Allahabad Court October 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.
Firm Hazari Lal-chhanga Mal Vs. Sohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All407; 75Ind.Cas.609
1. The plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of money alleged to be due upon a hundi, dated the 26th of December 1917, executed in their favour on behalf of the firm of Ajudhya Prasad-Sheikh Kallu. The hundi was signed by the first defendant Sohan Lal and by the second defendant Husain Bakhsh. The plaintiffs alleged that Husain Bakhsh had paid Rs. 800 out of Rs. 1,600, the amount of the hundi. They accordingly claimed the balance of Rs. 800, and interest against both the defendants. Sohan Lal's contention was that he was not a partner in the firm of Ajudhya Prasad-Sheikh Kallu and that he had signed the hundi in his capacity as munim of that firm and that consequently he was not personally liable for the amount of the hundi.2. The Court of first instance overruled this objection and made a decree against Sohan Lal. Sohan Lal appealed to the lower Appellate Court and that Court, for reasons slated in its judgment, came to the conclusion that Sohan ...
Anjuman-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Mukarram Ali Khan and Asghar Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All152
Muhammad Rafiq and Stuart, JJ.1. The only point which requires decision in the present appeal is whether the property in dispute is waqf property or not. The plaintiff respondent, Musammat Anjuman-un-nissa, purchased the property in suit from Asghar Ali Khan, defendant respondent No. 2, on the 14th of November, 1917. Soon after her purchase she made an application to the Revenue Court for mutation of names in her favour. The defendant appellant, Mukarram Ali Khan, who is a cousin of Asghar Ali Khan, objected to the mutation of names in favour of the vendee on the ground that the property in respect of which mutation of names was sought was waqf property, and hence the vendor of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 had no right to convey it.2. Both parties gave evidence and the claim of the plaintiff was decreed. The decree of the first court was upheld in appeal. Mukarram Ali Khan has come up in second appeal before us and contends that the property in suit was dedicated prior to 1854 to cer...
Jagannath Prasad Vs. Chhatur Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.308
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows: One Musammat Jainti Kunwar, a Hindu widow, executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of one Nand Ram on the 27th of April 1906, hypothecating by way of security the village of Karara. Two years afterwards, on the 12th of May 1908, she executed a deed of usufruotuary mortgage in favour of Jagannath Prasad for Rs. 3,000, hypothec eating by way of security the village of Karara, some other villages, and the mortgagee rights in four other villages. Under the terms of the said deed Jagannath Prasad was to pay of the mortgage of the 27th of April 1906, and the money for that purpose was left in his hands. Jagannath Prasad did not pay off the prior mortgagee. The latter sued on foot of his mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree under Section 88 on the 14th of December 1907, and a final decree on the 29th of August 1908. In order to satisfy the said decree and save the property from sale, Musammat Jainti Kunwar executed a...
Moti Ram Vs. E.H. Roowell and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All159; 76Ind.Cas.749
1. We entirely agree with the judgment of the learned Judge. It really could not have been better put than he has pat it. It is not necessary to follow him and speculate as to what would be the result under the Provincial Insolvency Act or under the English Law. It is sufficient to say that the mortgage in this case which was registered is not challenged as such. Before the insolvency, the Bank of Upper India were a secured creditor holding a legal charge upon the moveable property of the debtor. On the making of the order of adjudication against the debtor, property in his possession or ownership of within his order or disposition, under such circumstances as constituted him the reputed owner, vested in the Receiver, subject to the rights of a secured creditor. Sub-section (6) is as clear as it can possibly be, and provides unambiguously that no property over which a Secured creditor has a legal charge, shall be affected by any of the provisions in the sub-sections which precede it. T...
Sital Prasad Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All53; 69Ind.Cas.647
1. The first point taken in this appeal is that the lower Court had no right to determine the Question as to whether the defendant-appellant was a tenant of the land in suit on evidence other than the evidence afforded by the defendant's lease. We are of opinion that the lower Courts ware right in considering the correspondence that passe] between the parties as a whole in order to determine the question.2. The next point that arises is, whether the defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiff's title. In our opinion he is clearly estopped. Whatever may have been' the nature of his user of the land in question before the lease was executed, he clearly attorned to the plaintiff when ha executed the lease. In these circumstances the decree must stand. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. Anjuman-un-nissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.836
1. The only point which requires decision in the present appeal is whether the properly in dispute is wakf property or not. The plaintiff-respondent, Musammat-un-nissa, purchased the property in suit from Asghar Ali Khan, defendant-respondent No. 2 on the 14th November 1917. Soon after her purchase, she made an application to the Revenue Court for mutation of names in her favour. The defendant appellant, Mukarram Ali Khan, who is a cousin of Asghar Ali Khan, objected to the mutation of names in favour of the vendee on the ground that the property in respect of which mutation of names was sought was wakf property, and hence the vendor of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had no right to convey it.2. Both parties gave evidence and the claim of the plaintiff was decreed. The decree of the First Court was upheld in appeal. Mukarram Ali Khan has came up in second appeal before us and contends that the property in suit was dedicated prior to 1854 to certain charitable purposes and that the deci...
Durga Prasad Vs. Het Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All79; 77Ind.Cas.91
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. We have had to hear the appeal ex parte, the respondents having entered no appearance. So far as we can ascertain from the record before us, the appellant has a very strong case. The suit was one for partition and the parties had compromised it, to the extent, that they had agreed upon the form of the preliminary decree to be passed. What was left for the Court to do was to carry out in detail the division of the property concerned in accordance with the terms of the preliminary decree There was property situated in two different districts to be dealt with, and certain arrangements were made for the partition of the property in the Moradabad District to be carried out on commission. After sundry adjournment, a definite date, namely, 20th December 1920, was fixed for the return of the Commissioner's report and, no doubt by implication, for the consideration of that report by the Court in the presence of the ...
Chhatur Kunwar Vs. Jagannath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All149
Rafiq and Stuart, JJ.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows: One Musammat Jainti Kunwar, a Hindu widow, executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of one Nand Ram on the 27th of April, 1.906, hypothecating by way of security the village of Karara. Two years afterwards, on the 12th of May, 1908, she executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of Jagannath Prasad for Rs. 3,000, hypothecating by way of security the village of Karara, some other villages, and the mortgagee rights in four other villages. Under the terms of the said deed Jagannath Prasad was to pay off the mortgage of the 27th of April, 1906, and the money for that purpose was left in his hands, Jagannath Prasad did not pay off the prior mortgagee. The latter sued on foot of his mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree under Section 88 on the 14th of December, 1907, and a final decree on the 29th of August, 1908. In order to satisfy the said decree and save the property from sale, Musamma...
Asghar Ali Khan Vs. Bharat Indu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All148
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in an execution matter. In the form in which it comes before us, in consequence of the decision of the court below, it raises a simple question of law. On the 28th of May, 1921, an application for execution of a certain decree, which had been made on the 7th of April, 1920, was dismissed by the execution court on the ground that the decree-holder had failed to prosecute it with due diligence. On the 1st of June, 1921, the decree-holder presented to the court below an application, not described as falling under the provisions of any specified section or rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, but offering an explanation of the alleged default of prosecution and asking the court to restore the application of the 7th of April, 1920, to its file and to proceed with its disposal according to law. The court below has rejected his application on the ground that the provisions of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure have no applic...
Jhunwa and ors. Vs. the Municipal Board of Dhampur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All179; (1923)ILR45All267
Muhammad Rafiq and Stuart, JJ.1. The two appeals, Nos. 1625 of 1920 and 32 of 1921, are connected and arise out of one suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants against the Municipal Board of Dhampur and the lessee from the Board, for a declaration that the plaintiffs appellants were entitled to collect the carcases of dead animals within the Municipal Board of Dhampur and that the lease granted by the Municipal Board to Buddhan was invalid and inoperative against the plaintiffs and should be cancelled. They further asked-for damages and a perpetual injunction against the Board preventing them from issuing any fresh leases.2. The learned Munsif decreed the suit.3. On appeal the learned District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 326 of the Municipalities Act. There were two appeals before the learned District Judge as the Municipal Board and the lessee had filed separate appeals. Both the appeals were decreed by the (earned District Ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »