Allahabad Court November 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.
Nur Muhammad Veerjibhai Veelmahomed Vs. Natwar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All112; (1923)ILR45All220
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for specific performance brought in the name of Nur Muhammad Veerjibhai Veelmahomed, who asked for specific performance based upon a letter signed by the defendant, whereby, according to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to lease to the plaintiff a bone-crushing factory at Agra. In the court of the Subordinate Judge one of the questions which arose was whether, assuming there to be a contract, it had been made with the plaintiff or with the plaintiff's father. Ultimately the Subordinate Judge decided that the contract had been made with the plaintiff's father, and although there was an application by the plaintiff that the father should be joined as a co-plaintiff in order to get over any technical difficulty, and although it appeared that the father himself came from Bombay to the court to testify his willingness to become a plaintiff and signed an application which was made by a pleader so as to verify the statem...
Shibji Maharaj Birajman Vs. Darshan Lal and ors. and Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All215
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand, and the pleadings of the parties require to be carefully-studied if the particular point about which the courts below have differed is to be rightly appreciated. On the face of it, the suit is one brought by the idol, Shibji Maharaj, installed in a certain temple, suing as a juristic person, through Swami Lachhmi Nand, described as officiating priest and manager of the affairs of the temple. The persons impleaded is defendants arc alleged to be wrongfully appropriating the income of the property which should be devoted to the plaintiff. It is an accident of the particular suit that one of the defendants, Musammat Pawa, is the survivor of two ladies who executed a certain deed of endowment in favour of the plaintiff idol. This deed has been read to us. We understand it to mean that the temple was in existence and the plaintiff idol installed therein before the execution of this deed. In any case, therefore, the trust...
Aslah Khatun Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All63; 70Ind.Cas.70
1. This appeal arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents to enforce a mortgage if the 16th of September 1907, given by there persons to Lala Kedar Nath, a relation of the plaintiffs respondents. It appears that Mohammad Abdul Aziz, Mohammad Abdul Ghaffar and Mohammad Abdul Sattar executed as deed of mortgage on the 16th of September 1907 in favour of Lala Kedar Nath in lieu of Rs. 2,200. Subsequent to the mortgage, there was a partition in, the family of Lala Kedar Nath under which the deed in suit fell to the share of the plaintiffs respondents. Lala Kedar Nath died before the partition of the family property was completed and his widow. Musammat Gomti, was a party to the partition. One of the mortgagors, Mohammad Abdul Sattar, died sometime after the mortgage of 1907. The suit, out of, which this appeal, has arisen, was instituted on the 16th of August 1919, against the two surviving mortgagors, Mohammad Abdul Aziz and Mohammad Abdul Gaffar, and the legal representati...
Sita Ram Vs. Rewa Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All366; 71Ind.Cas.390
Stuart, J.1. There are two main points argued in this appeal. The first is that the mere recital in the deed of sale is not evidence. I think it is evidence in view of the decision in Nanda Lal Dhur Biswas v. Jagat Kiskore Acharjya Chowdhuri 36 Ind. Cas. 420 : 14 A.L.J. 1103 : 20 M.L.T. 535 : 31 M.L.J. 563 : (1916) 2 M.W.N. 336 : 4 L.W. 458 : 18 Bom. L.R. 868 : 24 C.L.J. 487 : 1 P.L.W. 1 : 21 C.W.N. 225 : 44 C. 186 : 10 Bur. L.T 177 : 43 I.A. 249 (P.C). But on the next point the appeal must succeed. It is this: The alienation was by a daughter to pay off her mother's debts. This is not a reason for an alienation which can operate against the interests of the reversioners. The learned Counsel for the respondents would uphold the decree on the point that the suit was barred by res judicata, a point which the lower Appellate Court has decided against them. I agree with the lower Appellate Court that the suit is not barred by res judicata for the obvious reason that the original suit was b...
Darshan Lal and ors. Vs. Shibji Maharaj Birajman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All120; 71Ind.Cas.420
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand, and the pleadings of the parties require to be carefully studied if the particular point about which the Courts below have differed is to be rightly appreciated. On the face of it, the suit is one brought by the idol, Shibji Maharaj, installed in a certain temple, suing as a juristic person, through Swami Lachhmi Nand, described as officiating priest and manager of the affairs of the temple. The persons impleaded as defendants are alleged to be wrongfully appropriating the income of the property which should be devoted to the plaintiff. It is an accident of the particular suit that one of the defendants, Musammat Pawa, is the survivor of two ladies who executed a certain deed of endowment in favour of the plaintiff idol. This deed has been read to us. We understand it to mean that the temple was in existence and the plaintiff idol installed therein before the execution of this deed. In any Case, therefore, the trust-deed about which the ...
Noor Mahomed Veerjibhai Veelmahomed Vs. Natwar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.452
1. This was a suit for specific performance brought in the name of Noor Mahomed Veerjibhai Veelmahomed, who asked, for specific performance based upon a letter signed by the defendant whereby, according to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to lease to the plaintiff a Bone Crushing Factory at Agra. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge one of the questions which arose was whether, assuming there to be a contract, it had been made with the plaintiff or with the plaintiff's father. Ultimately the Subordinate Judge decided that the contract had been made with the plaintiff's father, and although there was an application by the plaintiff that the father should be joined as a co-plaintiff in order to get over any technical difficulty, and although it appeared that the father himself came from Bombay to the Court to testify his willingness to become a plaintiff and signed an application which was made by a Pleader so as to verify the statements made therein, the learned Subordinate Judge re...
Chakkhan Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All118; 69Ind.Cas.921
1. This is an application in revision of a somewhat peculiar nature. We do not wish to go into unessential facts, but the following fasts require to be noted. On the 4th of January 1921 a plaint was filed ostensibly on a simple mortgage. The claim was for a large sum in excess of Rs. 20,000. On the 13th of July 1921 one of the defendants filed a written statement, a lengthy document, raising a large number of pleas. It was, however, an important part of the defendant's case that, by reason of certain facts stated by him, the plaintiff had become liable to him in damages for a sum which actually exceeded the amount of the claim. In the written statement the amount of this excess was put at Rs. 415, and, undoubtedly, the defendant Chakkhan Lal asked for a decree in his favour for this amount. He offered further to pay addition-al Court-fees if it should be found that a larger sum was due to him; but he contended all along that he was only liable to pay an ad valorem. Court-fee on snob su...
Mahadeo Vs. Ram Bharose and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All365; 75Ind.Cas.679
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are these:2. Ram Bharose and Chakkoo were the owners of a house and chaupal in the village of Marka in the Banda District. Some 8 or 9 years ago the house fell down. The land was not cleared, and the dilapidated house remained in possession of the plaintiffs. The defendant opened a door in his house which adjoins, facing on the dilapidated house in a manner which would interfere with the privacy of the occupants of the house when the house was re-built and again became occupied. The plaintiff's case is that in 1920 they commenced to repair the dilapidated house. The defendant interfered with their possession of the house and chaupal; hence the suit for possession of the dilapidated house and chaupal and for the closing of the door. The Munsif found that as the house had fallen down, the plaintiffs had lost all title therein, the ruin and the site having escheated to the zemindar; and he, therefore, dismissed the suit in...
Tulsi Ram Vs. Badri Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All203
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Pramada Charan Banerji and Rafiq, JJ.1. On the 20th of August, 1913, certain property in the village of Ghausganj Narayan was put up to auction. Badri Singh and Tulsi Ram bid on that occasion, and Tulsi Ram, asserting himself to be a co-sharer, capped each bid, as it was made, with a bid of a correspondingly equal sum, intending to exercise the preferential right which is accorded to a co-sharer under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 88. Badri Singh was prepared to pay Rs. 160 for the plot. So also was Tulsi Ram. A report was made of these circumstances and, in due course, the matter came up before the Collector of Bareilly, on the 24th of October, 1913, for the confirmation of the sale. In none of the courts was the document, which we are now about to read, laid before the courts. Mr. Damodar Das has furnished to us a certified copy of the actual order of the Collector. It is evident from that document that Tulsi Ram had been served with a notice that the matter...
Jhabbu and anr. Vs. Musammat Batul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All146; (1923)ILR45All208; 73Ind.Cas.299
Piggott, Walsh and Lindsay, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was under Section 146 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, No. II of 1901. As it has been disposed of upon a question of limitation and this is the only question before; us today for determination, we have to look narrowly at the frame of the plaint in order to see whether, on the allegations therein made, the plaintiffs were or were not seeking their remedy within the period prescribed by law. What the plaintiffs say is that they were lessees of one village arid the defendants lessees of another, and that there was bad blood between them because the plaintiffs had succeeded in securing a lease which the defendants were coveting. The plaintiffs had cut and stacked, from the land within the purview of their lease, a large quantity of thatching grass which (hey hoped to sell at a substantial profit. The defendants, it is alleged, wrongfully and maliciously levied a distraint, under colour of the provisions of Chap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »