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.
Lakhu and ors. Vs. Sardar Lal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All399; 71Ind.Cas.265
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of an enclosute and Rs. 10 as damages on account of the cutting down by the defendants of two plum trees, and for an injunction.2. The plaintiffs are the Zemindars of the village in which the land in dispute is situate. Their allegation was that the defendants had taken wrongful possession of the plot hi dispute and had cut down certain trees; hence the suit.3. The defence of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 was that they had been in possession of the land in dispute for more than 12 yeans, that the cattle troughs which stood on the laud were very old ones and that they had not cut down the of 1 trees.4. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was situated within the ambit of the plaintiffs' land, that the defendants had been in possession for more than 12 years and that the trees cut were worth Rs. 5 only. In the result it dismissed the claim.5. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has agreed w...
Lala Khunnu Mal and anr. Vs. Indarpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All183; 71Ind.Cas.278
P.C. 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 guardian ad litem to the minors. Notice could no...
Khan Bahadur Mohammad Asghar Ali Khan Vs. Rammon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All378; 71Ind.Cas.432
Stuart, J.1. Second Appeals Nos. 712 713, 714, 715 and 716 of 1921 all raise the same points. They have been argued together and can be decided in the same judgment. The plaintiff who is the appellant in all these appeals is a Muhammadan gentleman of Bareilly who is the zemindar of the village of Nathua Rampura. He asserts, as against certain tenants in the village, his right by immemorial custom to certain dues. The dues in question according to his allegations were payable in kind and varied in the case of the different tenants.2. In Appeal No. 712 he claims that Rammon Brahmin was under an obligation to supply him annually with 100 cow-dung cakes of the value of 4 annas and a bundle of chaff of the value of Re. 1.3. In Appeal No. 713 he claims that Jhunna Lal Brahmin was under an obligation to supply him annually with 200 cow-dung cakes of the value of Re. 1 and two bundles of chaff of the value of Rs. 2.4. In Appeal No. 714 he claims that Raghu-nandan and Ram Sahai Brahmins were un...
Emperor Vs. Allu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All272
Stuart, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge has misapprehended the scope of the section. An accused person who, during the hearing of a case, makes an impertinent threat to a witness in the box, has clearly committed an offence under Section 228. I refuse to interfere and return the papers....
Abdullah Khan and anr. Vs. Mahbubullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All485; 76Ind.Cas.556
Ryves, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed on the 26th of February 1903, for Rs. 60 by Musammat Tissa, the widow of Assu Khan, and by one Azim Kuan. Musammat Tissa executed the mortgage on her own behalf and as guardian of the appellants here who were her minor sons. Azim Khan executed it as guardian of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 with whom we are not concerned.2. The suit was contested only by the appellants here. They denied the execution of the deed and also denied the authority of their mother to hypothecate their property.3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal the learned District Judge of Mainpuri decreed it. He held that Musammat Tissa was the de facto guardian of the minors and he also held that as their mother she had to maintain them and goes on to say: 'If she contracted the debt in order to maintain them I think it is binding on the minors.' What he actually holds is that she had a right to make the mortgage, and...
Jhinku Singh Vs. Sital Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All263; 74Ind.Cas.134
Piggott, J.1. As the order we propose to pass at present will not finally dispose of this application, we need not say more than is absolutely necessary to make our order clear to the lower court. In a suit, in which certain minor plaintiffs were suing through their next friend, there was a reference to arbitration. An award was returned in favour of the plaintiffs. The contesting defendant filed an affidavit of objections, assailing the-award upon a great variety of grounds. The court had fixed a certain date for hearing these objections. Before that date arrived, an application was made orally to the court to the effect; that the parties were agreed together that the arbitration award, in favour of the plaintiffs, should be set aside and a fresh reference made to the arbitration of two persons who were counsel a appearing for the respective parties. We have it from a subsequent order of the trial court that the learned Subordinate Judge thought that he had no option, upon such an app...
Priya Lal Vs. Bohra Champa Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All268; 79Ind.Cas.498
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows: Daya Ram made a mortgage of two properties to Jia Lal, now represented by the defendants, on the 1st of October, 1875. He made a second mortgage of one of the properties to Durga Prasad, now represented by the plaintiff, on the 8th of September, 1877. On the 28th of November, 1878, Durga Prasad sued on his mortgage, without impleading Jia Lal, the prior mortgagee, and obtained a decree for sale. In execution of this decree he purchased the property on the 20th of June, 1879, and on the 29th of July, 1891, he obtained formal possession.2. On the 15th of March, 1889, Jia Lal, the prior mortgagee, brought a suit on his mortgage, but did not implead the puisne mortgagee, Durga Prasad, in the suit. He obtained a decree and in execution of his decree purchased the property on the 20th of February, 1891, and, later on, obtained possession. The position of affairs on that date was that the prior mortga...
Syed Shamshul Hasan and ors. Vs. Syed Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.296
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which these two appeals arise are these: The plaintiffs are the sons of Saiyid Muhammad Hussain, deceased. Their mother Khedijatul Kubra, the wife of Muhammad Hussain, died on the 29th of November 1906. They sue the estate of their deceased father for their share of their mother's dower. Their suit gas been dismissed by the learned District Judge in appeal on the ground that Khadijatul Kubra had relinquished all claim to dower in favour of her deceased husband and that the suit was time barred. The plaintiffs appeal here.2. I need not go into the second point, as, in my opinion, they fail on the first, on the findings of fact of the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court believed the evidence of a woman called Musammal Thanmian who was married to Muhammad Hussain's cousin. According' to this witness she was present at the time that Khadijatul Kubra relinquished her claim to dower in favour of her husband. The circumstances were these:...
Musammat Durga and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.596
Stuart, J.1. On the findings of both the Courts below, Musammat Durga and Sia Ram are the licensees of a certain piece of land in Farrukhabad town upon which a kacha puckka house has been constructed, and the plaintiffs are the licensors of that land. In a previous suit; Durga denied the plaintiff's title Sia Ram did not. Durga also executed a usufructuary mortgage, under which, however, possession was not given. The plaintiffs then sued for a declaration that the usufructuary mortgage was inoperative against their title to the lard and for the ejectment of the defendants. The Trial Court granted them a declaration that the usufructuary mortgage was inoperative and that Durga had lost her right to residence but refused ejectment.2. The lower Appellate Court granted both reliefs. The defendants appeal here.3. It is quite clear that the defendants, Durga and Sia Ram, are licensees. Apart from the fact that Sia Ram never deried the plaintiff's title, it is settled law in this Court that a...
Girja Nand Vs. His Highness the Maharaja Parbhu NaraIn Singh, Kashi Na ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All398; 75Ind.Cas.605
Ryves, J.1. This appeal raises a point which, so far as I know, is a novel one. The suit was brought in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Benares under Section 96 of the Agra Tenancy Act. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had been a thekadar of Mouza Udaychandpur under H.H. the Maharaja of Benares; that his theka was about to expire and negotiations were entered into between him and State officials for the purchase of a permanent lease of this mauza. It was agreed on behalf of the Maharaja that a permanent lease should be granted and certain sums of money were paid into the Treasury by the plaintiff in accordance with the contract. There is some dispute apparently as to the nature of this payment which is described as amaner, or deposit. It is then alleged that the village was sold to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and that the plaintiff had previously given notice to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 or the contract ertered into between the Maharaja and himself for the permanent le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »