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.
Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Maharaj Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All343
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. We are of opinion that the decree of the lower appellate court must be affirmed, because we are unable to see upon what principle it has been decided that the statutory right, which the plaintiff had as owner of house No. 2 to discharge his water into the drain of the defendant's house No. 3, has been extinguished. It is true that the plaintiff was a wrong-doer when, having built on house No. 2 a new privy, he connected that up with the drain which had hitherto carried water from one privy alone in house No. 2 to house No. 3. The method by which he connected up the new privy with the old drain was, in one sense, permanent and, in another sense, not permanent, because it was capable of being blocked or cut away in a very short time. It is clear law that if a man has, for instance, a right to walk across a certain field, he does not lose that right of walking across that field merely because he commences to drive across it in a carria...
Musammat Nafisunnisa and ors. Vs. Mirza Mumtaz Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All363; 65Ind.Cas.539
Stuart, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, is described by the Trial Judge as the most miserable case he has ever bad to try. It is certainly not a pleasant one. The plaintiff, Mirza Mumtaz Husain, is the first cousin of the first defendant Nafisunnisa, Nafisunnisa is the daughter of Nawab Mirza, deceased. Her mother, Kaniz Banu Khanam, and her brother Mirza Khadim Husain and her uncle Mirza Kalab Hasan are the three remaining defendants. The plaintiff's case was, that he had known the first defendant all her life; that a strong affection had grown up between them and that be had endeavoured to marry her after obtaining her relatives consent; that, failing to secure this be married her secretly on the 26th of January 1917 but has never been allowed assess to her owing to the opposition of her relatives; that her relatives have since endeavoured to marry her to another man, He, therefore, instituted this suit for restoration of conjugal rights The young lady joined her rela...
Rameshwar Dayal Vs. B. Maharaj Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All28; 65Ind.Cas.643
1. We are of opinion that the decree of the lower Appellate Court must be affirmed, because we are unable to see upon what principle it has been decided that the statutory right which the plaintiff has as owner of house No. 2 to discharge his water into the drain of the defendant's house No. 3 has been extinguished. It is true that the plaintiff was a wrong doer when, having built on house No. 2, a new privy he connected that up with the drain which had hitherto carried water from (sic) privy alone in house No. 2 to house No. 3. The method by which he connected up the new privy with the old drain was in one sense permanent and in another sense not permanent, because it was capable of being blocked or cut away in a very short time. It is clear law that if a man has, for instance, a right to walk across a certain field, he does not lose that right of walking across that field merely because he commences to drive across it in a carriage, that is, he is not penalized and deprived of his ri...
Mohammad Ahmad Vs. Zahur Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.523
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 stats a few facts. One Karimullah died many years ago leaving a widow, Musammat Sabiunnissa, a son Nizamnddin and two daughters, Khurshed Jahan and Kaniz Fatma. Disputes arose between the heirs of Karimullah and a suit was brought by Khurshed Jahan, one of the daughters, for her share in the estate of Karimullah. 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 Sabiunnissa, she also relinquished the rights the might acquire in that property upon the death of her mother. This relinquishment was for a consideration. As stated above, the terms of...
Ram Dass and ors. Vs. S. Mohammad Faqir Alias Mohammad Rashid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All143; 65Ind.Cas.513
1. On the 20th of January 1908 Muhammad Zahid granted a lease to one Bhola Ram and Sarda Prasad of a share in a certain market. That lease was not to take effect until the 22nd of June 1912, because at that time other lessees were in possession of the market. On the 21st of June 1912 Muhammad Zahid executed another lease of the same share in favour of Musammat Lalta Bibi. That led to litigation between Bhola Ram, and Sarda Prasad and Muhammad Zahid. Muhammad Zahid was in the wrong because he had contracted to give possession to Bhola Ram and Sarda Prasad on June 22nd 1912, There were proceedings before the Magistrate, initiated by Bhola Ram. There were proceedings in revision in the High Court. There was also a remand by the High Court to the lower Court and a second hearing in the High Court, and there is no doubt whatever that Bhola Ram and Sarda Prasad who were in the right in the matter from the beginning were put to very considerable expense in the source of this litigation. Bhola...
Firm Parbhoo Lal-ram Ratan Vs. the Bengal North-western Railway Compan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.583
Ryves, J.1. This application in revision arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the Bengal North Western Railway in the Small Cause Court at Agra. Twenty three 'bakoos' of tobacco were despatched sometime in March last to Agra Fort consigned to the plaintiffs. The weight consigned to the Railway was 101 maunds. At Agra Fort when delivery was taken the consignment was found 28 maunds short in weight and this suit was brought to recover the difference in price. The Court has found that the tobacco when despatched was raw and wet and was not securely packed. It has come to the conclusion that the shortage in weight was due most probably to the drying up of the moisture originally contained in it. The consignment did not arrive in Agra until sometime in April. The Court held that some of the shortage may be due to wastage owing to defective packing and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the shortage was due to pilfering by the Railway Company's servants. It is arg...
Emperor Vs. Sheodarshan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All487; (1922)ILR44All332
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. Sheodarshan Singh was committed to the court of the Sessions Judge of Banda on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge found that on the facts an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out but that an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. He, accordingly, found Sheodarshan Singh guilty under that section and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The judgment of the Sessions Judge being brought to the notice of Piggott, J., on perusal of the sessions statement, he directed that notice should go to Sheodarshan Singh to show cause why he should not be convicted of the offence of murder or why the sentence passed upon him should not be enhanced. It is to be noted that Sheodarshan Singh did not appeal against his conviction. He has, however, been represented before us in the matter of enhancement by a competent counsel who has taken us through the whole of the ev...
Badri Parshad Vs. Mohar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All231; 65Ind.Cas.511
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that the property in suit was not liable to sale in execution of two decrees. The facts appear to be as follows. One Badri Prasad had two simple money-decrees against Lal Singh, the father of the plaintiff, and two other persons. He put those decrees in execution, had the property in dispute sold at auction on the 22nd of April 1919 and purchased it himself. Before this sale, however. Mohar Singh, the present plaintiff, and one of the sons of be judgment-debtor had brought a suit for a declaration that the property in dispute was joint family property and as such was not liable to sale in execution of those decrees. In that suit the plaintiff's allegation was that the debts were not taken for family necessity but were taken by other persons for whom the plaintiff's father stood surety. In that suit the question of the non liability of the son to pay the amount of the decrees on the ground of the...
Sri Bhagwat Chaudhri and ors. Vs. Balkaran Saithwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All29; 65Ind.Cas.596
Ryves, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Small Cause Court of the City of Gorakhpur, dated the 4th of April last, rejecting an application to restore an ex parte decree. It appears that on the 25th of February 1921 an ex parte decree was passed against the present applicant. The suit in which that decree was passed was a suit to recover an ox or its price, namely, Rs. 80 and costs. The Court decreed Rs. 80 to the plaintiff plug Rs. 14-4-0 costs. On the same day the applicant here applied for the restoration of the case and asked leave to deposit Rs. 80 within a fortnight. Thereupon, the Court ordered notice to go to the other side and fixed the 2nd of April for hearing the application. Nothing was said in the order about depositing any money. The decree in the case was drawn up on the 1st of March showing a sum of Rs. 94-4-0 as due from the defendant-applicant here. On the 14th of March the applicant deposited Rs. 90. On the 2nd of April the case was taken up...
Bhup Singh Vs. Jhamman Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All169; 65Ind.Cas.724
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that certain property in possession of the defendants is liable to sale in execution of a decree which the plaintiffs obtained against one Musammat Durga Kunwar. It appears that Musammat Durga Kunwar was the daughter of one Bhagirath Singh, Durga Kunwar had two sons, Ram Singh and Bhup Singh, She succeeded to the property after the death of her father and on the 15th of October 1914 Durga Kunwar and Ram Singh executed a simple bond in favour of the plaintiffs respondents, Jhamman Singh and others. At that time the present appellant Bhup Singh, the second son of Durga Kunwar, was a minor. The plaintiffs-respondents then sued on their simple bond. The suit was against Durga Kunwar alone as Ram Singh had died in the interval, and on the 27th of May 1918 they obtained simple money decree against Musammat Durga Kunwar. On the 15th of August 1918 before they had put their decree into execution Durga Kunwar surrendered her life interest in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »