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.
Bibi Kulsoomunnissa Vs. Ram Prashad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All226; 67Ind.Cas.713
Ryves, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. Musammat Kulsoomunissa 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 Zemindar 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 for 1...
Gobardhan Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Badan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All485
Lindsay and Stuart, JJ.1. This appeal is against a decree of the learned District Judge of Benares upholding a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge dismissing a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant respondent made a report at a police station to the effect that certain persons had committed a riot and had assaulted him, being directed to do so by the plaintiffs appellants. The Additional Subordinate Judge found that the witnesses for the plaintiffs, who deposed that no such riot as that described in the report had been committed, were not worthy of credit. He found that the witnesses for the defendant who deposed that such riot had taken place were worthy of credit and he dismissed the suit for damages for malicious prosecution on the clear finding that the complaint made by the defendant was in fact true. He took a completely different view to the view taken by the criminal court which had found that the complaint was not substantiated.2. The learned Distric...
Sarju Prasad Alias Pappu Lal Vs. Muhammad Shakur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.564
1. The question for disposal of this appeal is a simple one. The plaintiff appellant came into Court asking for a declaration that certain transfers made by a lady named (sic)Musammat Sarfarasi Kunwari were not binding upon him as the nearest reversioner.2. One of the transfers which was so attacked wag a transfer by way of mortgage in favour of one Muhammad Shakur, who was arrayed as defendant No. 6.3. This document of mortgage was executed on the 22nd of September 1894 in favour of Faiz Baksh, the father of Muhammad Shakur. The executants was Sarfarazi Kunwari and the amount which was expressed to be borrowed under the deed was Rs. 683. As security for this loan, Sarfarazi Kunwari purported to grant to Faiz Baksh a uslufrustuary mortgage far 18 odd highas of land.4. The casa for the plaintiff was that this document had bean executed by the lady without any legal necessity. In the written statement filed by Muhammad Shaknr he pleaded that the document was a good and binding document; ...
Musammat Muhammadi Begum and anr. Vs. Musammat Umda Begum and After He ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.751
1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings. A decree wag obtained as long ago as the 15th of September 1913 by the respondent, Musammat Umda Begum (the widow of a Muhammadan gentleman), against her so widow, step-son and step daughter. Various applications were made until we tome down to the present applications which was filed on the 1st of August 1919. The office reported that this application was time-barred. Thereupon the Court issued notice to the parties to appear on a given date to decide whether or not the application was barred by limitation. On the date fixed no one appeared on behalf of the judgment-debtors and the Court held that the application was within time. This was on the 12th of January 1920 Thereupon attachment issued, and on the 9th of April 1920 the judgment debtors took objection to the attachment on the ground, among others, that the application for execution was time-barred. The Court below held, on the evidence, that the notice to the judgment debtors to ap...
Misri Lal Vs. Pandit Kanhaia Lal Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All128; 66Ind.Cas.863
1. It is quite clear that in this case the learned Judge has overstepped the mark. When the Receiver has reason to believe that property in the possession of third persons is the property of the insolvent, be may treat it as such and attach it or put it up for sale. When the person who alleges that the property is his and not the involvement, objects and wishes to assert his title, he may appeal to the Insolvency Court against the ant of the Receiver, but he is not obliged to do so although it is the most effective remedy at any rate the most expeditions means of preventing a sale. He may, if be likes, sue the Receiver as a trespasser. If my property is seized by a public official like an Official Receiver and I have a clear case to establish my title, there is no reason why I should not seek redress in the ordinary course. On the other hand, I might prefer and I should probably prefer to apply in the Insolvency Court against the act of the Receiver. If I do so, I myself raise before t...
Bhikhari Singh and ors. Vs. Jokhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All124; 66Ind.Cas.856
1. This, is a defendants' appeal arising oat of a suit for possession. The plaintiff is the occupaney tenant of certain plots and the defendants are Zamindars. The plaintiff sued on the allegation tint there had been a dispute between him and the defendants in respect of other tenancy holdings and ultimately defendant No. 1 obtained a decree for ejectment of the plaintiff from those plots, that after obtaining possession of those plots the defendant forcibly and without any right took possession of some of the plats in dispute, that the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Criminal Court about his dispossession but the complaint was ultimately dismissed on the 10th of December 1918, that after the dismissal of this complaint the defendants improperly took possession of the remaining plots in dispute, that the defendants had in the criminal case relied upon a certain mortgage deed which was quite wrong, fake, ineffectual and invalid, and that the defendants have no right to possession and...
Chaudhri Goberdhan Singh and ors. Vs. Chaudhri Ram Badan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.65
1. This appeal is against a decree of the learned District judge of Banares upholding a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge dismissing a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant-respondent made a report at a Police Station to the effect that certain parsons had committed a riot and had assaulted him, being directed to do so by the plaintiffs-appellants. The Additional Subordinate Judge found that the witnesses for the plaintiffs who deposed that no such riot as that described in the report has been committed, were not worthy of credit. He found that the witnesses for the defendant who deposed that such riot had taken place ware worthy of credit and he dismissed the suit for damages for malicious prosecution on the clear finding that the complaint made by the defendant was in fact true, He took a completely different view to the view taken by the Criminal Court which had found that the complaint was not substantiated.2. The learned District Judge would have been ...
Badri NaraIn Singh Vs. Harnam Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All449
Viscount Cave, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh by which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, The question raised is as to the title to an estate in Oudh of, considerable value known as the Mahal Tajpur.2. Lal Ajodhia Bakhsh, the ancestor of the plaintiff, belonged to a family of Bisen Thakurs long settled in the district of Partabgarh, and was the owner of an estate called Kundrajit or Shamspur. At the time of the Mutiny, this family had four branches representing the descendants of the four sons of Lal Ajodhia Bakhsh; the first branch being represented by Thakurain Baijnath (a widow), the second by Lal Chhatarpal, the third by Lal Surajpal and the fourth by Lal Chandrapal. On the annexation of Oudh in 1856, this estate, with the remainder of the soil of the province, was confiscated by the British Government, which assumed the right (as stated in...
Mazhar HusaIn Vs. Musammat Amtul Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All101; 66Ind.Cas.679
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are stated clearly and succinatly in the order of the Second Additional District Judge. The appellant has obtained a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, by which he is at liberty to bring to sale the decretal right of Musammat Umtan Nissa in a money decree for dower due to her against a third party, in satisfaction of the amount due on a mortgage executed by the lady in favour of the appellant. Under this mortgage the lady transferred to him her rights as a decree holder. He has not yet executed his decree, and the decretal right of the lady has not so far been sold to any one. He maintains that he is entitled to execute the decree for dower against the third party without taking further steps in the matter. The point for decision is, whether the decree for dower has been transferred to him by an assignment in writing or by operation of law. We are of opinion that, so far, it has not been transferred to anybody by assignment in wri...
Kedarnath Motilal Vs. Sukhamal Bansidhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All522; (1922)ILR44All481
Piggott, J.1. This is an application to file an award, dated the 22nd of November, 192O, made in connection with a trade dispute between two firms upon a private submission, and an arbitration conducted without the intervention of the Court. The defendant firm is the same as in cases Nos 1 and 2 decided by us today, and the facts of the dispute are broadly similar. Here also the award is that of an umpire appointed by the Committee of the Delhi Piece Goods Association after the arbitrators chosen by the parties had failed to agree. There are two points upon which the present case is distinguishable from those above referred to.(1) The order placed by the defendant firm with the plaintiff firm was embodied in seven indents; the letters of acceptance in respect of two of these are not forthcoming, but in each of the remaining five letters the form, of words employed is as follows: 'We have to intimate that your indents have been accepted by wire and the same are subject to revision and c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »