Allahabad Court December 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.
Kabul Vs. Kabool Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All413; 79Ind.Cas.408
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for possession and removal of certain constructions alleged to have been made by the defendants who are ryots in the abadi on a plot of land which the zemindar alleges is his. The pleas taken in defence were that the plaintiff was not the owner of the plot and that the shop of the defendants was an old one and not liable to removal. The first Court found in favour of the defendants on both the points and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff went up in appeal and the lower Appellate Court issued a commission for the measurement of the plot in dispute and to make an enquiry whether it belonged to the plaintiff or not and also whether the building put up by the defendants was old or new. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, after having considered the report of the' Commissioner along with the other evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the plot in dispute came to the plaintiff's share in a-partit...
Sakat Mul and ors. Vs. Musammat Katori, Minor Through Daulat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All265; 71Ind.Cas.376
1. This is an appeal in a Succession Certificate matter. The circumstances are a good deal more complicated than any one reading the judgment of the Court below would suppose, and, in the interests of the parties themselves, it is as well that we should set them out in some little detail. One Kalyan Das died in the month of March 1920. He left behind him a Will under which he appointed three of his nephews, the sons of two previously deceased brothers, to be executors of his estate, with large powers in the matter of realization of outstanding debts. This Will was propounded by the executors in the month of Match 1921, and Probate of the same has been granted by the District Court. Kalyan Das had a daughter named Musammat Teji, who predeceased him. This daughter had a son named Makhan Lai, and one question about which the parties to this appeal are at issue, but which we do not propose to determine, is, whether Makhan Lai was or was not adopted by Kalyan Das. The said Makhan Lal died o...
Sahu Nand Ram Vs. Musammat Hira Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All249; 73Ind.Cas.495
1. This was a suit about certain alluvial land situated on the river Ganges where that river forms the boundary between the Revenue Districts of Moradabad and Meerut. The plaintiff is a land-holder of a village called Bisaoli in the Moradabad District. The contesting defendants are land-holders of a village known as Mauza Raiba Nad Alipur, in the Meerut District. The river Ganges admittedly flows between the two villages. The plaintiff's case is that certain proceedings in the Revenue Courts resulted in a considerable area of land, which belonged to him and was in his possession as proprietor of village Bisaoli, being recorded in the revenue papers as appertaining to Mauza Raiba Nad Alipur. A consequence of this was that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants, who are proprietors of that village. The suit was contested on a variety of grounds and it must be conceded that the defendants did, at the very outset, impeach the jurisdiction of the Moradabad Court to try the suit Th...
Ali Ahmad and ors. Vs. Kishan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.289
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit for possession and profits brought by the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff claims under a sale-deed in his favour by Johari made in the year 1912. The defendants deny the title of the plaintiff or his transferor and plead title in themselves and possession for more than 12 years. The First Court, in a careful judgment and after giving the parties the fullest opportunity of producing evidence, came to a conclusion adverse to the plaintiffs. I have read the whole of the order-sheet in the case very carefully, and I was led to do so because of the remark in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court that the suit was tried very perfunctorily by the Munsiff and this led to the admission of the additional evidence in appeal. The lower Appellate Court examined two new witnesses and admitted three documents as additional evidence when the case was before it in appeal. There might be some excuse for examining the tw...
Deoki Dube and ors. Vs. Uma Dat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All369; 71Ind.Cas.292
Stuart, J.1. The facts in the connected Second Appeals Nos. 546 and 547 of 1921 can be stated very shortly: The plaintiffs-appellants in these two appeals are Deoki Dube and others. They lay claim to 8 biswas and 12 dhurs in one mahal and 5 biswas and 14 dhurs in another mahal. They are co-sharers in the village Narhi Buzurg. The defendants are also co-sharers. The dispute arose in this manner. In 1913 one of the defendants applied for an imperfect partition of the village under the provisions of Chapter VII, Local Act III of 1901. The plaintiffs joined in the application, and during those proceedings they laid claim as proprietors to the plots in question. Their proprietary title was questioned. A situation then arose, such as is contemplated in section in of the Act, and it was open to the Revenue Court to postpone decision until the question of proprietary title had 'been decided by a competent Civil Court, or to force the parties into a Civil Court within three months for determina...
Nanoo Vs. Emperor Through the Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All483; 71Ind.Cas.359
Piggott, J.1. The District Magistrate of Agra has referred for the orders of this Court the records of eight cases in which accused persons belonging to the sweeper caste residing within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Agra have been convicted under Section 299 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, No. II of 1916, for keeping pigs within the limits of the Municipality without a license and contrary to the provisions of local bye-laws lawfully promugated for that purpose. The main point taken by the District Magistrate in his Referring Order is, that the prosecution had been instituted under such circumstances that one of the Honorary Magistrates sitting on the Bench which tried the case, was personally interested in the success of the prosecution within the meaning of Section 556, Criminal Procedure Code, or was a party to the prosecution, in the sense that he had caused it to be instituted. I think the explanation of the Magistrate concerned on this point is satisfactory...
Shambhu Dyal Singh and ors. Vs. Iswar Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All306; 75Ind.Cas.597
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the litigation out of which this appeal arises afford some indication of the hardness of the way of the decree-holder in India. Ram Richpal Singh is the father of two sons, Shambhu Dayal Singh and Girja Dayal Singh. They were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mirakshara Law. Shambhu Dayal Singh was born about 1908, Girja Dayal Singh was born about 1910. Before they were born, the father, Ramrichpal Singh, commenced borrowing money from the Kayasth Trading Company, Gorakhpur. He continued borrowing money and in 1913, when Shambhu Dayal Singh was five and Girja Dayal Singh was three, he executed a promissory- note for Rs. 2,028, and in 1914 executed a second promissory-note for Rs. 350 in favour of the same Company. In 1916 the Company obtained a decree on the first promiss ry-note and sold the decreeholder's rights under that decree together with this second promissory note to Munshi Chhotu Lal. Munshi Chhotu Lal subsequently obtained a decree on ...
Ram Dayal Vs. Mithoo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All410; 71Ind.Cas.287
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a zemindari share belonging to one Nand Ram as purchaser of the property from the reversioner of Nand Rani. It appears that Nand Ram died some time ago leaving a widow Musammat Gaura and a brother's daughter Musammat Chunna. On the 16th of October 1916 Musammat Gaura made a gift of the property in dispute to her husband's brother's daughter Musammat Chunna. Gaura died in October 1919 and Manbhawan was at that time the next reversioner to the estate of Nand Ram. He has sold the property in dispute to the plaintiff. Musammat Chunna has also died and her husband, the defendant No. 1, Muthu Lal, is in possession of the property. The plaintiff now brings the suit for possession. The points taken in defence were (1) that the gift by Musammat Gaura was in pursuance of the Will of her husband Nand Ram, and (2) that Manbhawan had assented to the gift in mutation proceedings and taken Rs. 50 and that the plai...
Dina Singh and ors. Vs. Lala Devi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All263; 71Ind.Cas.529
1. In this case a zemindar sued Dina Singh and others for the recovery of possession of a house, the materials of which are said to be of the value of Rs. 300 and, the house as a standing house presumably of the value of about Rs. 1,000. The zemindar claimed the house shortly after the death of one Teku Sonar, who was admittedly in possession and in whose family the house had been for a number of years. The house was said in the plaint to have been erected prior to the Settlement of 1867; but of that no evidence was given at the trial. The zemindar alleged that the defendants were not the heirs of Teku, and he set up a further ground of claim, namely, that he had a right, in accordance with the terms of the Wajib-ul-arz of 1867, to resume possession of any piece of ground upon which a house might have been built at any time that he liked arbitrarily, and that he could do that leaving only to the dispossessed house-holder the right of removing the materials. The allegation that the defe...
Kannu Mal and anr. Vs. Indrapal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All147; (1923)ILR45All273
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal, under the Letters Patent, has been brought in consequence of a difference of opinion, between two learned Judges of this Court. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover money due upon their own mortgage and to redeem an earlier mortgage. The controversy before us relates to the claim for redemption of the earlier mortgage. The mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs was made on the 7th of September, 1913, and it provided that the mortgagee should withhold, out of the consideration for the mortgage, Rs. 2,425 payable upon an earlier mortgage of 1910. On the 24th of September, 1913, the present plaintiffs made an application to the court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, and offered to deposit Rs. 2,425 mentioned above as the amount due to the prior mortgagees. The actual deposit was made the following day. Two of the mortgagees happened to be minors, and an application was made to appoint a guard...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »