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.
Khushi Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All83; 67Ind.Cas.338
Stuart, J.1. The facts may be stated briefly. A locked box was in a house in which Kehar Singh, other male members of his family and several women resided. The key of the box was produced by the wife of Khushi Ram, son of Kehar Singh. The box was opened. In the box was stolen property. Khushi Ram was not in the house. On this evidence Khushi Ram has been convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge considered that these facts justified a finding that the property was in Khushi Ram's possession. I do not think that such an inference can be drawn legally from the evidence. Actual possession was of course with the wife. Can it be presumed that in every case of this kind, the possession of the wife is 'per re' the possession of the husband? I think not. Possession of the wife would frequently be the possession of the husband. In fact, it would usually be the possession of the husband, but there must be something to connect the husband with the possession more th...
Mohan Lal Vs. Premraj and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.618
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. It appears that there were two brothers, Ramji Lal and Baldeo, who owned a 1/12th share each in a certain property. Baldeo died leaving two eons, Bahadur and Nathu. Ramji Lal applied for mutation of names in plate of Baldeo and obtained an order in his favour; and on the 5th of December 1995, he mortgaged with possession the whole share, that is, 1/6th, belonging to his deceased brother and himself. On the 15th of June 1906, he executed a simple mortgage of the 1/6th share in favour of the plaintiff Premraj.2. One Hari Singh, who is a defendant in the suit, had two simple money-decrees against Ramji Lal and Baldeo separately. He brought to sale the 1/12th share of each of the two brothers in execution of his decrees and purchased them himself. He purchased the share of Ramji Lal subject to the plaintiff's encumbrance of the 5th of December 1905. On the 4th of March 1907 Premraj sued the mortgagor Ramji Lal, Hari Singh and Baha...
Lachman Prasad Vs. Lachmeshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All76; 66Ind.Cas.203
1. This was a suit brought by the respondent, Lachmeshwar Prasad, on a mortgage deed of the 18th of June 1908. The defendants were Gokaran Singh, the mortgagor under the said deed, Bhola Singh and Lath man Prasad, impleaded as subsequent purchasers of a portion of the mortgaged property. The deed in question was for a sum of Rs. 7,000, interest to run at 15 percent per annum, compoundable with six monthly rests. Five items of property were hypothecated. In the third paragraph of the plaint it is stated that Bhairon Prasad, father of the plaintiff and a member of the same joint family, had subsequently acquired the equity of redemption in respect of two out of the five items of property. The plaintiff admits that the integrity of the mortgage had thereby been broken up, so that he is only entitled to claim a proportionate amount of the mortgage-money against a proportionate amount of the security. He then submits an account showing that the sum due under the mortgage-deed amounted on th...
Bhagirathi Shuku Vs. Chandra Harihar Patak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All81; 66Ind.Cas.208
1. In our opinion this appeal must succeed. The plaintiff appellant brought the suit on the basis of a mortgage, but by a misdescription in the plaint he put the share hypothecated as being situated in the village Jogia, although, it was really situated in the village Udaipur. The defendants are the mortgagors and his descendants. The mortgagor did not defend the claim but his descendants raided the usual pleas that the bond was without consideration and was executed without any legal necessity. They also contested the factum of execution by the mortgagor. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the finding that no legal necessity for the transfer had been made out. On appeal, however, a fresh complication arose. After the plaintiff appellant's argument was heard the case was adjourned at the respondents instance for a few days. In the meanwhile, it was discovered that, although the property which was really mortgaged was situated in Udaipur, the plaintiff in fact described it as ...
Lachmi Prasad and ors. Vs. Gokul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.206
1. This very ancient appeal has tome up before us today after having been in the Court for 4 1/2 years.2. The matter involved is a very simple one and the decision of the appeal need not occupy us very long.3. The appellants here were plaintiffs in the Court below and the suit they brought was for redemption of a mortgage executed on the 25th of May 1907, That mortgage was executed by two persons, Babu Nandan Pat and his brother's wife. Musammat Janki.4. It is admitted that the plaintiffs in the present suit are subsequent mortgagees of the same property holding from the same mortgagors, and it was in their character as subsequent mortgagees that they claimed their right to redeem this mortgage.5. According to the deed executed on the 25th of May 1907 a loan of Rs. 13,350 was advanced to the mortgagors by nine persons. The share of each of these joint mortgagees in the mortgage-money is set out in a schedule attached to the deed. The security which the mortgagors offered for the loan w...
H. Bevis and Co. Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.167
1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore rejecting an application to have a salt restored, which had been dismissed for nonappearance on the part of the plaintiff when the suit was allied on for heaving. The facts alleged by the plaintiff have not been controverted, either by affidavit of the opposite party, or by anything pissed on record by the presiding Judge himself. I am entitled, therefore, to assume that those fasts are admitted. The suit in question was down for hearing on the 3rd of March 1921. The plaintiff was personally present in Court up to 5 p. m. At that hour the Court was still engaged in hearing some other suit. The plaintiff's Pleader game round to the Courtroom and some conversation took place between them, as a result of which both the plaintiff and his Pleader left the Court. The suit was subsequently called on. I gather from the record that the defendant was present, although the plaintiff was no...
Sahu Bimal Prasad Vs. Muhammad Mubarak HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All274
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The essential point raised by this appeal admits of being briefly stated. The court below had before it an application for execution of a decree with which, on a particular date, it found itself unable to proceed further by reason of the default of the decree-holder. Under Order XXI, Rule 57, the duty of the court was, either to dismiss the application, or to adjourn the proceedings to a future date. On a dismissal of the application it is provided by the said rule that the attachment shall cease. The court did not follow, as it ought to have done, the provisions of the said rule. The order which it passed was to the effect that the execution case should, for the time being, be dismissed, but that the attachment should remain is force. That is not an order which the court ought to have passed; but the question before us is as to the effect of the said order when passed. The decree-holder on a subsequent date applied to the court to take up the proceedings at th...
Chimman Lal, Posti Mal Vs. Phul Chand, Fateh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All292
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. We have decided to dismiss this appeal on the simple ground that the defendant having deliberately refused to utilize the machinery provided by Section 19, namely, by applying for a stay, must be taken to have waived his right to arbitration. We would merely add that we are not prepared, as at present advised, to go the length of the decisions in Ram Prosad Suraj Mull v. Mohanlal Lachminarain (1920) I.L.R. 47 Calc. 752 and Appavu Rowther v. Seeni Rowther (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 115, and to hold that in all such cases an award must necessarily be set aside. It must be borne in mind that some of the observations of Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton relied upon were unnecessary for the decision of the case, and were not adopted by the other members of the English Court of Appeal and that the case was one in which the circumstances were peculiar. We are not prepared to adopt, without qualification, the view which the Madras High Court seems to have adopted in I.L.R. 41 M...
Raja Shiam Rikh and ors. Vs. Parbati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All296
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for a declaration. These defendants are the wife and the minor son of one Chatar Singh who has been adjudicated an insolvent. The principal respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, is a land-holder who on various dates between the 7th of March and the 29th of March, 1911, had obtained from a Revenue Court decrees for arrears of rent against the aforesaid Chatar Singh. After the latter had been adjudicated an insolvent, this decree holder applied to the Insolvency Court, ostensibly under the provisions of Section 60(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No. III of 1907, for the leave of the Court to institute the present suit. The object of this suit is to challenge the validity of two deeds of transfer, dated the 10th of July, 1908, and the 16th of May, 1910, respectively, whereby Chatar Singh, more than two years prior to his insolvency, had purported to transfer immovable property in favour of his wife and his minor son. ...
Chimman Lal Posti Mal Vs. Phool Chand Fateh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.795
1. We have decided to dismiss this appeal on the simple ground that the defendant having deliberately refused to utilise the machinery provided by Section 19, namely, by applying for a stay, must be taken to have waived his right to arbitration. We would merely and that we are not prepared, as at present advised, to go the length of the decisions in Ram Prosad Surajmull v. Mohan Lal Lachmi Narain 60 Ind. Cas. 895 : 47 C. 752 and Appavu Rowther v. Seeni Rowther 42 Ind. Cas. 514 : 41 M. 215 : 33 M.L.J. 177 : 6 L.W. 243 and to hold that in all such cases an award must necessarily be set aside. It must be borne in mind that some of the observations of Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton relied upon were unnecessary for the decision of the case, and were not adopted by the other members of the English Court of Appeal and that the case was one in which the circumstances were peculiar. We are not prepared to adopt, without qualification, the view which the Madras High Court seems to have adopted in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »