Allahabad Court April 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.
Musammat Maryam Bibi and ors. Vs. Ram Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All404; 70Ind.Cas.613
Walsh, J.1. In my opinion this decision is wrong. First, as regards the point of limitation. The facts are these: Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are now the decree-holders, are alleged to have seized more than they are entitled to, and the plaintiffs set up their title and seek to prevent the attachment and sale of property which is theirs. They took an objection in the execution department. Their claim was rejected on the 3rd of March 1917. They thereupon brought a suit, as they could properly do on the 15th of August 1917 against the decree-holder and one of the two judgment-debtors, the absent judgment-debtor being a woman, Musammat Batul Bibi. The time for bringing that suit was one year from the 3rd of March 1917. They apparently brought the suit in the wrong Court. There is no suggestion that they did not do so in good faith. For some reason which is not disclosed but which merely illustrates once more the terrible delay in litigation in this country, the plaint was not returned fr...
Salik Ram Singh Vs. Sabal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All602
Piggott, J.1. The question in issue in this, suit was whether two brothers, Sarju Singh and Salik Ram Singh, were or were not members of a joint undivided Hindu family at the time of Sarju Singh's death. The trial court found that there had been separation and had given very strong reasons for that opinion. The learned District Judge has, on appeal, recorded a contrary finding and it has been pressed upon us that we ought to accept that as a finding of fact. He has undoubtedly endeavoured to record it as a finding of fact; but in arriving at his conclusion, he has misrepresented the law on the point and he has used expressions in his judgment inconsistent with his own finding. The principal point against Salik Ram Singh, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was that he had made statements while under examination which virtually amounted to admitting that there had been separation. We know that there had been separation in residence and in mess, for Salik Ram Singh had gone to Calcutta an...
Ram Bilas and ors. Vs. Nitya Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All542; (1922)ILR44All652; 69Ind.Cas.990
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the court of the District Judge of Pilibhit, by three plaintiffs, Nitya Nand, Lal Bahadur and Tika Ram.2. The suit purported to be a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., a suit relating to a trust created for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature.3. There were six defendants to the suit, the principal of whom were Ram Bilas, defendant No. 1, Bankey Behari Lal, defendant No. 2, and Bhagwan Das, defendant No. 6. Defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were really pro forma defendants.4. The parties all belong to the same family and the allegations in the plaint were to the following effect. It was stated that about 16 years before the institution of the suit one Nath Mal, who was the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs, had constructed a Thakurdwara at a village called Belsanda and had installed an idol therein.5. It was next alleged that under a deed of waqf executed in August, 1865 the p...
Ramjas and anr. Vs. Musammat Sartaji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.635
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit brought by them for curtain property as next reversioners to the estate of one Guptar who had died leaving a widow Raj Rani and a daughter Jaipali. On the 26th of February JS8I she made a gift of the whole of the property left by her husband in favour of her daughter Jaipali. Musammat Jaipali died during the life time of her mother and her daughter, Musammat Sartaji took possession of the gifted property. Musammat Rajrani, the widow, died in the year 1918 and after her death Balraj, the father of the appellants, sued for possession of the property. He died pending the suit and the present plaintiffs, his sons, have been brought on the record in his place. The plea raised in defence was that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, that the claim was barred by adverse possession as Musammat Jaipali had died more than twelve years age, and that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred the suit.2. The Munsif found all ...
Sabal Singh Vs. Salik Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All188; 67Ind.Cas.67
Piggott, J.1. The question in issue in this suit was whether two brothers, Sarju Singh and Salik Ram Singh, were or were not members of a joint undivided Hindu family at the time of Sarju Singh's death. The Trial Court found that there had been separation and had given very strong reasons for that opinion. The learned District Judge has, on appeal, recorded a contrary finding and it has been pressed upon us that we ought to accept that as a finding of fact. He has undoubtedly endeavoured to record it as a finding of fact; but in arriving at his conclusion, he has misrepresented the law on the point and, he has need expressions in his judgment inconsistent with own finding. The principal point against Salik Ram Singh, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was that be bad made statements while under examination which virtually amounted to admitting that there had been separation. We know that there had been separation in residence and in mess, for Salik Ram Singh bad gone to Calcutta and ta...
Pirbhu Dayal Vs. Tula Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All401; 68Ind.Cas.809
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for specific performance of an agreement to sell property the case for the plaintiff being that on the 20th of January 1919 the defendant had executed a written agreement undertaking to convey certain immoveable property to him. The story was that on the day aforesaid, the property of the defendant, Tula Ram, was up for sale in execution of a decree and that this agreement was entered into in order to enable Tula Ram to avoid a public sale of his property and to enable him to satisfy the decree.2. The document upon whish the plaintiff sued was brought into Court. The defendant, Tula Ram, filed a written statement on the 15th July 1919, in which he denied that he had entered into any agreement with the plaintiff, Pirbhu Dayal. In substance his story was that he had come to Some arrangement with his decree-holders and that any agreement relating to the sale of the property was with them and not with the plaintiff. It farther appears from an ext...
Goswami Puran Lalji Vs. Ras Bihari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All285; (1922)ILR44All590
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge of Muttra. As regards the Cawnpore property the appeal fails. As regards the Bindraban property I have come to the conclusion that the appellant is right and the plaintiff is entitled to succeed for the following reasons: (I will for the moment disregard the reasons given by the lower court for thinking otherwise.)2. The property was dealt with by a deceased virtuous man who wanted to dedicate it to a certain idol. The deed of dedication is contained in the document dated the 15th of May, 1871. So far as the property goes with which this judgment is concerned, and in regard to which in my opinion the plaintiff is entitled to succeed, the general intention of the donor, to be gathered from the language of the deed which is extremely difficult to follow because it appears to contain provisions inconsistent with one another, was that one Sangam Lal, who was called t...
Jagannath Prasad Minor Through Chotey Lal Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.585
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a certain share of a zemindari as the nearest, reversioner of one Manbhawan Lal on the allegation that the plaintiff was the reversioner of the property of Manbhawan Lal, the last full owner, who died leaving a widow Musammat Sumirta. After her death defendants Nos. 1 and 2 got the mutation of names effected in their favour on the 129th of January 1908 over the property In dispute. They have since transferred the property to Maiku Lal, defendant No. 3. The plaintiff, as has already been stated, brought the suit as the nearest reversioner of Manbhawan Lal for possession. The only defendant who contested the claim was -defendant No. 3, the transferee. His defence was two fold (1). That Musammat Sumirta died more than 12 years ago and (2) that the plaintiff was not the nearest reversioner.2. The First Court found on both these issues against the plaintiff and dismissed his claim. The lower Appellate Co...
Goswami Puran Lalji Vs. Ras Beharilal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.328
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge of Mattra. As regards the Cawnpore property the appeal fails. As regards the Bindraban property I have came to the conclusion that the appellant is right and the plaintiff is entitled to succeed for the following reasons: (I will, for the moment, disregard the reasons given by the lower Court for thinking otherwise).2. The property was dealt with by a deceased virtuous man who wanted to dedicate it to a certain idol. The deed of dedication is contained in the document dated the 15th May 1871. So far as the property goes with which this judgment is concerned, and in regard to which in my opinion the plaintiff is entitled to succeed, the general intention of the donor to be gathered from the language of the deed which is extremely difficult to follow because it appears to contain provisions inconsistent with one another, was that one Sangam Lal, who was called the ...
Mukund Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All273; 77Ind.Cas.1001
Gokul Prasad, J.1. In this case the Deputy-Magistrate has 'not appreciated the effect of the words 'knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink' in Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code There is nothing on this record to show that Mukund Ram knew that the baisan was of such a nature as would be unfit for consumption. The learned Deputy Magistrate seems to think that-such knowledge is always to be presumed. There is no warrant in law for such a presumption; just like other ingredients of the offence, this also has to be proved, see the case of Emperor v. Sheo Lal 26 A. 387 : 1 A.L.J. 64 : A.W.N> 1 Cr.L.J. 210. The conviction was, therefore, illegal,2. I accept the reference, set aside 1he conviction and the sentence and direct that the fine, if realised, be refunded....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »