Allahabad Court March 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.
ThakuraIn Anar Kuar and anr. Vs. Pohap Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.852
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a unit for damages for illegal distraint. The First Court same to the conclusion that the suit was barred by time and it also found that no damage had been proved. As to the second issue, his judgment runs thus: 'There is no convincing evidence as regards the loss of property. The Amin and other witnesses of defendants clearly say that the sis bigha kachcha land can-not produce 25 maunds of grain, as alleged by the plaintiffs. The property distrained is 6 maunds 20 1/4 seers wheat and 8 maunds 3 1/4 seers of bhusa (vide plaintiff's own statement dated 24th April 1919 before the Tahsildar of Shikohabad). This it still in possession of Karimullah with whom it was deposited by the Shahna. In my opinion no damage has been proved.'2. The plaintiffs went up in appeal and the learned Officiating District Judge has set aside the Assistant Collector's decision on both these issues. He proceeds mainly upon presumptions and probabilities rather than on...
Fazal Ilahi Vs. Munshi Prag Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.739
1. In this case an order of reference outside the Court was made to two arbitrators and an umpire. Both the arbitrators being Vakils of this Court and the umpire being a Barrister formerly of this Court. No order of reference was found necessary or was in fact obtained under paragraph 17 of the Second Schedule. We do not know why, but presumably because the parties were reasonable men of business and they did not consider it necessary to waste time and money in obtaining an order when they were entirely agreed about the procedure. The arbitration was begun but unfortunately it fell through owing to one of the arbitrators declining to act. Whereupon the present appellant applied to the Subordinate JUdge of Allahabad for an order of reference under paragraph 17, and for an order under paragraph 5 appointing an arbitrator in the plate of the Vakil who bad retired. The learned Judge took a very narrow view of the matter. He held that he was unable to appoint a fresh arbitrator, because the...
Har Prasad Tiwari Vs. Sheo Gobind Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All486
Lindsay and Stuart, JJ.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in this case and we think the appeal ought to fail. The facts are that the defendant respondent, Sheo Gobind Tiwari, made three mortgages of property in favour of the plaintiff on successive dates. These mortgages were usufructuary mortgages, and in the case of the first two the property mortgaged was admittedly portions of an occupancy holding in the third mortgage the property consisted partly of fixed-rate tenancy and partly of occupancy holding. It appears that after these mortgages were executed, two-thirds of the mortgaged property was lost to the mortgagee owing to its being discovered that the mortgagor had a right in these properties only to the extent of one-third. Having thus been deprived of a portion of the mortgage security, this suit was brought by the plaintiff, purporting to be a suit under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff asked for a simple money decree. Both courts ...
Kulsum-un-nissa Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All492
Ryves, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand, Musammat Kulsum-un-nissa brought a suit in the court of the Munsif to eject the defendant on the allegation that the defendant was a tenant of the house in which he lived, under a registered lease executed by the predecessor-in-title of the defendant, in favour of the husband of the plaintiff, who was the zamindar of the village. The lease was executed in the year 1887, and the plaintiff stated that from that date down till some four years before the suit, the original lessee and his successors had been paying rent according to the lease; that some four years ago the defendant joined a general conspiracy in the village and refused to pay further rent. The suit was for ejectment and for arrears of rent for three years. The defence to the suit was that the defendant had never executed any lease; that the house had been constructed for the defendant, who is a Brahman, by his clients and that he and his ancestors had been in possession...
The Gorakhpur Bank Limited Vs. Karamat Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All488
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts of this case are these. On the 15th of June, 1888, one Hasnu mortgaged a three anna share to the defendants 3 and 4. The mortgaged property was sold in execution of a simple money decree, and a one anna share was purchased by one Kali Charan, who was the predecessor in title of the defendants 1 and 2. Another one anna share Was purchased by Sarju Prasad, and the third one anna share was purchased by Wazir Ali, the defendant No. 5. Sarju Prasad mortgaged the one anna share purchased by him to the Gorakhpur Bank. The Bank obtained a decree upon that mortgage and caused the one anna share to be sold by auction, and it became the purchaser of that share. The defendants 3 and 4, the mortgagees under the mortgage of 1888, brought a suit on the basis of that mortgage against the defendants 1 and 2, the Gorakhpur Bank and Wazir Ali, the defendant No. 5, and obtained a decree for sale. In the suit in which that decree was passed a ...
Sobha Ram Gopal Rai Vs. Sri Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All521
Lindsay and Stuart, JJ.1. In our opinion there is no merit) in this appeal, The suit was brought by a firm of commission agents, doing business at Hapur, against another firm carrying on business in grain, in the Meerut city. This firm is said to consist of three persons, Narain Das, Sri Ram and Ram Nath, who were impleaded as defendants. It is stated that the defendant firm is carried on in the names of Narain Das and Sri Ram.2. The case for the plaintiff firm was that on the 4th of August, 1917, a promissory note was passed in their favour by the defendant firm for a sum of Rs. 4,071-4-0. It was alleged that this amount which carried interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, was to be payable on demand. The plaintiff alleged the demand made and the refusal of the defendant firm to pay. Hence the suit.3. The main defence which was set up by the defendant firm is contained in paragraph 8 of the written statement. While it was not denied that, the promissory note upon which the sui...
Beekha Vs. Emperor, Through Bhagirath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.179
Gokul Prasad, J.1. In this case the accused wan not present on the date for which the hearing; of the case had been adjourned. He sent in an application of illness through the Chaukidar Rikhai. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case for a week and, instead of confiscating his bail bound, awarded Rs. 25 as damages to the other side and adjourned the case on this condition. This case has been referred for the orders of this Court by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra on the ground that such an order of fine, so to say, cannot be legally passed against an accused person who is absent. There is no case of this Court on this matter. But I agree with the Punjab Chief Court in Browne v. Chanda Singh 6 P. R. 1906 Cr. : 114 P. L. R. 1907 : 4 Cr. L. J. 78. The eases of this Court which I hive been able to find were eases in which compensations were allowed to the accused when an adjournment was asked for by the prosecution, but I have not seen any case in which an order of compensation agains...
Shaikh Karamat Ali and anr. Vs. the Gorakhpur Bank, Limited, Through M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All495; 67Ind.Cas.29
1. The facts of this case are these. On the 15th of June 1888 one Hasnu mortgaged a three-annas share to the defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The mortgaged property was sold in execution of a simple money-decree, and a one-anna share was purchased by one Kali Charan, who was the predecessor in title of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Another one-anna share was purchased by Sarju Prasad, and the third one-anna share was purchased by Wazir Ali, the defendant No. 5. Sarju Prasad mortgaged the one-anna share purchased by him to the Gorakhpur Bank. The Bank obtained a decree upon that mortgage and caused the one-anna share to be sold by auction and it became the purchaser of that share. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4, the mortgagees under the mortgage of 1888, brought a suit on the basis of that mortgage against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the Gorakhpur Bank and Wazir Ali, defendant No. 5, and obtained a decree for sale. In the suit in which that decree was passed a compromise was entered into between t...
Sri Ram and ors. Vs. Farm Sobha Ram Gopalrai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All213; 67Ind.Cas.513
1. In our opinion there is no merit in this appeal. The suit was brought by a firm of commission agents doing business at Hapur against another firm tarrying on business in grain in the Meerut city. This firm is said to consist of three persons, Narain Das, Sri Ram and Ram Nath, who were impleaded as defendants. It is stated that the defendant firm is carried on in the name of Narain Das and Sri Ram.2. The case for the plaintiff firm was that, on the 4th of August 1917, a promissory-note was passed in their favour by the defendant firm for a sum of Rs. 4,071-4.0. It was alleged that this amount, which carried interest at the rate of 6 per cent. par annum was to be payable on demand. The plaintiff alleged the demand made and the refusal of the defendant firm to pay. Hence the suit.3. The main defense which was set up by the defendant firm is contained in paragraph 8 of the written statement. While it was not denied that the promissory-note, upon which the suit was based, was executed, i...
Har Prasad Tewari Vs. Sheo Gobind Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.793
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in this case and we think the appeal ought to fail. The facts are that the defendant respondent, Sheo Gobind Tewari, made three mortgages of property in favour of the plaintiff on successive dates. These mortgages were usufructuary mortgages and in the case of the first two the property mortgaged was admittedly portions of an occupancy holding. In the third mortgage the property consisted partly of fixed-rate tenancy and partly of occupancy holding. It appears that after these mortgages were executed, two-thirds of the mortgaged property was lost to the mortgagee owing to its being discovered that the mortgagor had a right in these properties only to the extent of one-third. Having thus been deprived of a portion of the mortgage security this suit was brought by the plaintiff purporting to be a suit under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff asked for a simple money-decree. Both Courts have refused to give him ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »