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.
Sheo Darshan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.858
Stuart, J.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 had, however, been represented before us in the matter of enhancement by a competent Counsel who has taken us through the whole of the evidence in the case...
Musammat Bhanga Vs. Sheikh DIn Mohammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All233; 65Ind.Cas.593
Stuart, J.1. Janki and Kali, deceased, ware Hindu woman who made their living as professional prostitutes. There is no evidence to show whether Janki had ever been married. Janki purchased a house. After the death of Janki and her sister Kali, this house was claimed by their mother, Bhanga, the present appellant as the heir of Janki, and by Shaikh Din Mohammad, who claimed under a Will from Kali, Sheikh Din Mohammad obtained possession. Bhanga sued him for possession and recovery of certain ornaments and mesne profits. Her suit was decreed by the Munsif who found that the house and ornaments belonged to Janki and that the Will by Kali conferred no title. Din Mohammad appealed. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the finding that all the property belonged to Janki, but he dismissed Bhanga's suit on the finding that, inasmuch as Janki was a prostitute, she must be taken to have been an unmarried woman who had become unchaste and that, under the Hindu Law, the property of an unmarried wo...
Abhey Singh Vs. Himta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All234; 65Ind.Cas.653
Stuart, J.1. Jawahra Gujar executed, on the 29th of May 1911, a deed of gift of his whole property in favour of Abhey Singh and Hardeo. Jawahra's son Niadar was dead. His grandson Munshi was dead. Niadar's widow, Musammat Mahro, and Munshi's widow, Musammat Hosheyari, were alive, Jawahra had no direct heirs. His property was property which he could transfer in his life-time as he wished. Mahro and Hosheyari could not prevent his transferring this property. Abhey Singh and Hardeo obtained complete proprietary title under the deed of gift, but after some protections how Mahro they executed a deed of gift of 9/28 ths of the property in her favour. They gave her this property 'bahamah wajah', words which mean, literally, 'with all cause,' but which can only be taken to mean 'with all rights'. She obtained complete partition of her share. The question in appeal is whether Mahro had absolute proprietary title in the 9/28ths or only a life interest. The learned District Judge has found that s...
Saktoo Mal Vs. Gopal Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All439; 66Ind.Cas.313
1. The facts are these:---In Etawah City there is a house known as Bilaswala. In the plaint it in stated that this house is in a dilapidated condition. The Courts have not arrived at any finding whether the house is or is not occupied or when it was occupied last. It is now agreed between the parties that the house wan inherited in their equal shares by Rani Dayal, Gopi Nath and Gokul Chand, Chaube Brahmans, sons o! Durga Prasad, and own brothers. It is not clear how they inherited the house. Possibly, they inherited it as sister's sons as their mother is said to have been the sister of a man tailed Bailas. This much is clear that Gokul Chand inherited a 3rd share, Gokul Chand has a son sailed Atma Ram : Gokul Chand is alive. Ram Dayal is dead. He has been succeeded by his two minor great' grandsons, Udit and Perkash. Gopi Nath is dead. He is represented by his son Banarsi Das and his grandson Maksodan, On the 3Oth of November 1918 Gokal Chand agreed with Saktu Mal, Bania, to sell him ...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Suraj Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All319
Piggott, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal in an execution matter. On the face of it seems not a little startling that a decree originally passed on the 16th of January, 1900 and affirmed by this Court in appeal on the 19th of February, 1903, should still be under execution. The court below has held that the decree-holder is now barred, both by the three years' rule of limitation under the Indian Limitation Act, and also by the special provisions of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Taking these points in order, we do not think the court below was right regarding the three years' period. The application now before us was made on the 12th of May, 1920, and it was well within three years of a previous application which had been disposed of in the year 1918. The court below has got round this difficulty by a process of reasoning based upon the fate of a previous application of the year 1915. For reasons which we need not enter into, the record is seriously defective; but in a...
Bechu Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All84; (1922)ILR44All327
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:One Ram Kirpal was an occupancy tenant of 31 bighas, 9 biswas. He mortgaged 14 bighas, 17 biswas, in 1896 and in 1897, that is to say, there were two mortgages, in favour of Sheonandan Singh. Ram Kirpal died before the present Tenancy Act came into force, that is before 1902, and he was succeeded in the tenancy by his widow Musammat Suneta. It appears that the rent for the years 1309 and 1310 Fasli fell into arrears and the zamindar brought a suit to eject Musammat Suneta and the mortgagees. This was decreed by the trial court and on the 16th of April, 1904, the zamindar got possession. Afterwards, however, on the 13th of September, 1905, the ejectment proceedings were quashed by the Board of Revenue and the possession of Musammat Suneta, or rather, she having died, that of Baldeo Prasad as her representative, was restored on the 13th of October, 1905. Thereafter the mortgagees in 1908 brought a suit...
Thakur Bechu Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.507
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:2. One Ram Kirpal was an occupancy tenant of 31 bighas 9 biswas. He mortgaged 14 bighas 17 biswas in 1896 and in 1897; that is to say, there were two mortgages in favour of Sheonandan Singh. Ram Kirpal died before the present Tenancy Act came into force, that is, before 1902, and he was succeeded in the tenancy by his widow Musammat Suneta. It appears that the rent for the years 1309 and 1310 Fasli fell into arrears and the Zemindar brought a suit to eject Musammat Suneta and the mortgagees. This was decreed by the Trial Court and on the 16th of April 1904 the Zemindar got possession. Afterwards, however, on the 13th of September 1905, the ejectment proceedings were quashed by the Board of Revenue and the possession of Musammat Suneta, or rather, she having died, that of Baldeo Prasad as her representative, was restored on the 13th of October 1905, Thereafter, the mortgagees in 1908 brought a suit against Baldeo Prasad to reco...
Kishori Lal Vs. Jiwan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All242; 67Ind.Cas.231
1. In this case, two suit have been brought arising out of some transactions, which may or may not have been speculative in the real sense of the word, for the purchase and sale of grain-pits confining wheat in the town of Hapur. The period fixed for delivery and completion of the purchase-money was the month of March, 1916, the contracts having been for the most part made in the previous October. It appears that there were at least two contracts, one for two grain pits and one for five but, although that might have been material in one aspect of the case, neither party has made anything of the point and the transaction has been treaded as that of one contract only for the sale of seven grain pits, Where it does not otherwise appear in this judgment, the purchaser, Kishorei Lal, is called the plaintiff and Jiwan Lal, the agent, is tailed the defendant. It is admitted on both bands that the contract was not carried out. The purchasers who were plaintiffs in one of the suits paid a sum o...
Babu Nihal Singh Vs. Musammat Najuban and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All230; 65Ind.Cas.585
1. The only point in this appeal that has given us any difficulty is the question whether the plaintiffs were barred by Order II, Rule 2 from including in their claim the profits for the Kharif of 1320 Fasli. The Judge in the lower Court undoubtedly assumed that the reason why those profits had been omitted in an action which was commenced on the 29th of July 1913 was, because the plaintiffs at that date were under the impression that the profits were paid annually and not, as was subsequently shown to be the fact, half yearly. In that view he accepted the authority of the case to which he refers in this judgment. In this Court the learned Judge upheld the decision of the lower Appellate Court and we think that we ought to do the same. That really is the substantial point in the appeal. The other points which are raised have no substance, and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs and fees on the higher scale....
Abdul Rahman Vs. Musammat Rifaqtulnissa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All229; 65Ind.Cas.641
1. The parties to this appeal are related to each other. The plaintiff-appellant, Abdul Rahman, is the uncle of Abdul Hai, defendant respondent No. 2. Musammat Rifaqtulnissa, respondent No. 1. is the wife of Abdul Hai. It appears that before the ceremony of marriage took place between the defendants-respondents, one of the conditions of the marriage was that Abdul Hai should transfer a portion of his property of the value of Rs. 15,000 to his fiance. Accordingly, on the 5th of January 1918, Abdul Hai executed a sale deed in favour of Musammat Rifaqtulnissa in respect of property the value of which was mentioned in the deed to be Rs. 15,000. The deed was registered on the 8th of January 1918. On the same day Abdul Hai was married to Rifaqtulnissa. On the 7th of January 1919 Abdul Rahman, the plaintiff, brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for possession of the property conveyed by the deed of the 5th of January 1918 on the ground of pre-emption. He stated in his plaint t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »