for the purpose of identifying the payee as Muhammad Manzoor Ahmad. That did not happen to be the real name of the endorser of the cheque and Peters did not know him, but he did know Afzal Husain who was the introducer. One seriou...
Bhagwan Das and anr. Vs. Jugul Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All570
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. In this case a decree for money was obtained by the decree-holder on the 23rd of March, 1915, against one Shib Charan Lal only. On the 13th of September, 1918, certain property was attached in execution of the decree. On the 27-th of November, 1918, the judgment-debtor filed certain objections, and his father also filed certain objections, claiming that a part of the property attached belonged to him and not to his son. Before these objections could be decided, both the father and the judgment-debtor died and on the 9th of April, 1919, the decree-holder applied to the court to have the names of the four sons of Shib Charan Lal brought upon the record as his representatives and to be allowed to continue the proceedings against them. An ex parte order was passed entering their names upon the record as the legal representatives and notices were issued. As two of them were minors those notices were issued to the minors and to Jugul Kishore, the eldest son, to sh...
Bhagwan Das and anr. Vs. Jugal Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All171; 57Ind.Cas.610
1. In this case a decree for money was obtained by the decree-holder on the 23rd of March 1915 against one Shib Charan Lal only. On the 13th of September 1918 certain property was attached in execution of the decree. On the 27th of November 1918 the judgment-debtor filed certain objections and his father also filed certain objections, claiming that a part of the property attached belonged to him and not to his son. Before these objections could be decided, both the father and the judgment debtor died and on the 9th of April 1919 the decree holder applied to the Court to have the names of the four sons of Shib Charan Lal brought upon the record as his representatives and to be allowed to continue the proceedings against them. An ex parte order was passed entering their names upon the record as the legal representatives and notices were issued. As two of them were minors, those notices were issued to the minors and to Jugal Kishore, the eldest son, to show cause why the latter should not...
Surya Dat Vs. Jamna Dat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All568
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. Briefly put, the facts of this case are as follows: Jamma Dat, respondent, judgment-debtor, brought a suit for partition of certain property which included the house now in dispute. His allegation was that he and Bala Dat were jointly in possession of the property; that it was joint family property, and that he, Jamna Dat, was entitled to a half share therein. The court of first instance gave him a preliminary decree in respect of a half share in the house; in respect of the other property it dismissed the suit. Both parties appealed, Pending the appeal a final decree for partition of the house was drawn up, under which the lower story of the house was allotted to Jamna Dat. On appeal this Court held that Jamna Dat had no title whatsoever either to the house or to the other property. Jamna Dat's appeal was dismissed. The appeal of the opposite party was allowed and the decree of the first court set aside and the suit dismissed. The decree-holder, the son of ...
Balwant Singh Vs. Budh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All174; (1920)ILR42All564
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application in execution proceedings. The appellant obtained a decree No. 38 of 1912 for sale of the hypothecated property on the 8th of July, 1912. This was made absolute on the 29th of August, 1913. The first application for execution was made on the 18th of April, 1914. While this application was pending the objectors instituted a suit No. 523, of 1914 on the 8th of December, 1914. for a declaration that the decree in suit No. 38 of 1912 had been obtained by fraud. On the 9th of December, 1914, they applied for and obtained an injunction restraining the opposite party from executing the decree in suit No. 38 of 1912. This suit was dismissed on the 26th of April, 1915, and with that dismissal the bar of the injunction came to an end. An appeal was filed in the High Court on the 30th of November, 1915. It was finally dismissed on the 19th of April, 1917. The present application for execution, which may be taken as an application...
Suraj NaraIn Singh Vs. Jagbali Shukul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All165(1); (1920)ILR42All566; 57Ind.Cas.14
1. The circumstances which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:-- On the 12th of May 1908 a mortgage was executed by Chater Singh in favour of Kamla Kant and a suit was brought to recover the amount due on this mortgage-deed by the mortgagee. This sail was contested by the minor son of the mortgagor and a subsequent transferee Nageshar Prasad. It appears that the Court held that this mortgage was not for family necessity and was not binding on the family at all, and ultimately only a simple money-decree was passed against the mortgagor. The mortgagee has put this decree in execution and attached property, i.e., the rights and interests of the mortgagor in the joint property which had originally been mortgaged. An objection was raised that inasmuch as this very property had been mortgaged under the mortgage-deed, the mortgagee was not entitled to sell this property in execution of the simple money-decree unless and until a separate suit was brought under the provision of Order...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »