Allahabad Court May 1921 Judgments
Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. Bharat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All703
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises nut of a suit brought by the appellants to enforce a mortgage executed by one Lal Singh on the 17th of June, 1912. The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 5,000 and the property mortgaged consisted of shares in two villages, namely, Sarjupur and Ahmlapur. The first defendant is the son of Lal Singh, who is now dead. The other defendants are purchasers of the mortgaged property in execution of simple money decrees. The mortgage in question was executed for various sums of money, which, according to the recital in the mortgage-deed, consisted first of money due upon a prior mortgage of the 5th of February, 1912, for Rs, 1,000. There were six promissory notes commencing from the 17th of February, 1912, to the 13th of June, 1912, and the amounts of these promissory notes were included in the consideration for the mortgage in question. There was also a further sum of Rs. 210-8-0 alleged to be the amount of parol...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. Bharat Singh, Minor Through Musammat Chittar Ku ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All113; 64Ind.Cas.763
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants to enforce a mortgage executed by one Lal Singh on the 17th of June 1912. The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 5,000 and the property mortgaged consisted of shares in two villages, namely, Sarjupur and Ahmlapur. The first defendant is the son of Lal Singh, who is now dead. The other defendants are purchasers of the mortgaged property in execution of simple money decrees. The mortgage in question was executed for various sums of money, which according to the recital in the mortgage-deed consist first) of money due upon a prior mortgage of the 5th of February 1912 for Rs. 1,000. There were six promissory notes commencing from the 17th of February 1912 to the 13th of June 1912, and the amounts of these promissory notes were included in the consideration for the mortgage in question, There was also a farther cam of Rs. 210-8-0, alleged to be the amount of parol debts due by the mortgagor. Rs. 100 was stated to have been re...
Tag this Judgment!Manzur Hasan and ors. Vs. Muhammad Zaman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All692
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiffs respondents are the representatives of the Shia community in the town of Aurangabad. The four defendants appellants are the representatives of the Sunni community in the same town.2. In the years 1916 and 1917 trouble arose between the two communities in respect to the Muharram festival and the passing of the Shia procession along the road behind the Jama Masjid of the town. This road is a narrow passage about 12 feet wide. The Sunnis, it appears, objected to the Shias stopping behind the mosque, forming themselves into a circle and going through the Matam, chiefly on the ground that it interfered with the Sunnin, who were in the mosque, saying their prayers. In 1916 a working arrangement for that one year was made with the consent of parties but the trouble arose again in 1917 and the Shias made a representation to the District Magistrate, notice was issued to the Sunnis, they filed objections, with the result th...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Ram and anr. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1921
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.226
1. In this case the question we have to decide is whether the suit of the plaintiffs should stand dismissed as ordered by the lower Appellate Court or whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a conditional decree for the setting aside of the sale complained of and for the return of the property.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of Dunger Mal who, it is alleged, sold certain joint family property on the 23rd of December 1902 to the first defendant Kanhaiya Lal. The property which was sold consisted of a moiety share in a 6 biswa 5 biswansi share situated in a village called Daulatpur, entered in the khewat as No. 1. Another item which was sold at the same time consisted of a proportionate share in 51 bighas odd entered in khewat as No. 3 of the same village. This latter item appears to be a share in the ' Shamilat Deh.'3. The suit was brought in the year 1918 by the two plaintiff's one of whom Nathu Ram had just attained majority, the second plaintiff in the case, Shib Shanker, was still a m...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Babu Lal Kedar Nath Vs. Firm Net Ram Khiali Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All400; 64Ind.Cas.6
1. The defendant firm carries on a commission agency business at Hathras. The plaintiff firm directed the defendant firm to purchase and supply cotton yarn from Hathras. The defendant firm wrote that seven bales were ready and could be supplied at a certain rate and that the remaining sixteen bales could be supplied within a month at other rates specified in the letter. The plaintiff firm agreed. The seven bales of cotton were supplied but the remaining bales could not be supplied at the rate originally mentioned, because the firm from which the said bales were to have been purchased became bankrupt. The market rate subsequently rose and there was no possibility of getting the yarn at the rate originally mentioned. The plaintiff firm claims damages on account of the remaining bales, which were supplied at a higher rate. It asserts that the defendant firm was under an obligation to supply the remaining bales at the rate originally settled, but the defendant firm states that the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Makund Lal and anr. Vs. Sami-ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All688
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. In the village Lahurapur there is a pond called Bir Bundh situated iu plot No. 4810. On the north of thia poad is some laud belonging to the village Lahurapur. On the south of this pond are some plots belonging to the village Kondari. Makund Lal and Mathura Das are the owners of the village Lahurapur. Sami-ullah is the owner of the village Kondari. In the rainy season when the pond is over-flooded a portion of the surplus water flows through a drain round the north and west of mauza Lahurapur, and the remaining surplus water flows towards the East through an old drain situated in the village Pipnar. In order to protect their land from damage the former owners of the village Lahurapur constructed an embankment on the north of this pond, some time prior to the last settlement. The allegation of Sami-ullah was that in the month of February, 1916, the owners of the village Lahurapur raised this embankment in order to prevent the water of the pond overflowing...
Tag this Judgment!Molvi Mohammad Sami Ullah Vs. Mukund Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All182; 63Ind.Cas.980
1. In the village Lahurapur there is a pond called Bir Bundh situated in plot No. 4810. On the north of this pond s some land belonging to the village Lahurapur. On the south of this pond are some plots belonging to the village Kondari Makund Lal and Mathura Das are the owners of the village Lahurapur. Samiullah is the owner of the village Kondari. In the rainy season when the pond is over flooded a portion of the surplus water flows through a drain round the north and west of Mauza Lahurapur, and the remaining surplus water flows towards the east through an old drain situated in the village Pipnar, In order to protest their land from damage, the former owners of the village Lahurapur constructed an embankment on the north of this pond sometime prior to the last Settlement. The allegation of Samiullah was that in the month of February 1916 the owners of the village Lahurapur raised this embankment in order to prevent the water of the pond over flowing towards their land, that the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Badri NaraIn and anr. Vs. Bechai and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All681
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. Both these appeals have arisen out of suits brought by the plaintiffs respondents for the recovery of what is described as zar chaharum. In each case the claim was based upon the sale of a house situated in a patti called Deo Narain Singh of which the plaintiffs are admittedly zamindars. It is not disputed that in this patti of Deo Narain Singh are included a number of houses which fall within the municipal boundary of the city of Benares and in that particular portion of the city which is known as mohalla Jaitpura.2. The plaintiffs bused their case upon a custom which was recorded in the wajib-wl-arz prepared in the year 1886. The defendants, on the other hand, denied that they were liable to be sued for these sums. They denied that there was any custom of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs and they further relied upon a later statement of custom which, it was said, was prepared at the time of the last settlement of Benares. This later statement of cust...
Tag this Judgment!Mubarak Fatima Vs. Muhammad Quli Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All124; (1921)ILR43All697; 63Ind.Cas.976
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff appellant in the Revenue Court for her recorded share of profits for the years 1320, 1321 and 1322 Fasli. Property comprising 7 biswas and odd belonged to one Rahim-un-nissa Bibi. She had three sons, two of whom pre. deceased her. The plaintiff is the daughter of one of the pre. deceased sons. The defendant is the son of a third son who survived her. In the revenue papers the name of the plaintiff was entered in respect of a 3 biswas and odd share, i.e., one half of the 7 biswas and odd which belonged to Rahim-un-nissa. The plaintiff applied for partition of her recorded share in the Revenue Court. Her application was resisted by the defendant, who alleged that she owned no share in the property, her father having predeceased Rahim-un-nissa. He was referred by the ' Revenue Court to the Civil Court under the provisions of Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act. Thereupon he brought a sui...
Tag this Judgment!Bechai Vs. Badri NaraIn and anr. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All68; 63Ind.Cas.292
1. Both these appeals have arisen out of suits brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for the recovery of what is described as zar chaharum. In each case the claim was based upon the sale of a house situated in a patti sailed Deo Narain Singh, of whish the plaintiffs are admittedly Zemindars, It is not disputed that in this patti of Deo Narain Singh are included a number of houses which fall within the Municipal boundary of the City of Benares and in that particular portion of the City which is known as Mohalla Jaitpura.2. The plaintiffs based their case upon a custom which was recorded in the wajib-ul-arz prepared in the year 1866 The defendants on the other hand denied that they were liable to be sued for these sums. They denied that there was any custom of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs and they further relied upon a later statement of custom, which it was said was prepared at the time of the last Settlement of Benares. This later statement of custom has been described in the evi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »