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.
Shafaat Muhammad Chaudhri Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and anr. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All42
Tudball and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This appeal is connected with F.A. No. 321 of 1917, which we have just heard and decided. It is an appeal by the defendants 1 and 2, and relates to the three villages, Dharaoli, Kundrupur and Hanumanpur. The point taken before us is a very brief one. The present appellants are the representatives of Sarju Prasad who is the mortgagee under the three mortgages of the 1st of August, 1879, the 14th of December, 1883, and the 9th of January, 1885. It is an admitted fact that under the decrees obtained under two prior mortgages these three villages, Dharaoli, Kundrupur and Hanumanpur, were sold and purchase! by the decree-holder. It is for this reason, it is urged, that those three villages cannot be in any way liable for contribution towards the sum paid by the plaintiff to save his property from sale. The learned Subordinate Judge has calculated the value of these three villages in a certain manner to which exception is taken, but which we need not now consi...
Ghorey Vs. Shib Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All242(2); 58Ind.Cas.410
1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit brought by a Zamindar Lambardar against an agricultural tenant. The ease for the plaintiff was that the defendant was only an agricultural tenant to whom a right to reside in a house had also been given together with the right to cultivate his land, that the defendant had commenced to pull down the old building which was kachcha and to re-construct it as a pucca building, that he had no legal right to do so; hence the suit for an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing the same, and he also sought for demolition of so much of the building as had already been constructed pucca.2. The Court of first instance distinctly found that the defendant's predecessor entitle had come to the village and taken land as a tenant and had been allotted the site of the present building for the purpose of erecting a dwelling-house thereon in which to live while he cultivated the land. Even on the basis of this finding, however, it held that t...
Bhagwati Prasad and anr. Vs. Shafaat Muhammad Chaudhri and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All350; 58Ind.Cas.414
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 321 of 1917, which we have just heard and decided. It is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and relates to the three villtges Dharaoli, Kundrnpur and Hanumanpur. The point taken before us is a very brief one. The present appellants are the representatives of Sarja Prasad, who is the mortgagee under the three mortgages of the 1st of August 1579, the 14th of December 1883 and the 9th of January l885. It is an admitted fact that under the decrees obtained under two prior mortgages these three villages, Dharaoli, Kundrnpur and Hanumanpur, were sold and purchased by the decree holder. It is for this reason, it is urged, that these three villages cannot be in any way liable for contribution towards the sum paid by the plaintiff to save his property from sale. The learned Subordinate Judge has calculated the value of these three villages in a certain manner to which exception is taken, but which we need not now consider. He found that t...
Chokey Bharti Vs. Baldeo Gir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All123(2); 57Ind.Cas.505
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Chokey Bharti on the following allegations:(1) that he was the manager of a certain temple;(2) that on the 11th of June 1916, the Dasehra, day a considerable sum of money and offerings had been given to him by worshippers and pilgrims;(3) that the defendants broke into the temple and forcibly carried away with them money and grain of the total value of Rs. 300, and he prayed to recover this amount.2. On the face of it this is clearly a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. They have disbelieved the story of the foraible removal of the money and have found that the defendants have only taken what was due to them. On second appeal a preliminary objection has been taken on the ground that the suit being one cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the value of the appeal being below Rs. 500, no second appeal lies. In our opinion this preliminary objection must succeed. The ...
Lokya and anr. Vs. Sulli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All286; (1921)ILR43All35
Tudball and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of one Dangal, for partition of certain movable and Immovable properties and also for partition of what is known as 'birt jajmani' and the books relating thereto. The court of first instance divided up all the property except the birt jajmani in respect of which it held that it was not partible, but it gave the plaintiffs a declaration that they were entitled to a certain share therein, On appeal the District Judge set aside the declaration. On second appeal to this Court that decision was upheld.2. It appears that the three brothers, Dangal, Panjal and Sikandar were the owners to the extent of one-third each in this birt jajmani. We may note that the present appeal relates only to the latter class of property and the appellants ask this Court to restore the declaration granted by the court of first instance, Dangal entered into an agreement with the sons of ...
Mohan Lal Vs. Wizarat HusaIn and anr. and Chatarpal Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All38
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises must be carefully noted. The mortgagor (defendant appellant No. 1) borrowed a sum of Rs. 99 under a mortgage of his zamindari property, dated the 14th of September, 1897. The rate of interest agreed upon was two per cent, per mensem. He paid nothing at all either towards principal or interest, so that in 1004 the debt had swelled to Rs. 450. The mortgagee then threatened to sue to recover this amount, but was persuaded by the mortgagor to give him time and renew the mortgage. Thereupon the mortgage now in suit was executed on the 3rd of August, 1904. The terms of this mortgage were most favourable to the mortgagor, for he was given 4 years to pay off the debt of Rs. 450, due under the former mortgage, by nine six-monthly instalments of Rs. 50, payable at the end of Pus and Jeth in each year, without interest. The same property was again mortgaged. It was agreed, however, that if default was made in the payment of t...
Wezarat HusaIn and anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All318; 58Ind.Cas.7
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises must be carefully noted. The mortgagor (defendant-appellant No. 1) borrowed a sum of Rs. 99 under a mortgage of his Zamindari property, dated the 14th September 1897. The rate of interest agreed upon was two per cent. per mensem. He paid nothing at all either towards principal or interest, so that in 1904 the debt had swelled to Rs. 450. The mortgagee then threatened to sue to recover this amount, but was persuaded by the mortgagor to give him time and renew the mortgage. Thereupon the mortgage now in suit was executed on the 3rd August 1904. The terms of this mortgage were most favourable to the mortgagor, for he was given 4 years to pay off the debt of Rs. 450, due under the former mortgage, by nine six-monthly instalments of Rs. 50, payable at the end of Pus and Jeth in each year, without interest. The same property was again mortgaged. It was agreed, however, that if default was made in the payment of the instalments, the mortgagee was a...
Musammat Lokiya and anr. Vs. Sulli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.315
1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of one Dangal, for partition of certain moveable and immoveable properties and also for partition of what is known as britjajamani and the books relating thereto. The Court of first instance divided up all the property except the britjajmani in respect of which it held that it was not partible, but it gave the plaintiffs a declaration that they were entitled to a certain share therein. On appeal the District Judge set aside the declaration. On second appeal to this Court that decision was upheld.2. It appears that the three brothers, Dangal, Punjal and Sikandar, were the owners to the extent of one-third each in this britjajmani. We may note that the present appeal relates only to the latter class of property and the appellants ask this Court to restore the declaration granted by the Court of first instance, Dangal entered into an agreement with the sons of Punjal on 30th of April 1906, ...
Chhabraji Kuar Vs. Ganga Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All314; 60Ind.Cas.643
1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 164 of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act of 1901.2. Thakur Ganga Singh (plaintiff-respondent) sued Musammat Chhabraji Kunwar, Lumbardar, (defendant-appellant), for his share of the profits of the village for the years 1321 and 1322 Fasli, In his plaint he stated that the village was well irrigated and that the tenants were well-to-do; and, without alleging any specific misconduct or negligence on the part of the Lambardar, (except in one particular which has been abandoned), claimed to be paid a sum of Rs. 2,200 which included interest, on the basis of the gross rental. He went on, however, to state in Paragraph 4 of his plaint that, 'in the years in question the defendant Lambardar realised a considerable amount on account of arrears for the past years and the plaintiff is entitled to get the profits on the said amount according to his own share.'3. The relief sought was (a) a decree for Rs. 2,200, Principal and interest and (b) 'a decree for the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›