Allahabad Court July 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.
Ramanand and ors. Vs. Jai Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All369; (1921)ILR43All170; 59Ind.Cas.632
Salaiman and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench, as the learned Judge before whom it originally came on for hearing doubted the correctness of the rule of law laid down in Lakhrani Kuar v. Dhanraj Singh (1916) I.L.R. 38 All. 509. As all the authorities did not seem to have been laid before us in argument we took time to consider our judgment.2. It appears that in 1905 the present plaintiffs brought a suit against these very defendants to pre-empt the property which is now in dispute. On the 28th of April, 1905, a compromise decree was passed, according to which the plaintiffs were to obtain possession of the property if they paid Rs. 1,000, within three months of the decree; in case of default the suit was to stand dismissed. The plaintiffs paid that amount within the specified period, but did not obtain possession either through the court or privately. On the 25th of April,' 1917, long after the period of limitation for an application for execution h...
Mohan Singh Vs. Emperor Through Gyasia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All267; 58Ind.Cas.687
Piggott, J.1. The essential facts are that Gyasia presented to a Magistrate of the First Class, who apparently is also a Sub-Divisional Officer, or at least exercises some of the powers of a Sub-Divisional Officer, on the 10th of April 1920, a complaint in which he alleged that Mohan Singh and others had committed certain offenses punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate examined Gyasia and then passed an order transferring the case for disposal to another Magistrate of subordinate jurisdiction. The application in revision does not challenge the order on the ground that the Magistrate to whom the case was transferred' was not subordinate to the Magistrate before whom the complaint was presented, the contention is that the latter had no jurisdiction to entertain Gyasia's complaint or to take cognizance of the offenses therein referred to, because on a previous date another Magistrate had dismissed a complaint filed by Gyasia on the same facts. I have seen the order in ques...
Bansi and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All374; (1921)ILR43All159
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The facts of the case are as follows: On the banks of the Ganges, not far from Allahabad, is a spot where a ferry crosses the river; it is named Kubrighat. This, apparently, is a convenient spot for pious Hindus to bathe in the Ganges, and apparently many of them do this in connection with religious ceremonies connected with deaths and other circumstances in their families. The contending parties in this case are Mahabrahmans, the plaintiff's, and Gangaputras, the defendants; they may both be described as parasites of Hindu society. These persons go down to the Kubrighat and when a pious Hindu is about to bathe they offer what they call kusha that is, a small bunch of grass. They pronounce a Mantra, and he returns the grass together with a small pecuniary present, The spot where it occurs is private property belonging to the zamindars of two villages, Swadkhat and Taj Mullahan.2. Between the Gangaputras and the Mahabrahmans ther...
Budh Sen and ors. Vs. Ram Piari and Dropadi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All164
Grimwood Mears, Knight, C.J. and Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. These are two Letters Patent appeals arising out of a suit for redemption. It appears that Hansa was the owner of some land situated in Shahganj in the Agra City, whereon stood a kachcha house and chaupal. In 1861 he mortgaged with possession the sail land with the kachcha house and chaupal standing thereon to Hargobind in lieu of Rs. 20. On the 30th of June, 1833, Hansa sold his equity of redemption in that property to Jug d Kishore, the predecessor in interest of the present plaintiff. Jugal Kishore filed a suit for redemption and obtained a decree on the 6th of October, 1863, conditional on his paying Rs. 20 to the mortgagee. No time was fixed by the decree for the payment of that money and no money was in fact paid to Hargobind in pursuance of it. Whether this was due to some private arrangement with Hargobind or some other cause is not clear. Hargobind subsequently pulled down the kachcha kotha and chaupal standing thereon and bu...
Bansi and ors. Vs. Kanhaya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.659
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The facts of the case are as follows:2. On the banks of the Ganges, not far from Allahabad, is a spot where a ferry crosses the river; it is named Kubri Ghat. This apparently is a convenient spot for pious Hindus to bathe in the Ganges and apparently many of them do this in connection with religious ceremonies connected with deaths and other circumstances in their families. The contending parties in this case are Mahabrahmans, the plaintiffs, and Ganga Putras, the defendants, they may both be described as parasites of Hindu society. These persons go down to the Kubri Ghat and when a pious Hindu is about to bathe they offer him what they call 'kusha,' that is, a small bunch of grass. They pronounce a Mantra and he returns the grass together with a small pecuniary present. The spot where it occurs is private property belonging to the Zemindars of two villages Swad Khat and Taj Mullahan. Between the Ganga Putras and the Mahabrahmans there have been constan...
Musammat Ram Piari and ors. Vs. BudhsaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All389; 61Ind.Cas.546
1. These are two Letters Patent Appeals arising out of a suit for redemption. It appears that Hansa was the owner of some land situated in Shahgunj in the Agra City, whereon stood a kutcha house and chaupal. In 1S61 he mortgaged with possession the paid land with the kutcha house and chaupal standing thereon to Hargobind in lien of Rs. 20. On the 30th of June 1863, Hansa sold his equity of redemption in that property to Jugal Kiehore, the predecessor in interest of the present plaintiffs. Jugal Kishore filed a suit for redemption and obtained a decree on the 6th of October 1863, conditional on his paying Rs. 20 to the mortgagee. No time was fixed by the decree for the payment of that money, and no money was in fact paid to Hurgobind in pursuance it. Whether that was due to some private arrangement with Hargobinod or some other cause is not clear.2. Hargobind subsequently pulled down the kutcha kotha and chaupal standing thereon and built a shop and a balikhana at a cost, of Rs. 5,500. ...
Muhammad Hafiz and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ibrahim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All291; (1921)ILR43All152
Piggott and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by the decree-holder in an execution matter and it raises a question of limitation which, so far as we are aware, is not definitely covered by any published ruling. The decree was passed against three persons jointly and severally; but we are at present concerned only with the question whether that decree is still capable of execution against the first judgment-debtor, Muhammad Ibrahim. We do not know precisely on what grounds the execution court has court to the conclusion that it is not capable of execution against the other two judgment-debtors, but that matter is not before us. The decree was dated the 1st of February, 1913. There was an appeal against it and the appellate decree bears date the 11th of June, 1913. On second appeal the decree was confirmed by this Court under date the 30th of May, 1914. While the first appeal was pending, a proceeding in execution had been taken with which we are not now concerned. In the inter...
Sanehi Lal and anr. Vs. L. Onkar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All248; 59Ind.Cas.675
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs under the following circumstances:2. Some money was due to the plaintiffs by the defendant, in payment of which the defendant sent a hundi to the plaintiffs drawn by Tulshi Ram-Ram Baksh on Bansidhar-Manohar Lal in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs endorsed the hundi to Raja Ram and Raja Ram endorsed it to Nanak Chand. Nanak Chand lost the hundi. Without taking any steps to obtain a duplicate of it he brought a suit against Raja Ram and recovered the amount from him, his (Nanak Chand's) immediate endorser, Raja3. Ram in his turn sued the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had to pay the consideration of the hundi together with costs and damages. The plaintiffs now bring this suit to recover from the defendant the amount that they had to pay to Raja Ram in execution of his decree. The defence raised was that neither the plaintiffs nor the subsequent purchaser of the hundi took proper steps for realising the amount due thereo...
In Re: A. John and Company and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All257; (1921)ILR43All139; 58Ind.Cas.836
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a reference under Section 51 of the Indian Income-Tux Act, VII of 1918, by the Board of Revenue on the application of Messrs. A. John and Company, mill owners and merchants of Agra. In (die course of the assessment) proceedings the assessing officer held that the 'annual value' of the business premises, that is, those actually occupied by the mill, while being deducted from the profits of the business, was to be assessed as income derived from house property.2. The contention of the Company was that this sum, which had been deducted according to the provisions of Section 9, Sub-section 2, Clause (i) of the Act, could not be re-assessed under Section 8 as income derived from house property. The Company went up in appeal to the Income-Tax Commissioner. He came to the conclusion that the word 'house property' used in the Act was of much wirier significance than the word 'dwelling house' used in another section of the Act and did include buildings like business p...
Ganga Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All287; 60Ind.Cas.68
1. This was a suit on a mortgage of the 2nd of May 1909. The mortgagors were two brothers, Newazi and Dhanna. The suit is brought by the mortgagee against these two, along with Ganga Prasad and Basant, the minor sons of Dhanna. The property alienated was a share in an ancestral house, of which share the present owners are admittedly the four defendants. The object of the suit, of course, in to bind the interest of the two minor defendants in the property sought to be brought to sale. The mortgage-debt is stated in the deed in suit at Rs. 500 It was made up as follows: Rs. 269 was already due to the mortgagee upon a series of loans advanced to the mortgagors on their personal security; a sum of Ra. 231 was to be paid over at registration. The minors riled a separate written statement raising various defenses. We are only concerned at present with the fact that they challenged the plaintiff to prove that the sum of Rs. 231 was actually advanced and, secondly, that, if advanced. It was bo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »