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.
Bhagwati Shukul Vs. Ram Jatan Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All297
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Stuart, J.1. We are of opinion that the learned Judge decided this case rightly. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal....
Kharidar Kapra Company Vs. Rukmanand Ramdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All139; 71Ind.Cas.144
1. This is a first appeal from an order of remand. The question for determination was whether the suit was to be tried out on the merits by the First Court; or whether the parties were bound by a subsisting agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration. The lower Appellate Court has given very strong reasons for its view that, under Section 19 of the Arbitration Act, the defendant, who is the appellant now before us, having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and not having pleaded the agreement to submit to arbitration at the earliest possible moment as required by law, was'precluded from relying upon this objection. We are satisfied that the lower Appellate Court was right and we dismiss this appeal with costs....
Babu NobIn Chandra Bose and anr. Vs. Bandi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.370
Ryves, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to eject the defendant from a house on the allegation that the defendant is a tenant-at-will only and that as he refuses to pay enhanced rent the plaintiff is entitled to eject him.2. The defendant claims that the land in suit was let to his predecessors 60 or more years ago to build upon, on the understanding that the lease would be a permanent one.3. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit. It has been found that there was an enclosure (ahata) in Cawnpore which belonged to the predecessor of the plaintiff. This enclosure was let out to tenants for building purposes on, small rent. This fact is practically admitted in the second paragraph of the plaint.4. It appears in evidence that there are now some 114 tenants who have got houses in this enclosure. The plaintiff naively in his plaint explains why he brought the suit. He says that, on the one hand, he has to pay additional taxes to the Municipality and, on t...
Mahabir Chaube and ors. Vs. Dip NaraIn Chaube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All140; 76Ind.Cas.862
1. The holders of a certain occupancy holding mortgaged their rights with possession before the passing of the present Tenancy Act. After they had done so, they took a permanent lease of the holding from the zemindar and transferred their rights under the lease to a certain person who proceeded to redeem the mortgage. A learned Judge of this Court has held that he had a right to redeem the mortgage. We agree with this view. It is clear that the occupancy tenancy determined when a permanent lease came into being. But it was not open to the lessees, under the permanent lease or their transferees, to render the mortgage null and void as against the mortgagees. It was, however, open for them or their transferees to redeem the mortgage. This is what the learned Judge has decided. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Ganeshi Lal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All88; 71Ind.Cas.507
Stuart, J.1. The main point taken in these revisions is, that the trial of the owner or keeper of a common gaming house, under Section 3 of Act III of 1867, together with the trial of persons found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in such house under Section 4, in one trial, is illegal. It is always necessary to justify a joint trial and to point out the provisions under which it can be held. The separate trial is the rule, the joint trial is the exception, and this trial can only be justified if the provisions of Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code have application. It must be found that tie persons tried together were accused of different offences committed in the same transaction. The words 'same transaction' are not de-lined in the Code. It would be hardly possible to define them satisfactorily, and, in arriving at what is the meaning of those words, a Court has to look for guidance to the illustrations to Section 235 remembering that those illustrations are not e...
Somi Vs. Ram NaraIn and Jai Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All189
Stuart and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff respondent, who is the purchaser of the property in dispute under a prior mortgage decree, to which the defendants appellants were ho parties, has a right to eject the defendants, the purchasers in execution of a decree, based on a puisne mortgage, to which the prior mortgagees were no parties. It appears that in the year 1910 the second mortgagees obtained a decree on foot of their mortgage for sale of the property and purchased the property on the 20th of April, 1912, in execution of such decree. To this suit the prior mortgagee was not made a party. In the year 1916 the prior mortgagee got a decree for sale on foot of her mortgage, but to this suit neither the puisne mortgagee nor ih.2 purchaser in execution of his decree were made parties. The prior mortgagee got a decree and put the property to sale and, in execution thereof, purchased it herself. She has obtained possession over three-fourths...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Somi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.277
1. The only question im this appeal is, whether the plaintiff-respondent, who is the purchaser of the property in dispute under a prior mortgage-decree, to which the defendants-appellants were no parties, has a right to eject the defendants, the purchasers in execution of a decree, based on a puisne mortgage, to which the prior mortgagees were no parties. It appears that in the year 1910 the second mortgagees obtained a decree on foot of their mortgage for sale of the property and purchased the property on the 20th of April 1912, in execution of such decree. To this suit the prior mortgagee was not made a party. In the year 1916 the prior mortgagee got a decree for sale on foot of her mortgage, but to this suit neither the puisne mortgagee nor the purchaser in execution of his decree were, made parties. The prior mortgagee got a decree and put the property to sale and, in execution there of, purchased it herself. She has obtained possession over three-fourths of the property and has no...
Ram Kishun Ram Vs. North-western Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All122; 77Ind.Cas.1020
1. The facts of the suit out of which the present appeal arises are these: The plaintiff-appellant, Ram Kishun Ram, gave an order to a firm of brokers at Ballia, called Chunni Lal Ganpat Rai, to obtain for him 184 bags of flour from Amballa. The brokers placed the order with a firm at Amballa who complied with it by loading 184 bags at tie Amballa Railway Station of the Noth-Western Railway and consigning them, at reduced rata to Ballia. It is. admitted by the North-Western Railway and the Bengal and North-Western Railway Companies, who were co-defendants in the suit, that the consignment, instead of being despatched to Ballia was despatched to Bally. Ballia is the headquarters of a District in the United Provinces some 88 miles from Benares Cantonment, by the narrow gauge system of the Bengal and North-Western Railway. Bally is small town six miles from Calcutta, and about 424 miles from Benares by the broad gauge system of the Oudh and Rohlkhand Railway and the East Indian Railway. T...
Ram Gajadhar and ors. Vs. Musammat Surtani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All343; 71Ind.Cas.381
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which the present appeal arises are as follows: The plaintiffs are Brahmans. They apparently have an occupancy holding. The defendant appears to be a widow of their family to whom had been assigned 14 biswas of land (about half an acre) out of the occupancy holding on payment of a trifle as rent for her maintenance during her life. As far as I can gather, beyond this tiny plot she has no means of support. It appears to be the case that after having given this widowed woman this plot for her maintenance the plaintiffs have endeavoured on more than one occasion to oust her from it. They instituted a suit for her ejectment in the Rent Court. The Rent Court found that she could not be ejected under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act on the grounds that she did not hold as a tenant from year to year and that she did not hold under a lease the term of which had expired or was about to expire, or that she had refused to accept a lease. They then endavoured...
Krishna Datt Dube Vs. Brij Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All269; 80Ind.Cas.313
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the proprietor of a plot of land on which there is standing a grove. The first seven defendants are in possession of the said plot and of the trees thereon, with the rights of grove-holders. The finding is that these defendants sold two standing trees for Rs. 50 to defendant No. 8 who felled the trees and removed the timber. The plaintiff claims that, by village custom as recognised in the wajib-ul-arz he is entitled to 1/4 of the price. It is quite clear from the pleading and from the Judgment of the Court below that both parties were agreed that the local custom determining the rights inter se of the proprietor of the soil and the grove-holders, in respect of the grove in suit, was correctly recorded in the wajib-ul-arz and that both parties were bound by that record. The only question remaining for determination was the interpretation of the relevant entry in the Wajib-ul-arz considered in its bearing on the established facts of this case....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »