Allahabad Court June 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.
Tulshi Ram and ors. Vs. Sat NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All392; (1921)ILR43All81; 57Ind.Cas.445
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for sale on fact of a mortgage-deed dated the 19th of August 1909, executed by Raja Ram for a sum of Rs. 400. The deed combines features of a usufructuary mortgage-deed and a simple mortgage-deed. In it certain occupancy holdings were mortgaged with possession for a term of seven years and from the produce of the holding the principal sum, secured by the deed, was to be re-paid in instalments from 1318 Fasli to 1324 Fasli. In case of failure to pay the sum or if the occupancy holding went out of the possession of the mortgagee, the deed provided that the mortgagee would be entitled to recover his mortgage money by sale of three groves and a well situate in the village The plaintiffs' case was that having been dispossessed from the occupancy holdings they are entitled to recover the money by sale of the hypothecated property. Several pleas were taken in defence, one of them being that the mortgage being one of an occupancy holding, i...
Ram Sarup Vs. Dalpat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All377; (1921)ILR43All60
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by an auction purchaser for recovery of the purchase money paid by him, and taken away by the decree-bolder, as well as for the surplus sale proceeds still in deposit in court, on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold at all. It appears that Dalpat Rai and Basant Rai, who are now represented by defendants Nos. 2 to 6, held a simple money decree against one Durga Prasad for a sum of Rs. 1,206 and odd. In execution of that decree certain property was attached as belonging to the judgment-debtor and put up for sale and purchased by the present plaintiff appellant. The appellant paid the purchase money and the sale was confirmed on the 27th of July, 1911. One Jawahir Lal brought a suit for a declaration of his own title and for setting aside the sale against the decree-holders, the judgment-debtor and the auction purchaser. This suit was decreed on the 1st of December, 1911...
Ram Saroop Vs. Dalpat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.105
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by an auction-purchaser for recovery of the purchase-money paid by him, and taken away by the decree-hold as well as for the surplus sale proceeds still in deposit in Court, on the ground that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold at all. It appears that Dalpat Rai and Basant Rai, who are now represented by defendants Nos. 2 to 6. held a simple money decree against one Durga Prasad for a sum of Rs. 1,206 and odd. In execution of that decree certain property was attached as belonging to the judgment-debtor and put up for sale and purchased by the present plaintiff-appellant The appellant paid the purchase-money and the sale was confirmed on the 27th of July 1911. One Jawahir Lal brought a suit for a declaration of his own title and for setting aside the sale against the decree holders, the judgment debtor and the auction-purchaser. This suit was decreed on the 1st of December 1911. The ...
Basdeo Gir Vs. Pritam Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All351; (1921)ILR43All50
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the District Judge of Ghazipur, dated the 14th of December, 1917. Before we can interfere in this revision we have to be satisfied that the case falls under one or other of the three clauses of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property in dispute in this case belings to a Math situated in Qasba Bairia. It appears that in 1901 a suit was brought under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of the then trustee and that ultimately, in 1903, the trustee was removed and another trustee was appointed by the District Judge. There were several successors to that trustee, the last one being one RamaNand Gir. Rama Nand Gir died on the 7th of October, 1916. On his death a dispute seems to have arisen as to the succession to that math. There was an application for mutation of names made by Basdeo Gir which was resisted...
Pritam Gir Vs. Mahant Basdeo Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All348(1); (1921)ILR43All55
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal has been filed from an order of the District Judge of Ghazipur, dated the 14th of December, 1917, purporting to be under Section 5 of the Religious Endowments Act (No. XX of 1863). The proceeding started by an application under Section 5 of the said Act is a miscellaneous proceeding and not a suit, and the order passed by him under that section is in no sense a decree, nor does the Act make any provision for an appeal from an order under that, section. In our opinion, therefore, no appeal lies from the said order. We are fortified in this view by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Minakshi Naidu v. Subramanya Sastri (1887) I.L.R. 11 Mad. 26, which has of course been followed ia subsequent cases. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs....
Mahant Basdeo Gir Vs. Preetam Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.162
1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the District Judge of Ghazipur, dated the 14th of December 1917. Before we can interfere in this revision, we have to be satisfied that the case falls under one or other of the three clauses of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property in dispute in this case belongs to a math situated in Qasba Bairia. It appears that in 1901 a suit was brought under Section 92 of the code of Civil Procedure for the removal of the then trustee and that ultimately, in 1903 the trustee was removed and another trustee was appointed by the District Judge. There were several successors to that trustee, the last one being one Rama Nand Gir. Rama Nand Gir died on the 7th of October 1916. On his death a dispute seems to have arisen as to the succession to that math. There was an application for mutation of names made by Basdeo Gir, which was resisted by one Musammat Sewa Giri, alias Sudhi M...
Shib Dayal Vs. Meharban and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All395; (1921)ILR43All56; 58Ind.Cas.230
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer. The facts are simple. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in both the appeals which have been filed, brought a suit to enforce a mortgagre against the opposite party. The Court of first instance held that the remedy against the property was barred by time but that the plaintiff was entitled to a money decree against the present defendant'. It accordingly granted that class of degree to the plaintiff. With this decree the plaintiff was not satisfied. He appealed to the District Judge, maintaining that he was entitled to a decree for sale of the property mortgaged. The defendant also was dissatisfied with the decree and he also appealed to the District Judge pleading that the plaintiff was not even entitled to a simple money- decree. The District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and allowed the defendants' appeal, with the result that the plaintiff's suit stood dismissed completely. From both these appeals the plaintiff has f...
Amir Chand Vs. Lakhmi Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All87; 58Ind.Cas.275
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising oat of a suit for partition of joint family prop arty. The suit has been dismissed on the technical ground that the plaintiff failed to include in his claim certain items of joint family property. The other points raised in the suit have not been decided by the learned Subordinate Judge, The plaintiff has come up in appeal, It is a great pity that although the parties had adduced all the evidence which they wanted to produce before the Court, the learned Subordinate Judge, instead of taking the trouble to decide the real paints in controversy between the parties, has tried to find a short ant for the disposal of the suit. The suit was not one for partition of only a part of family property but it was professedly a suit for partition of the whole family property, and in paragraph 9 of the plaint it was stated that several times the plaintiff had asked the defendants to divide the whole property of the joint family, but they put the matter of...
Gobind Ram and ors. Vs. Mahmud Jahan Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All45
Tudball and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This is an appeal by one defendant out of a large number of parties to a partition suit instituted in the Civil Court. Gobind Ram, Hari Ram and Anand Ram sued for partition of their shares in certain properties claiming a three-fifths share therein. The property consisted of house property and some zamindari and other miscellaneous properties. Among the items of properties which they sought to divide were three items, namely khata khewat No. 35, khata khewat No. 65 and khata khewat No. 66 in qasba Meerut. While the suit was pending Anand Ram died and was succeeded by his two daughters, Musammat Bhagwanti and Musammat Sita. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on the 17th of September, 1913, under which the three plaintiffs were held entitled only to a one-fifth share and not to the three-fifths that they claimed. While the suit was pending, i.e., on the 14th of February, 1912, Hari Ram and Anand Ram sold to one Ram Saran Das a two-fifths share i...
Madan Mohan Nath Raina Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.148
Tudball, J.1. The applicant, Pandit Madan Mohan Nath Raina, has been convict-ed under Sections 8 and 16 of Act VIII of 1914, an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles in British India. He has been fined Rs. 1. The facts are not in dispute. The contention is that, on the actual facts, no offence has been committed 'under Sections 8 and 16 of the Act. The facts are briefly as follows:-- Mr. Raina was travelling along the road on a motor cycle when he was stopped by a Police Sergeant and asked to show his driving licence. It was not in his possession at that time. He asked the Sergeant to wait for five minutes so that he might go home and bring it, but the Sergeant declined. Upon this the Sergeant took down his name and address and reported the matter to the Magistrate. The answer to the question depends upon the meaning of Section 8 of the Act which runs as follows:-- The driver of a motor vehicle shall produce his 'license upon demand by any Police Officer.' The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »