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.
Bala Prasad and anr. Vs. Mohan Lal and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All649
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in a mortgage suit. That suit was against a variety of defendants, but the only point with which we are concerned here is that, while a decree for sale was passed affecting various mortgaged properties, there was also a simple money decree enforceable against one Ganga Prasad alone. In execution of this decree there has been an attachment of certain immovable property specified as being the property of Ganga Prasad, judgment-debtor. It is not property which was included in the mortgage upon which the suit was brought, so that no objection can be taken on that grounds to its attachment in execution of a simple money decree. In fact, in so far as the property attached is the property of Ganga Prasad, its attachment is not objected to. The objection taken was on behalf of Bala Prasad and Nannhe, minor sons of Ganga Prasad. Their claim was that, the property attached being joint ancestral family property, they were joint owner...
Pandit Mohan Lal Vs. Bala Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All310; 69Ind.Cas.754
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree holder in a mortgage suit. That suit was against a variety of defendants, but the only point with which we are concerned here is that, while a decree for sale was passed affecting various mortgaged properties, there was also a simple money-decree enforceable against one Ganga Prasad alone. In execution of this decree there has been an attachment of certain immoveable property specified as being the property of Ganga Prasad, judgment-debtor. It is not property which was included in the mortgage upon which the suit was brought, so that no objection can be taken on that ground to its attachment in execution of a simple money decree. In fact, in so far as the property attached is the property of Ganga Prasad, its attachment is not objected to. The objection taken was on behalf of Bala Prasad and Nannhe, minor sons of Ganga Prasad. Their claim was that the property attached being joint ancestral family property, they were joint owners of the sam...
Chote Lal Vs. Khundi Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All587
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This is one of those difficult cases in which the mother appeals against an order appointing the father personal guardian of the minor, thereby taking out of the custody of the said mother her infant boy of six. It is needless to dwell on the painful nature of a case of this kind, which is bound to inflict mental suffering upon one or other of the parties, whatever order the court may think it its duty to pass. Unfortunately, the father and mother are living apart and, at present, seem unable to keep a happy home in one another's company. The mother is a pardanashin lady who resides with and is doubtless under the influence of her own family, who are said to be well-to-do merchants. To the knowledge of the learned Judge who disposed of the matter, (and in these guardianship cases one has to assume a good deal of knowledge on the part of the court, which is really a court trusted by law to decide them, although the matters may not appear quite strictly on what is ...
Pryag Ahir and ors. Vs. Mahabir Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All317; 69Ind.Cas.811
1. The facts of this case are as follows: The land in suit was an occupancy holding that belonged to one Sheoambar. On his death it descended to his widow, Musammat Amrita. Her name was recorded as also that of Dhusai, her husband's brother, and Mahabir, her husband's sister's son, along with hers and this arrangement was agreed to and accepted by the Zemindar, Musammat Amrita died some two years before the suit and it appears that the names of Mahabir and Dhusai remained recorded. This suit was brought by Dhusai and two persons Pryag and Tahlu who are the sons of Sheonarain, who was the brother of Ram Charan, the father of Sheoambar. They sued for a decoration that Mahabir had no concern in the occupancy holding which they asserted belonged to them and they asked for a perpetual injunction against him. In the alternative they prayed for recovery of possession if it be proved that the plaintiffs were out of possession.2. The main defence to the suit by Mahabir was that ha had been adop...
Bisheshar Nath Vs. Kundan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All318; (1922)ILR44All583; 75Ind.Cas.454
Ryves, J.1. This appeal came on originally for hearing before a single Judge of this Court. He was of opinion that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh (1915) I.L.R. 37 All. 557 and of the decision in Pusa Mal v. Makdum Bakhsh (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 514, it was advisable that this case should be heard by a Bench of two Judges. It has consequently come before us for hearing.2. After full argument it seems to me that the question referred to this Divisional Bench is really irrelevant, and I think the appeal can be disposed of on a short point.3. The facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiff was the lessor. He, by a lease dated the 19th of July, 1892, leased some premises to the father or predecessor of the defendants for a term of three years. At the expiry of the term, the lessees (or their representatives) remained on in possession until the date of suit which was brought on the 18th of June, 1919. The plaintiff asse...
Emperor Vs. Incha Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All647
Stuart, J.1. Incha Ram made a report at the police station that his horse had strayed. This report was false to his knowledge. His horse had not strayed. He had previously sold the horse to his cousin and he clearly made this false report in order to enable him to make a false charge against the man who had bought the horse from his cousin. He made that charge subsequently. In making this report he clearly gave false information to the Police which he knew to be false and he must have known that it was likely that he would thereby cause the police authorities, if they found the horse answering to his description, to take it from the possession of its rightful owner. On these facts an offence under Section 182 was clearly made out. I accordingly refuse to interfere and return the record....
incha Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.216
ORDERStuart, J.1. India Ram made a report at the Police Station that his horse had strayed. This report was false to his knowledge. His horse had not strayed. He had previously sold the horse to his cousin and he clearly made this false report in order to enable him to make a false charge against the man who had bought the horse from his cousin. He made that charge subsequently. In making this report he clearly gave false information to the Police which he knew to be false and he must have known that it was likely that he would thereby cause the Police Authorities, if they found the horse answering to his description, to take it from the possession of its rightful owner. On these facts an offence under Section 182 was clearly made out. I accordingly refuse to interfere and return the record....
Syed Mohammad Hameed Vs. Syed Manzur HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.807
Stuart, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has based its judgment largely on a deed 'of the 19th of February 1871. If this dead be excluded from evidence the finding that the shop belongs to the plaintiff is nor a good finding of fact and the case will have to be remitted to the lower Appellate Court for a fresh finding excluding the evidence afforded by the dead in question. The deed is admissible in evidence if properly stamped. but it is clearly not properly stamped. It was stamped with a stamp of Rs, 1-12 0 as an award. It is a decision by arbitrators bat it in a decision which the parties have also signed and it effects the partition of the parties' property. The law governing the case is contained in Act XVIII of 1869, Section 3, Sub-section (22), of that Act defines 'partition-deed' as an instrument whereby persons interested in immoveable property jointly or in common or as so parceners or as members of an undivided Hindu family, divide or agrees to divide such property in severall...
Lakhram Singh and ors. Vs. Sheo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All316; 82Ind.Cas.68
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The plaintiffs brought a suit to set aside a sale-deed of their share executed by their mother and certain other members of their joint family for a total consideration of Rs. 3,800 and: for possession thereof on the ground that the sale had been made without legal necessity. The defendants pleaded legal necessity.2. The Trial Court found that only Rs. 491 were chargeable against the plaintiffs for legal necessity and that the remaining amount chargeable against their share was not so taken. It, however passed a curious decree upholding the sale in case the defendants-vendees paid Rs. 146 to the plaintiffs and in case of their failure to do so, decreed the plaintiffs' claim conditional on their paying Rs. 491 to the defendants-vendees which had been advanced for legal necessity and thus avoiding the sale-deed. The plaintiffs went up in appeal and the defendants filed a cross-objection. The lower Appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs share in the property sold...
Municipal Board of Benares Vs. Ram Krishna Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All386; 70Ind.Cas.416
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under the following circumstances: In the city of Benares there is a small lane closed at one end by a door. To the south of this lane is the house of the plaintiff. There was a projection of one of the, upper stories of the plaintiff's house on this lane. The plaintiff's allegation is that he re-constructed this part of his building but the defendant, the Municipal Board of Benares, gave him a notice to remove that part of the building on the ground that it had been built 1 over a public lane without the permission of the defendant; that thereupon, on the 16th of September 1918, the plaintiff gave s two months' notice to the defendant, asking it to refrain from such an unlawful attitude. The defendant, the Municipal Board prosecuted the plaintiff criminally and he was fined Rs. 5 on the 20th November 1918. 'The plaintiff thereupon gave the Board a second notice on the 10th of January 1019, claiming ownership of the lane and alleges t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »