Allahabad Court May 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.
Bind Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Rituraji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All420; 68Ind.Cas.776
1. The circumstances under which this appeal has arisen areas follows:--- One Kunj Behari Singh died many years ago leaving a widow Musammat Jamna Kunwar. She died in the year 1914. After her death, two persons, Sheo Narain Singh and Chotku Singh, applied for mutation as nest reversioners. Their application was opposed by Musammat Rituraji, the respondent No. 1, who represented herself to be the daughter of Kunj Behari Singh, and raid she was as such entitled to the property. She lost her case in the Revenue Court and afterwards brought a suit for declaration of her title as the heiress of Kunj Behari Singh as against Chotku Singh and Sheo Narain Singh, the next reversioners. Her suit was decreed by the Court of first instance and that decree was confirmed, on appea), by this Court, in 1919.2. The present plaintiffs, who allege themselves to be remoter reversioners, as compared to Sheo Narain Singh and Chatku Singh, commenced this litigation on the 17th of June, 1919, claiming possessi...
Jadu Rai and anr. Vs. Ram Birich Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.637
Stuart, J.1. The sole point for decision in this appeal is, whether a stipulation in the latter mortgage-deed of the 12th June 1015 amounts to a 'contract to the contrary' within the meaning of Section 61, Act IV of 1882. Here two mortgages were executed, one on the 13th June 1913 and the other on the 12th June 1915. By each mortgage a separate property was mortgaged with possession. The second mortgage contained this clause, 'and when in any year in the month of Jeth the whole of the mortgage-money due under this deed together with the amount due under the deed of the 13th June 1913 shall be paid, then the mortgage shall be redeemable and the deed shall be taken back.'2. Now, we have the mortgagor seeking to redeem one mortgage. He is entitled to do so in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Under the Act, consolidation is only permitted if a contract to the contrary exists. The words 'contract to the contrary' appear to have been deliberately used in the Act. It is not easy to ...
Muhammad Sulaiman Vs. Sakina Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.701
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a house situate in Cawnpore City. The house belonged to Musammat Sakina, the plaintiff-respondent, in the beginning of 1912 she went to Mesca, leaving the house in charge of a relation of hers named Badulla. Before leaving for Mecca, she had executed a Will by virtue of which she bad bequeathed an interest in that house to Badulla on her death. At Bombay she got herself re-married to a person named Nur Jamal and went with him to Mecca where she stayed for two years. On her return she went to Delhi where she stayed with her husband.2. Meanwhile an application was made by Badulla to the Municipal Board, Cawnpore, on the 31st May, 1915, stating that he was not aware of the whereabouts of Musammat Sakina who had gone on pilgrimage, nor certain whether she was dead or alive, and praying that the house might be entered in his name, as he was her only heir. This application was granted and the name of Badulla was entered in the Municipal house-tax Regi...
Maharaja of Jaipur and anr. Vs. Surjan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All333; 75Ind.Cas.495
1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises can be stated very shortly as follows:--There is a small house in Katra, Allahabad City, standing within an area of 35 acres. This area is owned by His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur, This small house was previously occupied by a woman called Musammat Sukharaji. She died about 1907. Before her death she had let the house to a man named Ramji Sahai. He continued to occupy it after her death. There was a man called Sukhu Nut with whom Sukharaji had been living as his mistress. On her death, Ramji Sahai continued to pay rent to Srkhu Nut, Then Sukhu Nut died. After his death Ramji Sahai paid rent to Musammat' Raghunathi, who was a subsequent mistress of Sukhu Nut. When Musammat Raghunathi died she made a Will in favourer of a man called Surjan Singh, the plaintiff-respondent in this appeal, by which she bequeathed him the house in question We have it that Ramji Sahai vacated the premises on the 6th of October 1916. Three days after...
Sheobaran Dube and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.348
Stuart, J.1. The evidence on the record shows that all the applicants have threatened the complainant, Pursotam, so as to cause a reasonable belief that any one of them might commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. The evidence brings this fact home to every one. There can be no objection to the legality of the order on the ground that there is no evidence on the record to justify it, for there is evidence on the record to justify it, The remaining point taken is that Jagannath is a resident of the Banares State. The argument is that in these circumstances, no order can be passed against him under Section 107. There is no force in this argument. Section 107, Sub-section (2) of Act V of 1898 lays down very clearly that no proceedings can take plate under Section 107 unless either the person informed against or the plate where the breach of the peace or disturbance it apprehended is within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate determining the matt...
Kallu Mal Vs. Kashi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.175
1. This is an appeal from an order, rejecting an application for the preparation of a final decree for sale. Toe preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 24th September 1915. It allowed time for the payment of the decretal money till the 24th March 1916. On the 11th December 19(sic)8 an application was made by the decree-holder for the preparation of a final decree for sale. On the same dale the office reported that the amount of demand entered in the application was not correct and that some portion of the mortgaged property had also been omitted On the 13th December 1918 the Court passed an order returning the application to the decree-holder for amendment without fixing any time for its presentation after amendment. The decree holder received back the application on the 21st December 1918, bat did not file it after amendment till the 29th May 1919. On the 6th March 1918 the Court ordered that, as the application had not been filed after amendment, the papers should be consigned...
Muhammad Jan Vs. Abdul Karim Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All663
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. We are concerned in this case with a claim which was brought by the first respondent Munshi Muhammad Jan for the recovery of arrears of an annuity of Rs. 660 per annum.2. The annuity was payable in equal moieties on the 1st of January and the 1st of July of each year and the period covered by the present suit ran from the 1st of January, 1914, to the 1st of July, 1919.3. The courts below have decreed the claim in full and the question raised before us is whether or not, in view of certain proceedings between the parties, the items from the 1st of January, 1914, up to and including that of the 1st of January, 1917, are claimable in this suit.4. In order to explain the matter which arises for decision, it is necessary to refer to the following facts:5. On the 28th of June, 1917, the plaintiff, Munshi Muhammad Jan, brought a suit against these defendants to recover the instalments of the annuity which had fallen due from the 1st of January, 1914, up to the ...
Musammat Somni Vs. Hans Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All665
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a house situated in Gorakhpur city. The house was originally an enclosure, belonging to Chunni. Chunni died leaving two widows, Musammat Pati and Musammat Somni, and a daughter, Musammat Ganga Dei. In 1910 a partition took place whereby the disputed enclosure was allotted to the share of Musammat Pati. On the 7th oil September, 1914, Musammat Pati mortgaged that land with. Hansraj for Rs. 150, stating that Rs. 25 out of the same were required for the repairs of her own dwelling house and Rs. 125 for giving a caste dinner in connection with the death ceremonies of her husband. Her husband had died about four years earlier. The court of first instance found that Rs. 25 had been borrowed for the purpose of repairing the dwelling house occupied by Musammat Pati, which was in a dilapidated condition, but there was no legal necessity for borrowing Rs. 125 for giving a caste dinner. It, however, awarded Rs. 600 to the mortg...
Jassi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.826
Stuart, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a right view of the matter. The record is returned to the Magistrate in order that he may take proceedings required by law under the provision of Section 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure....
Hans Raj and ors. Vs. Musammat Somni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.314
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a house situated in Gorakhpur city. The house was originally an enclosure, belonging to Chunni. Chunni died leaving two widows, Musammat Pati and Musammat Somni, and a daughter, Musammat Ganga Dei. In 1910 a partition took place whereby the disputed enclosure was allotted to the share of Musammat Pati. On the 7th of September 1914 Musammat Pati mortgaged that land with Hansraj for Rs. 150 stating that Rs. 25 out of the same were required for the repairs of her own dwelling house and Rs. 125 for giving a caste dinner in connection with the death ceremonies of her husband. Her husband had died about 4 years earlier. The Court of first instance found that Rs. 25 had been borrowed for the purpose of repairing the dwelling house occupied by Musammat Pati, which was in a dilapidated condition, but there was no legal necessity for borrowing Rs. 125 for giving a cane dinner. It, however, awarded Rs. 600 to the mortgagee on a count of the cost of constru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »