Allahabad Court August 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.
A. Curlender and ors. Vs. Abdul Hamid and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All335; 59Ind.Cas.941
1. The circumstances under which the present appeal has arisen are as follows: The plaintiff is the proprietor of a firm of bone dealers in Benares called Abdul Hamid and Sons. The defendants carry on a business in boner which goes by the name of Bengal Bone Mills in Calcutta. It appears that there had been dealings between the parties for some years; and in January 1913, according to the plaintiff, Rs. 1,654 were due to the plaintiff from the defendant' firm. The defendants had also dealings in bone with the Muslim Bone Company, Limited, of Benares. The plaintiff's father was the Manager of this Company and after his death the plaintiff was elected the Manager of the Company. The plaintiff's allegation is that his firm, Abdul Hamid and Sons, had nothing whatever to do with the Muslim Bone Company, Limited, yet the defendants debited the plaintiff with a sum of Rs. 1,497-7-6 alleged to have been due to the defendants from the aforesaid Company and deducting the amount from Rs. 1,654 du...
Deba Nand Vs. Anandmani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All346; (1921)ILR43All213; 59Ind.Cas.909
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Sulaiman, J.1. This is a reference by the Local Government under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division. The facts are clearly act forth in the letter of reference.2. The plaintiff Anandmani was the minor son of one Chandramani and formed a joint Hindu family with him, Chandramani by a written will appointed the defendant Deba Nand, his nephew, guardian of the plaintiff's person and property. On that Chandramani's death the testamentary guardian in 1910 took over the management of the estate. In 1918 Musaramat Parbati, the widow of Chandramani, acting as the next friend of her minor son Anaudmani, brought the suit, out of which this reference has arisen, for rendition of accounts, damages and for the removal of Deba Nand from the managership of the property. The case for the plaintiff was that no valid will had been made by the deceased, nor had he any authority to appoint a guardian of his minor son by will, and that the defendant ...
Lallanji Vs. Hukum Singh and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All204
Tudball, Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises, out of the following circumstances: It appears that Mata Prasad and Devi Prasad, defendants land 2, executed a simple mortgage of certain property in favour of one Sanwalia, defendant No. 4, and his brother on the 29th of June, 1896. In the year 1907 the mortgagors made a simple mortgage in favour of Lallanji, the plaintiff respondent. Sanwalia, defendant No. 4, brought a suit for sale on his mortgage on the 1st of December, 1908, and obtained a decree for sale under the provisions of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, No. IV of 1882, on the 23rd of December, 1908. Later on he applied for and obtained an absolute decree for sale. The date of this decree does not appear from the record, but the decree must have been pissed under the provisions of the present Code of Civil Procedure which had come into force on the 1st of January, 1909. To this suit and the subsequent proceedings Sanwalia, defendant No. 4, had omitted to...
Hukum Singh Vs. Lallunjee and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All339; 61Ind.Cas.942
1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. It appears that Mata Prasad and Devi Prasad, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, executed a simple mortgage of certain property in favour of one Sanwalia, defendant No. 4, and his brother on the 29th of June 1896. In the year 1907 the mortgagors made a simple mortgage in favour of Lallunji, the plaintiff respondent. Sanwalia, defendant No. 4, brought a suit for sale on his mortgage on the 1st of December 1908 and obtained a decree for sale under the provisions of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, No. IV of 1882, on the 23rd of December 1908. Later on he applied for and obtained an absolute decree for sale. The date of this decree does not appear from the Board, but the decree must have been passed under the provisions of the present Code of Civil Procedure, whish had come into force on the 1st of January 1909. To this suit and the subsequent proceedings Sanwalia, defendant No. 4, had omitted to impaled Lallunji, the second mortga...
Muhammad Wasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All309; 59Ind.Cas.134
Piggott, J.1. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was obviously right in referring to this Court the Magistrate's order refusing to accept the security-bond offered by one Mohammad Wasi for the good behaviour of Ilias, who had been ordered to furnish security under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate shows no valid reason in law for refusing to accept this security. I set aside the order in question and direct that the security-bond furnished by Mohammad Wasi be accepted....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›