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.
Kishori Mal and ors. Vs. Parsadi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All319; 77Ind.Cas.382
Ryves, J.1. The plaintiffs appellants purchased certain specific plots of land in the village from the ancestor of the respondents. In the deed of sole the land sold is described as the khud kasht of the vendor.2. The vendor, therefore, would automatically become the ex proprietary tenant of these plots and possession, therefore, was not given to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought this suit against all the co-sharers including the lambardar, for profits for the three preceding years, under Section 165 of the Agra Tenancy Act. Various objections were raised and the Trial Court dismissed the suit as against all the other defendants, but decreed the suit for Rs. 177-5-10 against the present respondents as representing the plaintiffs' share of profits.3. On appeal, the learned First Additional District Judge of Aligarh held that the suit was misconceived, that it was not a suit under Section 165 of the Agra Tenancy Act but was really a suit for rent, and as such, could not be brought u...
Jhagru Rai Vs. Basdeo Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All571
Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This appeal is from an order of remand made by the lower appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 23. It appears that Munna Rai executed a deed of sale in favour of Basdeo Rai and Sat Narain Rai in respect of certain immovable property, Jhagru Rai sued to recover the said property by right of pre-emption. Jhagru alleged in his plaint that a custom of pre-emption obtained in the village in which the property in dispute was situate and that he, being a co-sharer, had a preferential right over the vendees, who were strangers. The court of first instance found that the custom alleged in the plaint had not been proved. The claim was accordingly dismissed. On appeal by the pre-emptor, it was contended on his behalf, though nO such ground was taken in the memorandum of appeal, that inasmuch as there was a mention of pre-emption in the zamima khewat, the pre-emptor was still entitled to succeed, if not on the ground of custom, at least on the ground of contract. The lower...
Basdeo Rai and anr. Vs. Jhagroo Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All281; 66Ind.Cas.572
1. This appeal is from an order of remand made by the lower Appellate Court under Order XLI, Rule 23. It appears that Manna Rai executed a deed of sale in favour of Basdeo Rai and Sat Narain Rai in respect of certain immoveable property. Jhagroo Rai sued to recover the said property by right of preemption, Jhagroo alleged in his plaint that a custom of pre emption obtained in the village in which the property in dispute was situate and that he, being a co-sharer, had a preferential right over the vendees who were strangers. The Court of first instance found that the allegation of custom alleged in the plaint had not been proved. The claim was accordingly dismissed. On appeal by the preemptor it was contended on his behalf, though no such ground was taken in the memorandum of appeal, that inasmuch as there was a mention of pre-emption in the Zamima Khewat, the pre-emptor was still entitled to succeed, if not on the ground of custom, at least on the around of contract. The lower Appellat...
Janki and anr. Vs. Ram Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.557
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising oat of a mortgage for redemption of a mortgage, executed about 45 years ago by Deo Saran and Mantol in favour of Ram Rup and Madho, now represented by the defend ante, of a grove No. 97 for about Rs. 5. The plaintiff sued as representative of the mortgagors. The defence was a denial of the mortgage and the plaintiff's right to redeem, The defendants further plead that they were in possession as Zemindars for a large number of years and that no grove existed on the land. The Munsif held that there was no grove nor was there a mortgage and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has differed from the Munsif on these two points and has allowed redemption. The defendants some here in second appeal and the point urged by them before me is, that the lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that the mortgage has been proved because the only witness in support of the mortgage is one Bindeshri, an illiterate person, ...
Ram Chandra Gur Sahai Cotton Mills Co. Ld. Vs. Lyallpur Sugar Mills Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All565
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. There are three connected appeals before us today pending between the same parties, namely, Nos. 319 and 186 of 1919 and one other appeal from order which has been admitted by us today but which has not been numbered by the office. This last appeal which we have admitted and No. 186 of 1919 are appeals from orders. The appeal No. 319 of 1919 is a regular first appeal from an ex parte decree.2. The facts which have given rise to the three appeals are as follows: The parties to the three appeals are the Ramchandra Gur Sahai Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., as plaintiffs, and the Lyallpur Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., through their manager, L. Jai Ram Das, and the Cotton Ginning Factory at Lyallpur through their proprietors L. Mathura Das and Thakur Das, as defendants.3. The plaintiff company sued for the recovery of Rs. 32,759-8 as damages, on the allegation that the defendants had promised to supply the plaintiff firm with 320 bales of Lyallpur cotton at Rs. 45-8 per m...
Emperor Vs. Sundar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All642
Stuart, J.1. The facts out of which this application for revision has arisen, are as follows: Mr. Parmanand Singh, Tahsildar of Basti, as Magistrate of the third class, tried in 1921 a criminal case in which Adhar Singh made a complaint against Devi Bakhsh Singh under the provisions of Section 352/447 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of the trial, Sundar Lal, patwari, gave evidence. As a result of the examination of this evidence, Mr. Parmanand Singh came to the conclusion that Sundar Lal was not telling the truth in his evidence, and that he had falsified certain of his records. Mr. Parmanand Singh did not complete the decision of the case, for, after he had heard practically all the evidence, the case was transferred for decision to the court of Mr. Sarju Prasad, Honorary Magistrate, by an order of the District Magistrate of Basti. There is nothing before me to show why the order of transfer was passed. Such order was, however, passed and the case left Mr. Parmanand on the 3rd...
Jammu Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.559
Walsh, J.1. In my opinion this appeal fails. The members of the Court are not entirely agreed about their way of looking at it, although this disagreement is not one of substance so much as of form. About one point we entirely agree, namely, that we both of us object, indeed resent very strongly, being called upon to decide this point of law without any finding at all. It would have been mush better if the Munsif, and indeed all Munsifs and all Trial Courts, were to do what the Munsif ought to have done in this case, devote himself to the trial of the facts and decide all the issues, instead of proceeding to write essays on points of law. Assumed statements of fast have not been agreed to by the parties. Of course if the parties agree to a, statement of fast so that such fact is binding upon them in the suit as if it were established by evidence, then the question of law become a ripe for decision. Most questions in legal proceedings, and in the difficult business of settling disputes ...
Saina Vs. Seth Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.795
Stuart, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent is Zemindar of village Lahorikhurd. The plaintiff resides in Muzaffarnagar. His case is that while the village of Lahorikhurd was under the management of a Receiver, the defendant, who is a raiyat in the village, made constructions over land, the property of the plaintiff, which he had no right to use, some 5 or 6 years ago. He sued for the removal of the constructions The defendant's reply was that the constructions had been made 22 years before the date of the suit with the permission of the than Zemindar. The Munsif found that the constructions had been made 5 or 6 years before the date of the suit. An appeal was tiled to the Additional Judge in which the grounds of appeal were that the constructions were more than 12 years old and made with the permission of the Zemindar. The findings of fact were questioned. The Additional Judge found that no permission bad been given by any Zemindar and that the constructions were 5 or 6 years old. This secon...
The Lyalpur Sugar Mills and Co. and anr. Vs. the Ram Chandra Gur Sahai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All235; 67Ind.Cas.73
1. There are three connected appeals before us today pending between the same parties, namely, Nos. 319 and 183 of 1919 and one other appeal from order which has been admitted by us to-day bat which has not been numbered by the office. This last appeal which we have admitted and No. 186 of 1919 are appeals from orders. The appeal No. 319 of 1919 is a regular first appeal from an ex parte decree.2. The facts which have given rise to the three appeals are as follows: The parties to the three appeals are the Ramchandra Gur Sahei Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., as plaintiffs, and the Lyalpur Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., through their manager L. Jai Ram Dr, and the Cotton Ginning Factory at Lyalpur through their proprietors L. Mathura Das and Thakur Das as defendants. 3. The plaintiff Company sued for the recovery of Rs. 32,759 8-0 as damages on the allegation that the defendants had promised to supply the plaintiff firm with 320 bales of Lyalpur cotton at Rs. 45 8 0 per maund to be delivered at Lucknow ...
Sundar Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.827
Stuart, J.1. The fasts out of which this application for revision baa arisen are as follows:--Mr. Parmanad Singh, Tahsildar of Basti, as Magistrate of the Third Class, tried in 1921 a Criminal case in which Adhar Singh made a complaint against Davi Bakhsh Singh under the provisions of Sections 352 417 of the Indian Penal Code. In the Bourse of the trial, Sundar Lal Patwari gave evidence. As a result of the examination of this evidence, Mr. Parmanand Singh came to the conclusion, that Sundar Lal was not telling the truth in It's evidence, and that he had falsified certain of his records. Mr. Parmanand Singh did not complete the decision of the case, for, after he had heard practically all the evidence, the case was transferred for decision to the Court of Mr. Sarju Prasad, Honorary Magistrate, by an order of the District Magistrate of Basti. There is nothing before me to show why the order of transfer was passed. Such order was, however, passed and the case left Mr. Parmanand on the 3rd...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »