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.
Badri Singh Vs. Tulsi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All186; 79Ind.Cas.82
1. On the 20th of August 1913, certain property in the village of Ghaus-ganj Narayan was put up to auction, Badri Singh and Tulsi Earn bid on that occasion, and Tulsi Earn, 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 Ordre XXI, Rule 88. Badri Singh Was prepared to pay Rs. 160 for the plot. So also was Tulsi Bam. 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 would be heard and determined on the 24th of October. Tuls...
Kamal Khan Vs. Nizamuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All123; 71Ind.Cas.412
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Kamal Khan on a pro-note executed by Nizamuddin and Khairati. The pro-note is dated the nth January 1918 for a sum of Rs. 240 and carried interest at a rate amounting to something like Rs. 150 per cent, per annum.2. The defence to the suit was that the pro-note was not executed in favour of the plaintiff, Kamal Khan, but in the name of one Alam Khan and that the pro-note has been altered by changing 'Alam Khan' into 'Kamal Khan'. The First Court decreed the suit, but, on appeal, the learned District Judge found as a fact that the pro-note was originally written in favour of 'Alam Khan' and that name has been altered into 'Kamal Khan' and he held that this was a material alteration within the meaning of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act such as would render the promissory-note void. We must accept the finding of fact, namely, that originally the name 'Alam Khan' was written on the pro-note and that it has been changed into 'Kamal...
Keshri and ors. Vs. Bhawani Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All456; 76Ind.Cas.473
1. This second appeal reveals extraordinary delay in this litigation. The plaintiffs brought a suit for redemption of a mortgage and mesne profits, in the Court of the Munsif of Ballia as long ago as 1914. According to the Munsif, the plaintiffs failed to prove their title, and consequently the suit was dismissed. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned District Judge, on the 26th January 1916, remanded the case to the Munsif for trial on the merits. The Munsif, on the 12th September 1916, gave the plaintiffs a decree for redemption and mesne profits but directed that 'the identity of the plots and the amount of the profits should be determined hereafter in the execution department.' On appeal the learned District Judge, on the 16th May 1918, sent the case back to the Munsif to decide the identity of the plots mortgaged and dismissed so much of the suit as related to mesne profits. From this order an appeal was filed to the High Court. On the 29th July 1919, this Court allowed the app...
Ram Sarup and ors. Vs. NaraIn Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All141; (1923)ILR45All198; 69Ind.Cas.944
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a decree-holders appeal in an execution matter. Technical questions of law have been raised on both sides, for the determination of which it is necessary to examine carefully and in detail the proceedings of the court below from the date of the institution of the [suit to the passing of the order under appeal. The suit was one on a mortgage. It was instituted on the 12th of December, 1916, and there were a large number of defendants. The case came before the trial court on the 2nd of March, 1917, when it was found that only one defendant, named Nanhu, bad entered an appearance. Service on all the other defendants was found to have been sufficient and an order was passed that the hearing of the suit would continue ex parte as against all these other defendants. Nanhu applied for time, and, it appears, that the hearing of the suit was considerably delayed on this man's application. We are told that the reason for this was that Nanhu was absent on field se...
Bhagwan Das Vs. Mangalia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All540; (1923)ILR45All196; 71Ind.Cas.416
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In the year 1915 Musammat Mangalia was appointed guardian of the person and property of her minor son, Ganga Prasad. In the year 1920 Bhagwan Das, father-in-law of the minor, applied for the removal of Musammat Mangalia from the guardianship both of the person and of the property, making a number of allegations against her, On this application, it so happened that two successive orders were passed by officers holding the District Judgeship of Cawnpore, and one of these orders came before this Court, in appeal, in the year 1921. As to the effect of these orders, we entertain no doubt. Musammat Mangalia was removed from the guardianship of the property of the minor and Bhagwan Das was appointed in her place. The court refused to remove her from the guardianship of the person of the minor. On the 16th of February, 1922, Bhagwan Das presented to the District Judge the application out of which this appeal arises. It is curiously drafted and seems to ignore the resul...
Kuldip Chaube and anr. Vs. Jagnandan Chaube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All363; 71Ind.Cas.299
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiffs for exclusive possession of plot No. 248 which they alleged was their khudkasht land and from which the defendants had wrongfully ejected them. The defendants pleaded that the land belonged to a joint khata and the plaintiffs had wrongfully brought the suit for exclusive possession.2. The first Court held that the land was not the khudkasht of the plaintiffs, but as it formed part of a joint khata the plaintiffs were entitled to a joint possession and decreed the claim for joint possession.3. On appeal the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the land had been in possession of the plaintiffs and their father for 19 years and was their khudkasht. On this finding he decreed the appeal and gave the plaintiffs a decree for exclusive possession as prayed. The defendants come here in second appeal and say that the sole remedy of the plaintiffs was to have a partition made by the Revenue Courts as co-sharers. I do not see why ...
Kumar Sainthwar Vs. Bishun Mohan Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.651
1. Bodhai, who is an occupancy tenant, mortgaged his occupancy holding for Rs. 99, in favour of one Bachchan Saithwar, on the 31st March 1896. On the 10th June 1922 Bodhai relinquished his holding in favour of the zemindars-respondents. The zemindars then sued to eject the mortgagees, and, although they got a decree, failed to execute it, with the result that the mortgagees remained in possession.2. The zemindars then brought a suit to redeem the mortgage and they got a decree, the Courts below, allowing them to redeem the mortgage on payment of Rs. 523 within the time stated in the decree of the Courts below.3. The mortgagees appeal. Three points have been taken.(1) That the relinquishment of Bodha was in favour only of some of the zemindars of the village and was not a complete relinquishment. This, point was not taken in the written statement. No issue was raised upon it and, of course, no evidence was led on the subject. It is taken for the first time in appeal and there are no mat...
Nur-ud-dIn Ahmad Vs. Abdul Ghafur and ors. and Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All193
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting and important point on the question of jurisdiction. One Ahmad Said had married a lady, Roquaiat-un-nissa, whose dower was said to have been fixed at Rs. 60,000. She had a brother named Nur-ud-din Ahmad, and the lady having died on the 29th of August, 1907, and the husband having died on the 10th of December, 1919, Nur-ud-din Ahmad brought a claim against the persons in possession of the estate of the deceased husband for one-half of the dower debt, namely, Rs. 80,000. The marriage took place at Kakori in the Luck-now district; the parties lived at Kakori; and the wife died at Kakori. On the 3rd of August, 1920, the present suit was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad, and, on an examination of the plaint, the defendants noticed that the addresses of Abdul Ghafur and Abdul Samad were, as they contended, intentionally false in order to found jurisdiction in the court of the Sub...
Abdul Ghafur and ors. Vs. NuruddIn Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All137; 71Ind.Cas.411
1. This appeal raises an interesting and important point on the question of jurisdiction. One Ahmad Said had married a lady, Roquaiat-un-nisa, whose dower was said to have been fixed at Rs. 60,000. She had a b other named Nur Uddin Ahmad, and the lady having died on the 29th of August 1907 and the husband having died on the 10th of December 1919, Nur Uddin Ahmad brought a claim against the persons in possession of the estate of the deceased husband for one-half of the dower-debt, namely, Rs. 30,000. The marriage took place at Kakori in the Lucknow District; the parties lived at Kakori; and the wife died at Kakori. On the 3rd of August 1920 the present suit was filed n the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad, and, on an examination o the plaint, the defendants noticed, that the addresses of Abdul Ghafur and Abdul Samad were, as they contended, intentionally false in order to found jurisdiction in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Farrukhabad; and they further alleged that ...
Ram Prasad and anr. Vs. Sumer Nath Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All134; (1923)ILR45All191
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit, out of which this appeal arises, are these. The plaintiff, Ganpat Pnnde, instituted a suit, in the court of the Munsif of Muhammadabd, on the allegation that he was the owner and possessor of a certain grove in the village Ohak Raham Ali. He stated that during the year 1916 the defendants had erected a shed in the grove for the purpose of their residence while plague was raging in the village and that, owing to the kindling of tires by the defendants dangerously near the trees, some five trees in his grove had been partly burnt down, and that, subsequently, the good wood of these trees, which had been left intact by the fire, had been appropriated by the defendants. Ho sued accordingly for the following relief; (we take this from the. translation of his plaint):That his right may be established, and it may be declared that the five burnt trees in grove No. 57/3, comprising 8 biswas 4 dhurs, together with other in Chak Raham A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »