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.
Ram Ratan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.855
Stuart, J.1. The first point to decide is the age of the platform. The documentary evidence shows that it was in existence in 1902 and I see no reason to disbelieve the oral evidence that it has been in existence for thirty years before the date of the case. The Cantonment authorities having acquiesced in its existence for that period cannot be permitted to demolish it now. The Magistrate has made a reference to the Defense Zone. Act VII of 1903 does not afford any authority for demolition of the platform and, in any circumstances, as it is only about three feet high, its existence cannot be considered a danger to the defence of Agra. I set aside the conviction and sentence accordingly. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Lalta Prasad Vs. Suraj Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All145; 65Ind.Cas.877
Piggott, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal in an execution matter. On, the face of it, 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 as 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...
Parbati and anr. Vs. Raia Shyam Rukh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All74; 66Ind.Cas.214
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 b6en adjudicated an insolvent. The paincipal respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, is a land-holder who on various dates between the 7th of Marsh and the 29th of March 191l had obtained from a Revenue Court decrees for arrears of rent against the aforesaid Chatar Singh. After the latter bad 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. Ill 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 U08 and the 16th of May 1910, respectively, whereby Chatar Singh more than two years prior to his insolvency, had purported to transfer immoveable property in favour of his wife and bis minor son. The s...
Manna Kunwar Vs. Reoti Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All290
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The plaintiff Musammat Manna Kunwar sued to recover a sum of money due on a ruqqa executed by the defendants in favour of one Kishori Lal. The plaintiff's allegation was that the money was advanced by her and that Kishori Lal, in whose name it was drawn, was merely her benamidar as she was parda-nashin. Kishori Lal bad died without heirs and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money on this ruqqa. The defence was, so far as we are now concerned, that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit. The trial court found all the issues of fact in favour of the plaintiff, namely, that she had advanced the money in cash to the defendants who had executed the ruqqa, benami in the name of Kishori Lal who was a near relation of the plaintiff The trial court, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that under Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 8 of that Act Musammat Manna Kunwar could not maintain the suit. She appealed. The learned ...
Kashi Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Balbhaddar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All71; (1922)ILR44All283; 65Ind.Cas.798
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This litigation appears to have had a very chequered career. In the year 1910 a suit was brought in the Revenue Court by the present appellant for the ejectment of the defendants from certain plots of land. The court of first instance, that is, the Assistant Collector of the first class, decreed the claim and ordered ejectment. An appeal was preferred from that decree to the Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed. The case was then taken to the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue held that the appeal from the decree of the court of first instance ought to have been preferred to the District Judge. Accordingly an appeal was preferred in the court of the District Judge and it succeeded and the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed in 1912. A second appeal to this Court was also dismissed, Meanwhile, after the passing of the decree of the court of first instance that decree was put into execution and the present appellant obta...
Reoti Lal and anr. Vs. Manna Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All70; 65Ind.Cas.785
1. The plaintiff, Musammat Manna Kunwar, sued to recover a sum of money due on a ruqqa executed by the defendants in favour of one Kishori Lal The plaintiff's allegation was that the money was advanced by her and that Kishori Lal, in whose name it was drawn, was merely her benamider as she was parda-nashin; Kishori Lal had died without heirs and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money on this ruqqa, The defence was, so far as we are now concerned, but the plaintiff could not maintain the suit. The Trial Court found all the issues of fact in favour of the plaintiff, namely, that she had advanced the money in cash to, the defendants who had executed the ruqqa benami in the name of Kishori Lal who was a near relation of the plaintiff. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that under Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 8 of not maintain the suit. She appealed. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with all the findings of fact found b...
inayat-ullah Khan Vs. Nisar Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All278
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an application which raises both a question of principle and a question of fact of some importance. The defendant, who is the applicant, is the son of one Abdul Jalil Khan, deceased, and the plaintiff is the cousin of the deceased man, who claims to be his heir. Abdul Jalil Khan and the other members of his family were old residents of Shahjahanpur, which appears also to have been the ancestral home of the defendant. For the purposes of this case, however, it may be assumed that the deceased migrated to a place called Pusad in Yeotmal, a district of the Berars, which is now a portion of the Central Provinces, and died there in October of last year, after having made, so the defendant alleges, certain gifts by deed of his property in favour of the defendant. The suit is brought by the plaintiff as heir of the deceased man to set aside these gifts, and it has been brought in the court at Shahjahanpur as a matter of choice by the plaintiff who is of course...
inayat Ullah Khan Vs. Nisar Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.782
1. This is an application which raises both a question of principle and a question of fact of some importance. The defendant who is the applicant, is the son of one Abdul Jalil Khan, deceased, and the plaintiff is the cousin of the deceased man who claims to be his heir. Abdul Jalil Khan and the other members of his family were old residents of Shahjahanpur, which appears also to have been the ancestral home of the defendant. For the purposes of this case, however, it may be assumed that the deceased migrated to a place called Pusad in Yeotmal, a District of the Berars, which is now a portion of the Central Provinces, and died there in October of last year after having made, so the defendant alleges, certain gifts by deed of fail property in favour of the defendant. The suit is brought by the plaintiff as heir of the deceased man to set aside these gifts, and it has been brought in the Court at Shahjahanpur, as a matter of choice, by the plaintiff who is of course in all cases dominus ...
Rukam and anr. Vs. Tara Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All68; 65Ind.Cas.775
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The facts of this case are these. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Agra to recover money due upon a bond. The defendants admitted the bond bat pleaded payment, and they produced a receipt which they alleged had been granted to them by the plaintiff in discharge of the amount secured by the bond. On the date fixed for hearing they filed their written statement and prayed that the plaintiff and his agent might be examined. The plaintiff was not personally present nor was his agent. The Court accordingly adjourned the hearing of the case and fixed the 2nd of March 1921 for the hearing of the suit, and directed the parties to appear in person on that day. On the aforesaid date, the plaintiff was not present and his Pleader stated that he had no instructions. In spite of this, the Court proceeded to try the suit in the absence of the plaintiff and recorded evidence adduced by the defendants and decided in their favour and dismissed the suit. Tw...
Ganga Sahai and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All64; 65Ind.Cas.779
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order superseding an arbitration and directing the trial of the suit to proceed in the ordinary course. It is based upon a finding that there had been misconduct on the part of the arbitrator and so far complies with the provisions of paragraph 15 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The misconduct attributed to the arbitrator is, that he had made 'private enquiries' behind the backs of the parties. There is authority of this Court for the proposition that the making of such enquiries, where the arbitrator is not empowered to do go by the terms of the reference, amounts to legal 'misconduct' on his part. The whole controversy in this case is, whether the arbitrator was or was not empowered to act as he did. For the applicants it is contended that the parties had agreed that the arbitrator might decide the case on his personal knowledge of the facts, and that this necessarily implies a right to supplement his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »