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.
Harnam Das Vs. Faiyazi Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All354
Lindsay and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The question we have to decide in this second appeal is whether an allowance of Rs. 60 payable every six months to the first defendant respondent, Musammat Faiyazi Begam, is capable of assignment. The allowance has been hypothecated twice to the plaintiff appellant, Harnam Das, under two deeds of the 18th of June, 1 906, and the 23rd of April, 1907, respectively. The first of these deeds was executed by the lady alone; the second by herself, her husband and her son.2. The claim was for Rs. 1 418-5-0 and the plaintiff mortgagee asked for a decree enabling him to recover the debt by sale of the hypothecated property. Admittedly the question before us has to be decided with reference to the language of Sections 11 and 12 of the Pensions Act (Act XXIII of 1871).3. Section 11 lays down that no pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance is liable ...
Rai Bahadur Lala Harnam Das Vs. Musammat Faiyazi Beg Am and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.645
1. The question we have to decide in this second appeal is, whether an allowance of Rs. 60 payable every six months to the first defendant-respondent Musammat Faiyazi Begam is capable of assignment.2. The allowance has been hypothecated twice to the plaintiff appellant, Harnam Das under two deeds of the 18th June 1906 and the 23rd April 1907, respectively, The first of these deeds was executed by the lady alone; the second by herself, her husband and her son.3. The claim was for Rs. 1,418.50 and the plaintiff mortgagee asked for a decree enabling him to recover the debt by sale of the hypothecated property. Admittedly, the question before us has to be decided with reference to the language of Sections 11 and 12 of the Pensions Act (Act XXIII of 1871).4. Section 11 lays down that no pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance is liable to seizure, attachment, or sequestratio...
Lala Ram Chandra Sarup Vs. Srimati Kirpa Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All216; 65Ind.Cas.648
1. The two Appeals NOS. 166 and 172 of 1919 are connected and arise out of a suit brought by Musammat Srimati Kirpa Devi against Lala Ramchandra Sarup for the recovery of her share of the profits for the years 1320 to 1322 Fasli. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Meerut on the 31st July 1916 and it was alleged by her that the defendant Ramchandra Sarup was the Lambardar of the village Khadela and had been negligent in collecting the rents and, therefore, she was entitled to recover her share of the profits on the gross rental and not on actual realisation. She claimed Rs. 7,146-0-4 which sum included interest also. The claim was resisted on various pleas. It was urged on behalf of the defence that there was a written agreement executed between the parties on the 31st December 1914 under which all disputes outstanding between them were to be decided by one Babu Madusudan Dayal, and that as the greater portion of the claim relates to a period antecedent t...
In Re: Tasadduq Ahmad Khan Sherwani Barrister At-law
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All352
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Pramada Charan Banerji and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. Tasadduq Ahmad Khan Sherwani has appeared before us to-day to show cause why he, being an Advocate of this Court, should not be suspended or struck off the rolls. On the 1st of July, 1921, he made a speech at Charra. That matter was investigated by the Magistrate, who on the 18th of July, 1921, convicted Mr. Sherwani under Section 153 A. of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment. The evidence as presented to the Magistrate satisfied him that an offence had been committed. Mr. Sherwani, who has been called to the Bar in England and is an Advocate of this Court, did not, when before the Magistrate, make any defence. He put in a written statement but he did not criticize the witnesses or analyse the speech on which the prosecution was mainly based. He commenced today to do both. We pointed out to him that the case in the Magistrate's court could not be re-opened in these proceedings, and we referred to...
Kalian Singh Vs. Dambar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All350
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arise out of execution proceedings. It appears that Khub Singh and others made a usufructuary mortgage of property situate in village Gokulpur Pipraut in favour of Ausaf Ali Khan and his two brothers. Ausaf Ali's rights as mortgagee were sold in execution of a simple money decree and were purchased by Dambar Singh. Prior to this purchase Ausaf Ali had mortgaged his rights as mortgagee to Dr. Gokul Chand who transferred them to Babu Kaliyan Singh, the present decree-holder. The result was that Dambar Singh was the owner of 1/3rd of the mortgagee rights and Kaliyan Singh was the mortgagee of 1/3rd mortgagee rights. Kaliyan Singh sued to recover the amount due to him as mortgagee of the mortgagee rights and obtained a decree for sale on the 30th of October, 1912. This decree was set aside on appeal on the 16th of June, 1913. On second appeal to this Court the decree of the first court was restored and the time for payment was extended by six month...
Bechan Singh and ors. Vs. Kishun Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All25; 65Ind.Cas.543
1. The facts out of which this appeal arisen 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 which had been executed by M...
In Re: M. Tasadduq Ahmad Khan Sherwani, Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All140; 65Ind.Cas.560
1. Tasadduq Ahmad Khan Sherwani has appeared before us to-day to show cause why he, being an Advocate of this Court, should not be suspended or struck off the Rolls. On the 1st of July 1921 he made a speech at Chara. That matter was investigated by the Magistrate, who, on the 18th of July 1921, convicted Mr. Sherwani under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment. The evidence, as presented to the Magistrate, satisfied him that an offence had been committed. Mr. Sherwani, who has been called to the Bar in England and is an Advocate of this Court, did not, when before the Magistrate, make any defence. He put in a written statement, but he did not Criticize the witnesses or analyse the speech on which the prosecution was mainly based. He commenced to-day to do both. We pointed out to him that the case in the Magistrate's Court could not he re-opened in these proceedings and we referred to the decision of the Privy Council Rajendra Nath Mukerji In the matter...
Dambar Singh Vs. Kallyan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All27; 65Ind.Cas.799
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. It appears that Khub Singh and others made a usufructuary mortgage of property situate in village Gokulpur Pipraut in favour of Ausaf Ali Khan and his two brothers. Ausaf Ali's rights as mortgagee were sold in execution of a simple money decree and were purchased by Dambar Singh. Prior to this purchase Ausaf Ali had mortgaged his rights as mortgagee to Dr. Gokul Chand who transferred them to Babn Kallyan Singh, the present decree-holder. The result was that Dambar Singh was the owner of 1/3rd of the mortgagee rights and Kallyan Singh was the mortgagee of 1/3rd mortgagee rights. Kallyan Singh sued to recover the amount due to him as mortgagee of the mortgagee rights and obtained a decree for sale on the 30th of October 1912., This decree was set aside on appeal on the 16th of June 1913, On second appeal to this Court the decree of the First Court was restored and the time for payment was extended by six months from the date of the High...
In Re: Muhammad Muzaffar Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All82; (1922)ILR44All339; 65Ind.Cas.811
Piggott, Lindsay and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This is a reference from the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57, Clause (1), of the Indian Stamp Act, No, II of 1899 The point referred is a simple one. A deed of gift was executed which contains no statement of the value of the property thereby conveyed. The officer before whom the document was produced impounded it and referred it to the Deputy Commissioner of Bahraich, as Collector of the district, for necessary action. The question referred to us is, first of all, whether this instrument requires any stamp under the Indian Stamp Act. According to Article 33 of the schedule an instrument of gift, such as the one before us, should be stamped with the same duty as a conveyance, for a consideration equal to the value of the property set forth in such instrument. We are satisfied that the words 'as set forth in such instrument' refer back to the word 'value,' and not to the word 'property.' We are confirmed in this view by the a...
Muhammad Ahmad Vs. Zahur Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All334
Grimwood Hears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the rule of res judicata. For the purpose of determining this question, it is necessary to state a few facts. One Karim-ullah died many years ago leaving a widow, Musammat Sabi-un-nissa a son, Nizam-un-din, and two daughters Khurshed Jahan and Kaniz Fatma. Disputes arose between the heirs of Karim-ullah, and a suit was brought by Khurshed Jahan, one of the daughters, for her share in the estate of Karim-ullah. That suit was compromised and a decree was passed on the basis of the compromise in 1868. According to the compromise and the decree, Khurshed Jahan relinquished her claim to the estate left by her father, and as to the property which was found by arbitrators in that case to be the property of her mother, Musammat Sabi-un-nissa, she also relinquished the rights she might acquire in that property upon the death of her mother. This relinqu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »