Allahabad Court May 1921 Judgments
Rameshar and anr. Vs. Khunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All621
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a firm styled Debi Dat Dina Nath for the recovery of money due on a balance of account. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Its finding was that Rs. 900 had been paid to the plaintiffs and Rs. 131-11-0 should be deducted on account of discount, and that after deducting those items nothing was due to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, Dina Nath, one of the plaintiffs, died; and Debi Dat, the other plaintiff, is said to have been declared an insolvent. On the 23rd of March 1918, the court before which the appeal was pending assed an order allowing six months time to the heirs of Dina Nath to appear and to and to the Official Assignee of the estate of Debi Dat to apply to be brought on the record. No application was, however, made on behalf of either of them within the allotted time. On the 22nd of November, 1918, the heirs of Dina Nath applied to be brought on the r...
Tag this Judgment!Khunni Lal Vs. Rameshar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All361; 64Ind.Cas.52
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a firm styled Debi Dat Dina Nath for the recovery of money due on a balance of account. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Its finding was that Rs. 90 had been paid to the plaintiffs and Rs. 131-11-0 should be deducted on account of discount and that after deducting those items nothing was due to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, Dina Nath, one of the plaintiffs, died; and Debi Dat, the other plaintiff, is said to have been declared an insolvent. On the 23rd of March 1918 the Court before which the appeal was pending passed an order allowing six months' time to the heirs of Dina Nath to appear and to the Official Assigne of the estate of Debi Dat to apply to be brought on the record. No application was, however, made on behalf of either of them within the allotted time. On the 22nd of November 918, the heirs of Dina Nath applied to be brought on the record and on the same day they were brou...
Tag this Judgment!Babar Shah Alias Ali Bahadur Shah Vs. Muhammad Rafiq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.35
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal, arising out of a suit for a declaration that the property in dispute is waqf property and that he is in charge of it as mutwalli. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that the disputed property appertained to the takia and qabrittan of Barah Shah Safa. That the defendants were wrongfully interfering with the plaintiff's possession as mutwalli and that the property had been attached under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There were several defendants to the suit, some of whom pleaded that they had no concern with the property at all. All of them denied that the plaintiff was the mutwalli of the property or that he was the legal representative of the last mutwalli. Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 further pleaded that they were in possession of two-thirds of the property as mutwallis themselves. Three of the defendants also pleaded that the value of the property had been grossly exaggerated and that it was not worth more than Rs. 1.000, the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bhawan Upadhya and anr. Vs. Ram Saran Chaube and Dhuman Singh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All615
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in this case sue for a declaration that they are in possession of plot No. 351 in mauza Sukhpura and that they are the muafidars of that holding. In the alternative they sue for possession. At the last settlement in the year 1883 the plot was entered as the fixed rate tenancy of defendants Nos. 1 to 9, who sold their rights and title in the plot to defendant No. 10, who resisted the suit and is appellant in this Court. The plaintiffs had applied in the Revenue Courts to have the entry altered, but were unsuccessful. Both the lower courts held that as a matter of fact the entry in the year 1883 was due to a mistake and they further held that they were not prevented by Section 9 of the Tenancy Act from going into this matter. They based their decision on the ruling in the case of Jai Nath Pathak v. Kalka Upadhya (1912) I.L.R. 34 All. 285. Section 9 lays down that every entry at the last revision of records before the commencement of this Act, recor...
Tag this Judgment!Sundar Bibi Vs. Raj Indra NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All617
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. The question which arises in this case is whether a particular fund payable to a judgment-debtor under a compromise arrived at in a suit many years ago between himself and his brother, is protected from attachment by Clause (n) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure; or, in other words, whether it is a right to future maintenance. The decree-holder, who appears to be a money-lender, has a claim of some Rs. 26,000 odd, and in his original application sought to sell up the property shortly to be referred to. That he is clearly not entitled to do, with one exception, namely, the residence which will be mentioned in a moment. It is not easy to define in legal terminology the precise interest of the judgment-debtor, Raj Indar Naraian Singh, in the fund provided by this compromise. Perhaps the nearest definition would be that he is an annuitant subject to certain defined charges, with a reversionary interest in the corpus upon the death of his brother, Lal Baha...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Sundar Bibi Vs. Rajinder NaraIn Singh Alias Lallu Saheb
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.181
1. The question which arises in this sage is whether a particular, fund payable to a judgment debtor, under a compromise arrived at in a suit many years ago between himself and his brother, is protested from attachment by Clause (n) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or, in other words, whether it is a right to future maintenance. The decree-holder, who appears to be a money-lender, has a claim of some Rs. 26,000 odd and in his original application sought to sell up the property shortly to be referred to. That he is clearly not entitled to do with one exception, namely, the residence which will be mentioned in a moment. It is not easy to define in legal terminology the precise interest of the judgment debtor, Raj Inder Narain Singh, in the fund provided by this compromise. Perhaps the nearest definition would be that he is an annuitant subject to certain defined charges, with a reversionary interest in the corpus upon the death of his brother, Lal Bahadur Singh. It is provid...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Prasad Vs. Nawab Muhammad Abdul Majid and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All327; 63Ind.Cas.425
Lindsay, J.1. This is an appeal from an appellate order of the District Judge of Benares, setting aside a decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Judge, holding that the suit had been erroneously dismissed upon a preliminary point of law, remanded the case for disposal on the merits.2. The material facts of the case are as follows:The defendants Nos. 1 to 11 held a decree against the defendants Nos. 12 to 19, in execution of which they brought to sale certain immoveable property of their judgment-debtors. The property being ancestral, the proceedings in execution were transferred to the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such cases the Procedure of the Collector is regulated by Rules made by the Local Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 70 of the Code. A sale proclamation was drawn up in which the value of the property offered for s...
Tag this Judgment!Bishennath and anr. Vs. Pearey Ju and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.542
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising oat of a suit in which they seek to recover a simple money-decree on a bond, dated the 19th of January 1907. The Courts below dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, on the ground that the consideration of the agreement was one which was forbidden by law and also that it was of sash a nature that if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of the Bundelkhand Encumbered Estates Act I of 1903. The defendants to the suit were persons who same under that Act. They were in debt and took refuge under the Ant and were declared disabled proprietors. The plaintiffs were the sole creditors. The matter went before the Special Judge under the Act and the Special Judge made an award. It is an admitted fact that while the defendants were still under their disability, the present bond was executed by them in favour of the plaintiffs. It is an instalment bond, under which the defendants agree to pay off the amount of the award in a fixed term of years. It appears that...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran Choube Vs. Lalji Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.711
1. The plaintiffs in this a as 9 sue for a declaration that they are in possession of plot No. 351 in Mouza Sukhpura and that they are the Mnafidars of that holding. In the alternative they sue for possession.' At the last Settlement in the year 1883 the plot was entered as the fixed rate tenancy of defendants Nos. 1 to 9 who sold their rights and title in the plot to defendant No. 10, who resisted the suit and is appellant in this Court. The plaintiffs had applied in the Revenue Courts to have the entry altered but were unsuccessful. Both the lower Courts held that as a matter of fast the entry in the year 1383 was due to a mistake and they further held that they were not prevented by Section 9 of the Tenancy Act from going into this matter. They based their decision on the ruling in the case of Jainath Pathoh v. Kalka Upadhya 13 Ind. Cas. 643 : 34 A. 258 : 9 A.L.J. 238. Section 9 lays down that every entry at the last revision of records before the commencement of this Act recording ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›