Allahabad Court November 1921 Judgments
Jaswant Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All181; 64Ind.Cas.846
Stuart, J.1. The District Magistrate's order of 31st August 1921 cannot stand, It is set aside accordingly, It Will, however, be open to the District Magistrate to issue notice himself to Jaswant to show cause why the order of discharge should not be set aside and the case re-tried. Let the record be returned....
Tag this Judgment!Sri Lal Vs. Rameshwar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All174
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. One Sri Lal obtained a decree against Lakhpat Rai for some money and in execution of his decree had Lakhpat Rai arrested and brought to court. Thereupon Rameshwar Das, the appellant, got Lakhpat Rai released from custody on his undertaking to produce him whenever the court required, and gave a surety bond to the court in which he bound himself that on failure to carry out his promise to produce Lakhpat Rai whenever required by the court, he would himself pay the amount decreed against Lakhpat; Rai. This bond was executed on the 8th day of January, 1920. It may be noted here that at that time criminal proceedings were pending against Lakhpat Rai on a charge of embezzlement on the complaint of Sri Lal and in those proceedings Rameshwar Das himself went bail for Lakhpat Rai. The court gave Rameshwar Das one month's time for the payment of the money and directed him to produce Lakhpat Rai on the expiry of the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Vs. Gokul Prasad Har Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All176
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the District Judge of Cawnpore under the following circumstances. The plaintiff alleged that he was the proprietor of a certain trading firm and that, in this capacity, he had entered into a number of partnership transactions with the defendants' firm, extending over a period abated in the plaint itself. He complained that he was unable to get proper accounts from the defendants; he desired either an order that the partnership be dissolved, or a finding that it had already been dissolved, and that a proper and complete account from the defendants' firm be rendered. Reading between the lines of the plaint, it is fairly obvious that this was one of those unfortunate cases in which the plaintiff has very little chance of proving his claim except by means of documentary evidence in the possession of the defendants, in this case by means of account-books in the possession of the defendants' firm. The written statement deni...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Gokul Prasad Har Prasad Vs. Ram Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.878
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the District Judge of Cawnpore under the following circumstances. The plaintiff alleged that he was the proprietor of a certain trading firm and that, in this capacity, he had entered into a number of partnership transactions with the defendants' firm, extending over a period stated in the plaint itself. He complained that he was unable to get proper accounts from the defendants; he desired either an order that the partnership be dissolved, or a finding that it had already been dissolved, and a proper and complete account from the defendants' firm. Reading between the lines of the plaint, it is fairly obvious that this was one of those unfortunate cases in which the plaintiff has very little chance of proving his claim except by means of documentary evidence in the possession of the defendants, in this case by means. of account books in the possession of the defendants' firm. The written statement denied various alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar and anr. Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All169
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. Those are two connected appeals arising out of two connected suits which have been litigated together throughout. The appeals may be disposed of by a single judgment. The suits were filed in the court of an Assistant Collector. The plaintiff, as lambardar and proprietor of two specified plots of land, sued the defendant as a rent-free grantee of the same and, admitting himself not to be entitled to resume the grant, claimed assessment of rent on the same. The written statement, as is often the case, was somewhat loosely drawn up, but beyond ail question the substantial defence on the facts was that the defendant, being a rent-free grantee of the land in question, had held the same as such for more than fifty years and through at least two successors to the original grantee and was, therefore, entitled to be declared proprietor of the same and to be assessed to revenue but not to rent. This refers of course, to the provisions of Section 158 of the Tenancy Act (L...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Prasad Vs. Rameshwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All312; 65Ind.Cas.371
1. These are two connected appeals arising out of two connected suits which have been litigated together throughout. The appeals may be disposed of by a single judgment. The suits were filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector. The plaintiff, as Lambardar and proprietor of two specified plots of land, sued the defendant as a rent-free grantee of the same and, admitting himself not to be entitled to resume the grant, claimed assessment of rent on the same. The written statement, as is often the case, was somewhat loosely drawn up, but beyond all question the substantial defence on the facts was that the defendant, being a rent-free grantee of the land in question, had held the same as such for more than fifty years and through at least two successors to the original grantee and was, therefore, entitled to be declared proprietor of the same and to be assessed to revenue but not to rent. This refers, of course, to the provisions of Section 158 of the Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1900)....
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Lallan Singh Minor Through Musammat DulhIn Dhunraj Kunwari Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All463; 73Ind.Cas.920
1. This appeal and the connected Appeal No. 942 of 1919 arise out of one suit. The appeals are by two sets of defendants. The facts which have given rise to these two appeals are briefly as follows: Ishri Prasad Rai was the owner of an eight-pie share in a certan village. He hypothecated the aforesaid share to Babu Udit Narain Rai under two hypothecation bonds of the 24th of June 1876 and the 2nd of July 1877, respectively. I,ateron, five pies out of. the hypothecated property were sold in execution, of a Revenue Court decree against the mortgagor and were purchased by his brother Dip Narain and his nephews, Chiranjit and Jaimangal, on- the 20th of March 1882. Ishri Prasad Rai died later on and his widow, Musammat Sona Kunwar, succeeded to a Hindu widow's interest in the property. It appears that on the 3rd of September 1890 Musammat Sona Kunwar made a gift of the whole of the eight-pies share to her daughter's son Mahabajrang Dat. Chiranjit and his brother, Jaimangal, who were two out...
Tag this Judgment!Deoo Tiwari Vs. Ram Brichh Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All166
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The predecessor in title of the decree-holder (respondent here) advanced a sum of money to Ram Brichh Rai, the appellant, and another member of his family, who were adult at the time, on the mortgage of their joint family property. The money not having been repaid, a suit was brought against the two executants of the mortgage bond and the remaining members of the joint family consisting of their sons and grandsons, The court found that a certain portion only of money lent was required for legal necessity and it passed a decree against all the defendants, including the present appellant, for repayment of the mortgage money, passing an ordinary mortgage decree for that amount, stipulating that if the sum was not paid within the stated time the family property or a sufficient portion thereof should be sold to recover it. For the balance of the money lent a simple money decree was passed against Ram Brichh Rai a...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Brichh Rai Vs. Deoo Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All388; 65Ind.Cas.358
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The predecessor-in-title of the decree holder (respondent here) advanced a sum of money to Ram Brichh Rai, the appellant, and another member of his family, who were adults at the time, on a mortgage of their joint family property. The money not having been re paid, a suit was brought against the two executants of the mortgage-bond and the remaining members of the joint family consisting of their sons and grandsons, The Court found that a certain portion only of the money lent was required for legal necessity and it passed a decree against all the defendants, including the present appellant, for re-payment of the mortgage-money, passing an ordinary mortgage-decree for that amount, stipulating that if the sum was not paid within the stated time, the family property or a sufficient portion there of should be sold to recover it, For the balance of the money lent a simple money-decree was passed against Ram Brichh Rai and the other executa...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Mangal Vs. Musammat Hulsa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All413; (1922)ILR44All159; 65Ind.Cas.377
Gokul Prasad and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an execution matter. It appears that the plaintiff appellant brought a suit for pre-emption against the defendants. That suit was decreed on the 29th day of February, 1916, by the court of first instance and the decree provided that on payment of Rs. 1,200 within two months the plaintiff would be entitled to get possession of the property. The vendee appealed to the District Judge and the plaintiff appellant filed cross-objections. The learned District Judge on the 12th day of August, 1916, allowed the vendee's appeal in part and increased the amount awarded to him by a sum of Rs. 380-15-0 and directed that in case the Rs. 1,200 awarded by the first court had not already been deposited the time for payment of the whole or the balance be extended by five months from the date of his decree. There was a second appeal to this Court which was dismissed.2. The plaintiff on the 29th day of April, 1916, deposited Rs. 1,200 in court and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »