Allahabad Court February 1921 Judgments
Ram Surat Misra and ors. Vs. Gur Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All48; (1921)ILR43All484; 63Ind.Cas.998
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The circumstances which have given rise to the present appeal are as follows: It appears that, on the 6th of December, 1906, Gur Prasad Rai, defendant No. 1, made a mortgage of certain specified sir plots in favour of the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs for Rs. 799-15. On the same day he mortgaged another plot to the same persons for Rs. 99-15. Both these documents were to carry interest at 2 per cent, per mensem if possession was not delivered there under. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1. On the 16th of June, 1914, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed a sale deed of the mortgaged plots in favour of the plaintiffs and on the same day they executed a perpetual lease of those plots in favour of certain persons benami for the plaintiffs. It appears that defendants Nos. 3 to 5 brought a suit for pre-emption and obtained a decree for possession of the plots mentioned above and also got a declaration that the perpetual lease was bad. On the 30t...
Tag this Judgment!The People's Industrial Bank Limited Vs. Govind Das Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All107; 63Ind.Cas.607
1. This is an appeal by the Official Liquidator against an order passed by the District Judge of Allahabad allowing Pandit Govind Das Dube's objection to be included in the list of contributories. A preliminary objection has been taken which we must notice. The judgment of the learned District Judge was dated the 6th of February 1920. The formal order was dated the 3rd of March 1920. The memorandum of appeal was filed in this Court on the 20th of May 1920. Assuming that time began to run from the 6th of February 1920, this appeal was 13 days beyond time under the Indian Limitation Act, unless the 14 days required to obtain copies of judgment and formal order are excluded. It is urged that under Section 169 of the Indian Companies Act of 1892 the ordinary limit of 90 days is necessarily superseded by the requirements of that section and that according to it the appeal must be filed within three weeks and notice of the same must be given in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Habibul Rahman Vs. Musammat Rasul Bandi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All81; 62Ind.Cas.859
Tudball, J.1. This application arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff applicant to recover his mortgage money. According to him he took a mortgage from the defendant of a certain plot of land for a sum less than Rs. 100. Possession was delivered to him and he continued in receipt of the profits of the mortgaged property until recently, when the defendant unlawfully ejected him, and he is now seeking to recover his mortgage-money. He put forward a bond which was unregistered. The Court below framed five issues, of which the fourth was:Is the suit barred by limitation?2. The defendant did not admit the allegations of fact in the plaintiff's plaint. The Court did not go into the question of fact. It held that the document being unregistered, there was no mortgage and, therefore, Section 20 of the Limitation Act did not help the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit, No. 36, having been brought in 1920, was barred by time. The Munsif is clearly wrong, because the fact that the document...
Tag this Judgment!Birbhadra Prasad and ors. Vs. Sham Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All463
Muhammad Rafiq and Stuart, JJ.1. The facts in the suits out of which these five appeals arise are as follows:2. Bal Kishan Khattri died at the end of the last century leaving a widow Sham Dei and a daughter Amru. The daughter has since died childless. On the 3rd of April, 1916, Sham Dei executed a deed, by which she dedicated a house in Benares, the property of her deceased husband, as a dharamsala. Bir Bhadra instituted a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to succeed to the estate of Bal Kishan on the death of Sham Dei as reversionary heir under the Mitakshara law, and for a declaration that the deed of dedication is not binding upon him. Ranjit Singh and Ranbir Singh institued another suit for a declaration that they are entitled to succeed to the estate of Bal Kishan on the death of Sham Dei, and for a declaration that the deed of dedication is not binding upon them, Both suits were decided by Mr. S.N. Banerji, Subordinate Judge. He found that Sham Dei was not authorized to ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chandan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All483
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an application in revision under the following circumstances: The complainant charged four persons with having assaulted him, causing grievous hurt. The offence charged against them all was, therefore, described as punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the four absconded, but the other three appeared to stand their trial. The medical evidence showed that 'grievous hurt' had not been caused, and in consequence the charge was altered to one of simple hurt, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant then petitioned the court to acquit one of the accused, who was a minor, on the ground that he had compounded the offence against him personally, but desired the court to proceed against the other accused persons. The court, thereupon, acquitted the minor. The other accused then petitioned the court claiming that the compounding of the offence against one of the original accused persons amounted in law to the compounding o...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Sham Devi Vs. Babu Birbhadra Prasad, Minor, Through Musammat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All178; 62Ind.Cas.432
1. The facts in the suits out of which these five appeals arise are as follows:--Bal Kishan Khattri died at the end of the last century leaving a widow Sham Dei and a daughter Amru. The daughter has since died childless. On the 3rd April 1915 Sham Dei executed a deed by which she dedicated a house in Benares, the property of her deceased husband, as a dharmsala. Bir Bhadra instituted a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to succeed to the estate of Bal Kishan on the death of Sham Dei as reversionary heir under the Mitakshara Law, and for a declaration that the deed of dedication is not binding upon him. Ranjit Singh and Ranbir Singh instituted another suit for a declaration that they are entitled to succeed to the estate of Bal Kishan on the death of Sham Dei, and for a declaration that the deed of dedication is not binding upon them, Both suits were decided by Mr. S.N. Banerji, Subordinate Judge, He found that Sham Dei was not authorized to alienate the house in Benares to the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Peoples Industrial Bank, Ld., in Liquidation Vs. B. Jalpa Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All135; 62Ind.Cas.450
1. These are two appeals by the liquidator against the order of the District Judge removing the names of two respondents from the list of contributories in the Peoples Industrial Bank in liquidation. First Appeal from Order No. 72 relates to one Jalpa Prasad and First Appeal from Order No. 73 relates to one Partap Narain. There is no great difference between the two cases except that Partap Narain is shown to have received dividends. Jalpa Prasad applied for one share of Rs. 100 and paid Rs. 5 on application in 1911. He was allotted the share in June 1911, A resolution of forfeiture was passed against him in August 1913. The Company went into liquidation in February 1914 Rs. 95 still remains unpaid. The only question is whether he is bound to contribute this sum to the assets of the Company.2. In the other case Partap Narain, a Pleader of Jaunpur, applied for six shares, which were allotted to him in November 1910. He received dividends in September 1910 and August 1911, as it appears ...
Tag this Judgment!Nahar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All61; 62Ind.Cas.583
Walsh, J.1. This appeal is against a conviction and sentence of transportation for life for having taken part in a dacoity. The evidence against the accused is slight beyond his own confession, but he has been convicted by the Sessions Judge and by all the three Assessors unanimously. We see nothing in the confession itself to throw doubt upon its veracity, except a somewhat familiar attempt made by the confessing accused to represent his own connection as slight as possible. The confession has been retracted and at a later stage the accused has suggested that it was extracted from him by torture. The value of this common form of repudiation in this particular case is very largely diminished by his saying that he did not make the confession at all. To corroborate the confession there is the simple fast that he admitted in his statement that one of the doors of the house was broken open and also that three articles corresponding in description to articles lost in the dacoity, were undou...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All35(1); 61Ind.Cas.209
1. This is an application in revision under the following circumstances: The complainant charged four persona, with having assaulted him, causing grievous hurt. The offense charged against them all was, therefore, described as punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the four absconded, but the other three appeared to stand their trial. The medical evidence showed that 'grievous hurt' had not been caused, and, in consequence, the charge was altered to one of simple hurt, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, The complainant then petitioned the Court to acquit one of the accused, who was a minor, on the ground that be had compounded the offence against him personally, but desired the Court to proceed against the other accused persons. The Court, thereupon, acquitted the minor. The other accused then petitioned the Court claiming that the compounding of the offence against one of the original accused persons amounted in law to the compounding of the offence aga...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lakhan Singh Vs. Lala Mewa Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.78
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. A decree absolute for sale of landed property was passed on the 23rd of September 1910. The decree-holder applied for execution on the 26th of April 1911. That was infructuous. A second application was made on the 15th of April 1914. That application was dismissed with costs, because the decree-holder failed to comply with certain orders which the Court had made. Another application was made on 1 4th of September 1914 for sale. As some of the property was ancestral, the Court ordered the case to be sent to the Collector for sale. This was done on the 18th of September 1914. Before the sale was completed, the Civil Court, on the 14th of May 1915, passed an order staying the sale. Thereupon, on the 24th of May, the Collector sent the record back to the Civil Court which, on the 25th May 1915, passed an order to the effect that the proceedings be entered on the register of decided cases and placed in the record room.2. This order was pas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »