Allahabad Court February 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.
Shib Dayal and anr. Vs. Jagannath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.812
Mears, C.J.1. In this case the appellant applied under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and asked that a time barred appeal night be heard on the ground that there was 'sufficient cause' for his having failed to comply with the rules When a second appeal is presented to this Court, there is no doubt that the copy of the First Court's judgment and a copy of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court must be filed. The appellant waited until almost the last day for the admission of his appeal, and then, on May 2nd, 1921, filed the judgment and decree only of the lower Appellate Court. The last day of limitation expired on May 3rd, 1921. The appellant having learnt that tie appeal could not be admitted without the judgment of the First court subsequently obtained it and then asked that time should be extended and the appeal admitted. It is stated that his failure to comply with the rules was due to the error of the Vakil, in the district who had informed him that the judgment and...
Bhatele Chunni Lal Vs. Chakarpan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All380
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The object of the suit out of which this appeal arises was to set aside an auction sale, held on the 20th of July, 1915, of property belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants impleaded were the auction-purchaser and the decree-holders at whose instance the property was sold. The plaintiff came into court with serious allegations of fraud against the defendants. We must not be understood to hold that on the allegations made the suit was not maintainable. As a matter of fact, however, there was no evidence worth discussing of any fraud on the part of the defendants. On the contrary, it was clear that the plaintiff had knowledge of the execution proceedings and an opportunity of being heard in the execution court. Practically all that was really contended in the court below was that the property in suit, being in fact ancestral property, had been wrongly sold as non-ancestral. In the first place, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the court below on the question of ...
Tan Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Mulla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All57; 66Ind.Cas.582
1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are that Mulla Kachi has been in possesion of three plots Nos. 1594/1, 1594/2 and 1601 situated in Shahjahanpur Cantonments for over 20 years before the date of suit. He has been cultivating these plots which are of an aggregate area of about half an acre. He put abated the plot by three sale-deeds, the first of the 10th of January 1895, the Second of the 20th of July 1896 and the third of the 14th of August 1896. On the evidence, he has never paid any rent in respect of these plots and his title to occupy the tame was never challenged until the institution of the present proceedings. It would appear that in the year 1911 Babu Shimbhu Narain was appointed as Record Officer for the Shabjahanpur Cantonments, Until this appointment, Mulla had been entered as proprietor of plots Nos. 1594 I and 1594-2, other persons being recorded as proprietors of No. 1601, Babu Shimbhu Narain altered the entry and declared Mulla to be a tenant, Mul...
Bhatelay Chunni Lal Vs. Chakkerpan Auction Purchaser and Pahalwan Sing ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All56; 67Ind.Cas.934
1. The object of the suit, out of which this appeal arises, was to set aside an auction-sale, held on the 20th of July 1915, of property belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants impleaded were the auction-purchaser and the decree-holders at whose instance the property was sold. The plaintiff came into Court with serious allegations of fraud against the defendants. We must not be understood to hold that, on the allegations made, the suit was not maintainable. As a matter of fast, however, there was no evidence worth discussing of any fraud on the part of the defendants. On the contrary, it was clear that the plaintiff had knowledge of the execution proceedings and an opportunity of being heard in the Execution Court. Practically all that was really contended in the Court below was that the property in suit, being in fact ancestral property, had been wrongly sold as non-ancestral. In the first place, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the Court below on the question of fact as to the natu...
Munshi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All21; 66Ind.Cas.184
1. This is an application in revision against a conviction under Section 60 of the U. P. Excise Act (IV of 1910). I might say at once that, in my opinion, (subject to such authorities as may have been decided to the contrary whish are binding upon me in particular illustrations), as a general rule, a conviction under a Section, which provides a penalty for a variety of acts done in contravention of the Statute, is bad for duplicity where the section contains a variety of inconsistent alternatives. To take one simple example, in my opinion, to convict a man simply of an offence under Section 60 (a) would be bad for duplicity, because it might mean a conviction either for importing or for exporting, and it is impossible for a man to do both in the same act. Importing is defined by Section 3 of the Act as bringing into the United Provinces, and exporting is defined as taking cut of the United Provinces, and it is a physical impossibility for anybody to do these two things by the came act....
NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All217; 66Ind.Cas.62
1. The following fasts are admitted. Dawan and Budhan Singh were brothers. Dawan died leaving him surviving a widow, Musammat Kbaira, and two daughters, the Musammats Kalwanta and Maktola. On his death his widow's name was recorded against half the property that bad originally belonged to Ranjit Singh, the father of the above mentioned brothers. Bud ban had two wiver, Musammats Palti and Samarkba, and by the letter a daughter Musammat Jagta who was the mother of Raj Kumar Singh plaintiff No. 1, and two other sons who are now dead, who were also plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs (who are all minors) brought this suit on the allegation that the two brothers, Dawan and Budhan, were joint, and that on the death of Dawan, Budhan succeeded to the whole property by right of survivorship, and that Musammat Khaira's (Dawan's window's) name was recorded against half only for her consolation. After her death, and Budhan'a death, the names of his widows were recorded against the entire family property....
Raja Partab Singh and anr. Vs. Manpal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All376
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a certain cultivatory holding. The plaintiffs came to court on the allegations that one Nanhe Singh, who owned a large area of occupancy holding and fixed rate holding, died about 1868, that after him his widow Musammat Nankai entered into possession of the occupancy holding as a life-tenant with limited rights only, that she made a gift of the said property to Manpal Singh, defendant, and his, wife, in the year 1893, that she being only a life-tenant had no right to make the gift, that the gift was, therefore, invalid, that she died in the year 1915 and that thereupon they, the plaintiffs, now sued as her next; reversioners for possession which was postponed till her death. The original tenant Nanhe Singh having died before the Tenancy Act of 1873 was passed, the question is, was there a succession to his holding at the time of his death and, if so, to whom? We have not been able to find any provision of law regulat...
Manpal Singh Vs. Raj Partab Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.824
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a certain cultivatory holding, The plaintiffs came to Court on the allegations that one Nanhe Singh who owned a large area of occupancy holding and fixed-rate holding, died about 1863, that after him his widow Musammat Nankai entered into possession of the occupancy holding as a life tenant with limited rights only, that she made a gift of the said property to Manpal Singh, defendant, and his wife in the year, 1893, that she being only a life-tenant had to right to make the gift, that the gift was, therefore, invalid, that she died in the year 1915 and that, thereupon, they, the plaintiffs now sued as her next reversioner for possession which was postponed till her death. The original tenant Nanhe Singh having died before the Tenancy Act of 1873 was pursued, the question is, was there a succession to his holding at the time of his death and, if so, to whom. We have not been able to find any provision of law regulatin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›