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.
Allah Dia and anr. Vs. Abdul Gafur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All283; 69Ind.Cas.848
Stuart, J.1. This appeal turns on the interpretation of a deed executed by Nabi Bakhsh. on the 22nd of May 1883. Nabi Bakhsh died in 1891 leaving as his heirs under the Muhammadan Law, his widow Umda, his sister Azimunnissa and his nephew Abdul Latif. A translation of the relevant portions of the deed of the 22nd of May 1883 will be found in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the appellants agrees that this is a correct translation, I interpret the deed as a Will which could not be given effect to under the Muhammadan Law. Under it Nabi Bakhsh states that he will give maintenance to his wife Umda during his lifetime and that he will not transfer his property during the remainder of his life, and that after his death Umda is to take a life interest in his property. He further lays down that if Umda bears a son, such son will be the owner of the property. If she bears a daughter, the daughter will get a share under the Muhammadan Law, and he continues that...
Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. Mahmud HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.671
1. This is a second appeal on the part of two plaintiffs whose claim for possession of certain house property in the town of Bareilly has been dismissed by both the Courts below.2. The plaintiffs claim the property under a deed of sale of the year 1916 executed by two persons, Abdul Latif and Abdul Hafiz. Their case is that the said vendors obtained the property by inheritance from their mother, Zohra Bibi, who again obtained the property by gift from her mother, Musammat Sakina Bibi. The deed of gift in question is dated the 2nd of Jane 1900, and was executed, not by Sakina Bibi herself, but by one Saiyid Ali Husain acting as her special attorney. The plaintiffs having been put to proof of their title, a number of issues were framed, and, as a matter of fast, both parties pressed upon the Courts below alternative and inconsistent pleadings to an extent which has served to cloud the plain issues in the case and to introduce elements of confusion which have led to the delay and trouble ...
Girwar Lal Vs. Bansidhar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All575; 66Ind.Cas.420
Lindsay, J.1. I have read the order of the learned Sessions Judge and agree with his view of the case. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Magistrate, as recommended by him, and direct that the case be sent back to the Magistrate, who will proceed to appoint a fresh jury and decide the matter under the provisions of Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure....
Sarup Sonar Vs. Ram Sundar ThakuraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.671
1. I have read the referring order of the learned Sessions Judge. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is clearly an illegal one and must, therefore, be set aside as recommended by the learned Sessions Judge. I order accordingly....
Fateh Muhammad Chaudhri Vs. Musammat Sita ChaudhraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.539
Ryves, J.1. Fath Muhammad Chandhuri plaintiff appellant purchased tone zemindari property under a sale-deed dated the 20th of August 1914, thereupon two suit for pre-emption were brought : (1) by Musammat Sita the defendant-respondent, and (2) by Musammat Mohree. Both the suits were decreed, that is to say each plaintiff was given a decree entitling her to get possession of half of the property on payment of a certain sum within a given time. Musammat Sita paid in the money within the time prescribed and obtained possession of half of the property. The last day on which, according to the decree, Musammat Mohree ought to have deposited the money was the 16th of April 196. That day happened to be a Sunday and she departed the money on Monday, the 17th. On the 15th of April the day before the final date for despoiling the money, Musammat Mohree sold her decree, or in other words, the half of the property which she was entitled to pre-empt under the decree, to Mansabdar, a son of the plain...
Panchayati Akhara Maha Nirbani Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All573
Muhammad Rafiq and Pigott, JJ.1. This was a suit for damages against the Secretary of State for India in Council. The plaintiff firm states that it was lawfully in possession as pawnee of certain ornaments; that it made them over to Gopal Ram, Court Inspector, Fyzabad, upon his stating that the production of the same' was necessary under an order of the Magistrate in re king-Emperor v. Shambhu Dayal and Girdhari Lal under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which was pending in the Criminal Court at Fyzabad.' Subsequently, according to the plaint, the ornaments in question were made over to their original owner, one Pashpat Nath, 'by the court of the Pargana Officer' at Fyzabad. The criminal case in question had been tried by the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Fyzabad, and that was undoubtedly the proper court to pass orders regarding the disposal of property in respect of which the offence or offences set forth in the charge tried by it had been committed. The plaintiff fi...
Bhagwati Shukul Vs. Ram Jatan Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.419
Ryves, J.1. Permanand and Krishnanand Were two brothers separate in estate. Krishnanand' died long ago leaving him surviving a widow, Musammat Mohna, and a daughter, Musammat Oreha, who was married to Ram Jatan Tewari, defendant No. I. It was said by the defence that they had a son, Ram Man Tewari, who was defendant No. 2; but both the Courts have found that Ram Man was not the son of Musammat Oreha, so he can be disregarded. The plaintiff is the grandson of Permanand. The property in suit belonged to Krishnanand. On his death his widow, Musammat Mohna, became the heir. She made a deed of gift or Shankalapnama, dated the 23rd of August 1904, in favour of Ram Jatan by which she transferred to him the entire property which she inherited from her husband with full proprietary rights. Musammat Mohna died in September 1908. This, suit was brought by Bhagwati Shukul in 1918 to recovier possession of the whole of this property on the ground that the gift by Musammat, Mohna to her son-in-law '...
Ram Sundar Tewari and ors. Vs. Musammat Kulwanti Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.499
Walsh, J.1. General principles of law must be applied to arbitration matters as to all others. It has been found in this case that the persons objecting to the legal flaw in the award are the persons who procured it. In other word, that they got the arbitrator to refuse to sign the award. The Court has found that the re-calcitrant arbitrator agreed to the award. His failure to sign it in undoubtedly a legal flaw, but it is a flaw which the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of, because they procured it. On that ground alone we think that the learned Judge should have decided as he did, although it is true that he has not expressed himself very well on the subject. It is certainly, to my mind, a conclusive answer to revision.Shjast, J.2. I agree.3. Application dismissed with costs, including fees on the higher stale....
Musammat Mahadai Kuar Vs. Bageshar Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All293; 69Ind.Cas.777
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit cut of which this appeal arises have been set out clearly in the decision of the Court below. The findings are that the plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of Ram Din and that the property in dispute is property to which Ram Din became separately entitled under the provisions of the deed of partition, dated the 5th of March 1902. The lower Appellate Court hat refused relief to the plaintiff on the ground that she was excluded from inheritance by the provisions of the partition deed itself and has found in favour of the title of Ram Din's collaterals. We thus have it that Ram Din, as a Hindu not belonging to a joint family, had full proprietary title to the property in suit and that ordinarily the property would descend on his death to his daughter, he having no other heirs. In order to arrive at a different conclusion, it is necessary on the facts to find that not only does the deed of partition exclude the daughter, but that such exclusion is effect...
Panchaeti Akhara Maha Nirbani Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All276; 67Ind.Cas.70
1. This was a suit for damages against the Secretary of State for India in Council. The plaintiff firm states that it was lawfully in possession as pawnee of certain ornaments; that it made them over to Gopal Ram, Court Inspector, Fyzabad, upon his stating that the production of the same 'was necessary under an order of the Magistrate in Be King-Emperor v. Shambhu Dayal and Girdhari Lal under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which was pending in the Criminal Court at Fyzabad.' Subsequently according to the plaint, the ornaments in question were made over to their original owner, one Pashpat Nath, 'by the Court of the Pargana Officer' at Fyzabad. The criminal case in question had been tried by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Fyzabad, and that was undoubtedly the proper Court to pass orders regarding the disposal of property in respect of which the offence or offenses set forth in the charge tried by it had been committed. The plaintiff firm very properly applied to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »