Allahabad Court January 1921 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.
Lala Hardeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Ganga Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All197; 61Ind.Cas.48
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage and is preferred by certain of the mortgagees. The other mortgagees have not appealed but they have been made parties by the appellants to the present appeal and are represented. The sole question before us in this appeal in, whether the Courts below have adopted tire right principle in making up the account between the parties. 'What has happened in this: The mortgagees have not product; full and proper account in Court. The Zamindar property was mortgaged to them and they have produced accounts showing simply in one lump sum the alleged income from tea Zanmidary for each year or part, of she year. They have not attempted to products a detailed account which they ought to have kept showing all the outgoings and all the outgoings. The Court below have, therefore, in the absence of proper accounts calculated the amount due to the mortgagees on the hypothesis, that ail the tenants have paid their rents. ...
Muhammad Mubarak HusaIn and anr. Vs. Sahu Bimal Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All62; 65Ind.Cas.91
1. The essential point raised by this appeal admits of being briefly stated: The Court below had before it an application for execution of a decree with which, on a particular date, it found itself unable to proceed further by reason of the default of the decree-holder. Under Order XXI, Rule 57, the duty of the Court was either to dismiss the application, or to adjourn the proceedings to a future date. On a dismissal of the application it is provided by the said rule that the attachment shall cease. The Court did not follow, as it ought to have done, the provisions of the said rule. The order which it passed was to the effect that the execution case should, for the time being, be dismissed, but that the attachment should remain in force. That is not an order Which the Court ought to have passed; but the question before us is as to the effect of the said order when passed. The decree-holder on a subsequent date applied to the Court to take up the proceedings at the stage at which they s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›