Allahabad Court January 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Musammat Jairaji Vs. Bhagwat Prasad Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All225; 65Ind.Cas.844
Piggott, J.1. In this suit the question in issue was (he jointness or separation amongst the members of a certain Hindu family, the descendants of one Jeo Lal, This gentleman had three sons, named Sital, Durga and Chhutkan. Chhutkan had one son only, named Sheo Mangal, and this man had a son, named Kateshwar, This Kateshwar was married three times but died without male offspring. He left him surviving two widows, named Dharam Raji and Jai Raji, The present suit was instituted by these two ladies jointly to recover possession of specified shares in immovable property of various descriptions, upon the plea that the property so specified formed the separate estate of Kateshwar from which his widows had wrongfully been ousted by the male agnates. Musammat Dharam Raji died after the institution of the suit, but it has been continued by the remaining widow Musammat Jai Raji, who is the appellant in this Court. Of the three sons of Jeo Lal, all of whom had died before the institution of this ...
Govind Dass and ors. Vs. Ram Charan Lonia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All235; 68Ind.Cas.307
Piggott, J.1. In this case, Govind Das and five others, being 6 out of the 7 sons of Gopal Das, sued to avoid an alienation of joint family property made by their father, Gopal Das. The defendants were the vendees under a sale-deed of the 1st of November 1917 together with Gopal Das himself and another son of his by name Debi Das who had refused to join in the suit. Three of the plaintiffs ware miners on the date of the institution of the suit. The plain issue in the case was, of coarse, the question of legal necessity for the sales bat it arises in a peculiar form and complicated by the result of a previous litigation. The sale dead above referred to was not voluntarily executed by Gopal Das. It was imposed upon him by a decree of Court in a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 3rd September, 1912. The position, therefore, is that Gopal Das, as the father and manager of a joint undivided Hindu family, entered into an agreement to sell joint family property in his hands ...
Jamna Prasad Vs. the Collector of Jaunpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All360
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on the basis of a mortgage alleged to have been executed by one Maulvi Muhammad Ali.2. This document is said to have been executed on the 19th of April, 1895, in favour of one Dwarka Prasad, the father of the present plaintiff.3. It is proved that Maulvi Muhammad Ali died in the month of October, 1898. He left his widow Musammat Muslima Bibi, two sons Muhammad Hasan and Muhammad Zahur and four daughters Musammat Kulsum, Musammat Makki, Musammat Fatima and Musammat Ruqiya.4. In the month of April, 1908, the estate belonging to Maulvi Muhammad Ali was taken over by the Court of Wards. It appears that an application was made to the Court of Wards. Some of the heirs of Muhammad Ali were of full age at the time the application was made, but two of the daughters, Musammat Fatima and Musammat Ruqiya, were still minors. Musammat Kulsum, one of the daughters whose names have been mentioned, declined to join in the applic...
The Collector of Jaunpur Vs. Jamna Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All37; 66Ind.Cas.171
1. This appeal arises out of a snit brought on the basis of a mortgage alleged to have been executed by one Maulvi Muhammad Ali.2. This document is said to have been executed on the 19th of April 1895 in favour of one Dwarka Prasad, the father of the present plaintiff.3. It is proved that Maulvi Muhammad Ali died in the month of October 1898. He left his widow, Musammat Muslima Bibi, two soni, Muhammad Hasan and Muhammad Zahur and four daughters Musammat Kulsum, Musammat Makki, Musammat Fatima and Musammat Ruqiya.4. In the month of April 1908 the estate belonging to Maulvi Muhammad Ali was taken over by the Court of Wards. It appears that an application was made to the Court of Wards. Some of the heirs of Muhammad Ali were of full age, at the time the application was made but two of the daughters, Musammat Fatima and Musammat Ruqiya were still minors, Musammat Kulsum, one of the daughters whose names have been mentioned declined to join in the application.5. The result of all this was ...
Chatur Bhuj and anr. Vs. Gobind Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All218; 67Ind.Cas.668
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this Court, sued Gobind Ram and his minor sons upon two mortgages of the 9th of September 1911 and the 25th of June 1912. The question in issue in the Court below and again in this Court was whether the joint ancestral property in the hands of Gobind Ram can be made liable for the whole, or for any part, of the consideration under these two deeds. The essential circumstances are as follows: On the 20th of July 1911 Gobind Ram had obtained a pre-emption decree entitling him to acquire certain property in a village called Loharra, on condition of his depositing a sum of Rs. 1,072, within a prescribed time. He borrowed this amount from the plaintiffs under the deed of September the 9th, 1911, by hypothecating under the said deed not only the share in village Loharra which he proposed to acquire, but also certain ancestral family property in his hands. He did not confine himself to raising the money necessary to acquire the property i...
Kishan Lal Vs. Bechan Lal and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All348
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:On the 4th of October, 1914, the plaintiff sold a house to Musammat Jillo, defendant No. 1, for Rs. 1,800. It was stated in the sale-deed that out of the consideration money Rs. 900 was paid in cash and that a mortgage of the house had been given for the balance. It was quite clear that the consideration for the sale was the mortgage plus the balance in cash. On the 5th of October, 1914, Musammat Jillo executed the mortgage. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, Bechan Singh and Bishnath Singh, appellants here, brought a suit to pre-empt the sale and they made both the plaintiff and Musammat Jillo parties to it. That suit was compromised between Musammat Jillo and the appellants. The mortgagee plaintiff was exempted from the suit. According to that compromise it was agreed that Musammat Jillo should receive in cash Rs. 1,375 and it was stated that although the appellants did not admit the validity of the mortgage...
Musammtat Rampia Vs. Hazari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All232; 65Ind.Cas.654
1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are as follows: On the 17th of August 1900 one Dabi Das made a mortgage of his property to one Deo Karan Das. Dabi Das rights were sold at auction in execution of a simple money decree and purchased by Jwala Prasad, a son of the mortgagor. On the 30th of March 1911 Jwala Prasad got possession. On the 5th of May 1912 Jwala Prasad gold the property to his brother, Mathura Prasad, who had been adopted by an uncle of his. On the 25th of July 1912 Mathura Prasad sold the property to his wife, Musammat Rampia. The plaintiff is the son of the original mortgagee, Deo Karan Das. During his minority a suit was brought by his next friend and uncle, Chiranji Lal, on the 21st of September 1912 to enforce the above mortgage. To this suit neither Mathura Prasad nor Musammat Rampia, the transferees of the property, were impleaded. The then plaintiff got a decree for sale, put the property to sale and purchased it himself on the 2nd of June 1917....
Jhabbu Lal and ors. Vs. Jwala Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All531; 66Ind.Cas.986
1. The plaintiffs in this suit as originally filed ware Sukh Lal, son of Shib Charan Lal, together with Jhabbu Lal and Daulat Ram, sons of Kallu Mal, an own brother of Sukh Lal. The fast that Sukh Lal has since died and is now represented in this appeal by his sons does not affect any of the questions before us for determination, The principal defendant, Jwala Prasad, is the daughter's son of Lalji Mal, brother of Shib Charan Lal. For certain reasons which are not material in view of the decision we have come to in the case as a whole, there were joined with him as defendants his father Janki Prasad and his wife Musamnat Dropadi. In dealing with the appeal before us we propose to treat Jwala Prasad as the principal and the only substantial defendant in the case. It is admitted that Shib Charan Lal and Lalji Mal had two other brothers named Manna Lal and Bindraban. Of these four brothers Lalji Mal died first, in or about the year 1879 A. D, Shib Charan died in 1889, Bindraban in 1909 Mu...
Muhammad Sharif Khan Vs. Muhammad Moazzum Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1922
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.464
1. These two appeals have been heard together and can conveniently be dealt with in one judgment. The plaintiff, Kun-war Muhammad Shafi Khan claims, in the first case, suit No. 104 of 1918, the sum of Rs 9,000 and interest and in the second case, the sum of Bs 10,000 and interest against Kunwar Muhammad Moazzum Ali Khan, a young man, who at the time of the transactions, had recently attained his majority. According to the statement of the plaintiff he is a man of independent means and a very remote relation of the defendant. The defendant has an elder brother, by name Kunwar Muhammad Makerram Ali Khan, Who is dead, and is the grandson of Nawab Sir Faiyaz Ali Khan. He is a well-known Bais of Pahasu in the Bulandshahr District. There is reason to believe that the grandsons are regarded as his expectant heirs and the present recepients of his bounty. At the time of these transactions, the Nawab was a gentleman of about 65 years of age. The story as told by the plaintiff is, that he was ap...
Kunwar Muhammad Shafi Khan Vs. Kunwar Muhammad Moazzam Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All214; 67Ind.Cas.684
1. These two appeals have been heard together and can conveniently be dealt with in one judgment. The plaintiff, Kunwar Mohammad Shafi Khan, claims, in the first case Suit No. 104 of 1918, the sum of Rs. 9,000 and interest, and, in the second case, the sum of Rs. 10,000 and interest against Kunwar Muhammad Moazzam Ali Khan, a young man, who, at the time of the transactions, had recently attained his majority. According to the statement of the plaintiff he is a man of independent means and a very remote relation of the defendant. The defendant has an elder brother, by name Kunwar Muhammad Makarram Ali Khan, who is dead, and is the grandson of Nawab Sir Faiyaz Ali Khan. He is a well known Rais of Pahasu in the Bulandshahr District. There is reason to believe that the grandsons are regarded as his expectant heirs, and the present recipient of his bounty. At the time of these transactions, the Nawab was a gentleman of about 65 years of age. The story as told by the plaintiff is, that he wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »