Allahabad Court February 1921 Judgments
Sharif Ahmad Vs. Qabul Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All30; (1921)ILR43All497
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J.1. This is an application in revision to set aside a conviction for criminal defamation. A preliminary point has been taken by the opposite party, which is that the matter ought not to have been brought direct to the High Court from the court of the convicting Magistrate, but should first have been submitted to the intermediate court of the Sessions Judge.2. Mr. Ross Alston for the applicant has argued that in cases where the lower court has no power to grant the relief claimed the party aggrieved may proceed straight to the High Court without referring the matter to the consideration of the lower court which, as the case may be, will be either that of the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. In support of this contention he has cited many authorities, none of which however decides in terms the proposition that he has put forward.3. We are of opinion that the correct rule of procedure is that set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice Piggott in Emperor v. Man...
Tag this Judgment!Sheodan Singh and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All496
Gokul Prasad and Lindsay, JJ.1. The point raised in this case is whether the pious duty of the sons to pay their father's debts can be enforced during the life-time of the father, or, in other words, have the sons the right to object to the payment of of such debts from their shares of the family property when the father is alive? It appears that one Bhagwan Singh executed a promissory note in favour of Musammat Shrimati Mangala Devi. She sued Bhagwan Singh on the promissory note and obtained a decree. She put the decree into execution and proceeded to attach a part of the family property. Bhagwan Singh's two sons Sheodan Singh and Mahendrapal Singh thereupon sued for parittion of their shares of the family property and also for a declaration that their shares in the family property were not liable to satisfy the decree obtained against their father Bhagwan Singh. The courts below have dismissed the suit so far as the declaration claimed is concerned. The learned Judge of the lower app...
Tag this Judgment!Tikam Singh and anr. Vs. Nathu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.40
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for sale brought on mortgage executed by defendant Kunwar Pal. The mortgages were executed both in the year 1909 and were for a sum of Rs. 100, each.2. The suits were resisted by two persons, Tikam Singh and Ratan Lal, who claimed to have purchased the mortgaged property tinder a deed executed in their favour by the mortgagor, Kunwar Pal, on the 16th of October 1913.3. One of the questions which was agitated in the Courts below was whether these two defendants, as purchasers from the mortgagor, were entitled to raise any plea regarding the validity of the mortgage-deed. It may be explained here that both there defendants challenged the mortgages executed in plaintiff's favour, on the ground that the sums which had been borrowed were not debts which were binding upon the property, which is admittedly joint family property. It is also admitted that the mortgagor, Kunwar Pal, has a son in existence.4. The Court of first instance found, on the au...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sharif Ahmad Vs. B. Qabul Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.875
1. This is an application in revision to set aside a conviction for criminal defamation. A preliminary point has been taken by the opposite party, which is that the matter ought not to have been brought direct to the High Court from the Court of the Convicting Magistrate but should first have been submitted to the intermediate Court of the Sessions Judge.2. Mr. Ross Alston for the applicant has argued that in cases where the lower Court has no power to grant the relief claimed the party aggrieved may proceed straight to the High Court without referring the matter to the consideration of the lower Court, which, as the case may be, will be either that of the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. In support of this contention he has cited many authorities, none of which, however, decides in terms the proposition that be das pat forward.3. We are of opinion that the correct rule of procedure is that set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice Piggott in Mansoor Husain v. Emperor 50 Ind. Ca...
Tag this Judgment!Shodan Singh and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All323; 64Ind.Cas.75
1. The point raised in this case is whether the pious duty of the sons to pay their father's debts can be enforced during the lifetime of the father, or in other words, have the sons the right to object to the payment of such debts from their shares of the family property when the father is alive. It appears that one Bhagwan Singh execrated a promissory note in favour of Musammat Shrimati Mangla Devi. She sued Bhagwan Singh on the promissory note and obtained a decree. She put the decree into execution and proceeded to attach a part of the family property. Bhagwan Singh's two sons, Sheodan Singh and Mhandrapal Singh, thereupon sued for partition of their shares of the family property and also for a declaration that their shares in the family property were not liable to satisfy the decree obtained against their father, Bhagwan Singh. The Courts below have dismissed the suit so far as the declaration claimed is concerned. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has, after consider...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. the Commercial Bank Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All49; 62Ind.Cas.889
1. This appeal arises out of the liquidation of the Commercial Bank of India, Limited. Hari Ram, the appellant, received a letter from the Official Liquidator, dated the 26th of April 1918 sailing on him to pay Rs. 500 representing the uncalled capital promised by him on his application for shares but not paid up. Hari Ram objected and asked to have his name removed from the list of contributories, on the ground that he had already paid up this amount on the 28th of February 1914. The learned District Judge overruled this objection. He appears to have tried the matter in a somewhat summary way, as is often the casein these liquidation proceedings. Hari Ram went into the witness-box and swore that he had paid the amount, and in proof the day-book of the Bank was produced, which showed that on the 28th of February 1914 Hari Ram did pay in Rs. 500 to the capital account of the Company. The learned District Judge tested the statement by examining Hari Ram as to certain debit entries made o...
Tag this Judgment!Tameshwar Prasad Vs. Maharaj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.114
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:Gopal Narain and Jwala Prasad were the owners of 1 anna 7 gandas share in the village and also held certain sir lands appertaining to that share. On the 29th of May 1900 they gave a usufructuary mortgage of the share to the defendants No. 1 to 3, including in that mortgage all the sir lands appertaining to the share. On the same date they executed a similar mortgage in respect to plots Nos. 1370 and 200 in favour of the same persons as usufructuary mortgagees. On the 9th of November 1910 they gave a simple mortgage of their rights to Musammats Inderdei and Shama Kuar. On the 17th of October 1912 the plaintiff sued to pre-empt the mortgage of the 9th of November; he obtained a decree and formal possession; he then attempted to redeem the two usufructuary mortages. As the defendants-respondents would not accept payment of the money, he had to bring a suit for redemption and he obtained a decree and was formally p...
Tag this Judgment!Chet Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.152
1. This is an application that further execution may be stayed in a matter which is now under appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was an ordinary suit for possession of land, and a Bench of this Court decreed the plaintiffs' claim in full on the 11th of March 1919. Towards the end of that year execution proceedings were commenced and formal possession obtained in January of 1920. Following on that delivery of possession, suits were instituted in the Revenue Court to eject the appellants to His Majesty in Council from certain sir and khudkasht lands. The applicant here prays that those proceedings may be stayed, be being willing to be put upon terms. He has not shown us, in our opinion that there is any special cause which differentiates this case from all those cases in which as the result of an appeal, or as the result of a decision in an original action, one man is dispossessed in favour of another. Moreover, it has been pointed out that after the delivery of possession the de...
Tag this Judgment!Mustafa Khan and anr. Vs. Musammat Dulari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All433; 65Ind.Cas.75
Walsh, J.1. This is a difficult case, although the amount in dispute is trivial, and it is difficult because I have to decide not only whether the finding is one of fast, but whether the finding of fact is one which could lawfully be arrived at under all the circumstances of the case; and my difficulty is not diminished by the very slight assistance which I got from either of the judgments of the lower Courts. The lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed as to property A, but that they are barred by limitation as to property B. I am quite satisfied, although I am not much impressed by the judgment of the learned Judge, that he did find and intended, to find adverse possession from 1902 by the defendant Musammat Dulari. In disposing of the plaintiffs' case as to property A, he has dealt specifically with the evidence of adverse possession. Turning from that question to the same question as regards property B, he says: 'I am not satisfied that the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Ajodhya Koeri Vs. Ram Sunder Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.240
1. The sole point raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-respondent was, because of a previous judgment, estopped from contesting that the whole of the consideration mentioned in the deed in his favour had passed It appears that the plaintiff respondent obtained two sale-deeds of certain property from the defendant. Some time later the defendant's sons brought a suit to recover bask possession of the property sold to the plaintiff on the ground that the sales were not for family necessity. That suit succeeded. It may be mentioned here that the present defendant, the father, was no party to that litigation. The present suit was thereupon brought by the plaintiff-respondent for refund of the consideration which he had paid for those sales against the defendant-appellant, his vendor. Amongst other pleas the defendant pleaded that the whole of the consideration had not been paid and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim bask the whole amount entered in the deeds from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »