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.
Sital Singh and ors. Vs. Baijnath Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All383; 75Ind.Cas.485
1. This is an execution second appeal arising under the following circumstances:2. A compromise decree was passed on the 14th of August 1917 in favour of Purnanand and Bhagwan Ram against Sital Singh and others, judgment-debtors, under which Rs. 2,950 were to be realized by sale of certain hypothecated property, but in case the judgment-debtors paid Rs. 2,500 to the decree-holders within three months of the date of the decree, the judgment-debtors and their property would be released from all liability under the decree of, in other words, the decree for sate would cease to exist.3. On the 30th November 1918 the present application was put in by Baijnath, a transferee of the decree from the original decree-holders, for a decree absolute for Rs. 850, the balance alleged to be due under the decree on the allegation that the judgment-debtors had already paid Rs. 2,100. The judgment-debtors preferred an objection to the preparation of the decree absolute on the ground that they had paid the...
Abdul Karim Khan Vs. Muhammad Jan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.970
1. We are concerned in this one with a claim which was brought by the first respondent Munshi Mohammad 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 January and the 1st 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 fall and the question raised before as is whether or not in view of certain proceedings between the parties she items from the 1st of January 914 up to and including that of the 1st of January, 1917 are claimable in this suit.4. In order to explain the matter which arise for decision, it is necessary to refer to the following fasts:-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 1st of January, 1917. This suit was Suit No. 166...
Ram Sarup Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All659; 75Ind.Cas.472
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought by a subsequent mortgagee for the recovery of the money due on two simple mortgages. The claims were resisted by a person who had purchased the mortgaged property in execution of a simple money decree due by the mortgagor. That person also held certain prior mortgages on the same property. He asserted that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for the recovery of the money due on the subsequent incumbrance until he had paid the money due on the prior mortgages. The first court decreed the claim without requiring the plaintiff to pay the money due on the prior mortgages. The view taken by it was that the prior mortgages had ceased to subsist and that the defendant could not set up those mortgages as a shield against the claim brought by the subsequent mortgagee. The lower appellate court, however, held otherwise and granted a decree to the plaintiff subject to his redeeming the prior mortgages set up by the def...
Babu Lal Vs. Ghansham Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All205; (1922)ILR44All633; 70Ind.Cas.84
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are so clearly staled in the judgment under appeal that it is unnecessary for us to recapitulate them. The question in issue is whether an insolvent of the name of Mehdi Hasan did or did not inherit a fractional share in a certain house on the death of one Wazir Muhammad. Wazir Muhammad's interest in that house was derived from a deed of gift and. before his death he had executed another deed by which ho returned his share in the house to his own donor, Ahsan-ullah Khan. If Wazir Muhammad had a right to gift this property back to Ahsan-ullah Khan, then it did not belong to him at his death and under no circumstances could Mehdi Hasan inherit anything. It is contended that Wazir Muhammad himself held only a life-estate. The court below has discussed the matter only with reference to the terms of the Transfer of Property Act; but the parties are Muhammadans, and we do not see our way to take this case out of the operation...
Sri Thakurji and anr. Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All408; (1922)ILR44All634; 75Ind.Cas.335
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The dispute in this case relates to a plot of land situate in the village Sisamau in the Cawnpore district. The plaintiffs claimed to be co-sharers of a mahal to which this land appertains. One of the plaintiffs is an idol whose property is under the management of Ajodhya Prasad. The other two plaintiffs are Ajodhya Prasad and Baldeo Prasad, whose property is under the management of the Court of Wards. There is another co-sharer, Sheo Prasad, whose property is also under the management of the Court of Wards. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that the defendant Hira Lal had taken wrongful possession of the disputed land and started making constructions thereon without any right. The defence of Hira Lal was that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the disputed land and that he had been in possession thereof for more than twelve years. The court of first instance found against him and decreed the claim. On appeal one of the pleas taken up for th...
Dwarka Das Ajodhya Prasad Vs. Ram Ratan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All458; 68Ind.Cas.239
1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen are these:The defendants' firm are proved to have contracted to purchase from the plaintiffs' firm 22 maunds, 14 seers and 13 chatacks of Balchar on the 27th of February, 1920, at a price which was fixed at Rs. 815 1-3.2. The lower Appellate Court has believed the evidence of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff upon this point. According to the evidence the defendants' firm agreed to take these goods as ascertained but requested the plaintiffs' firm to postpone delivery until it was convenient for the defendants' firm to take delivery. In these circumstances, the provisions of the latter part of Section 78, Act IX of 1872, come into operation. The parties had agreed that the delivery should be postponed. The property in the Balchar, therefore, passed to the defendants' firm on the 27th February 1920 as soon as the proposal for sale was accepted. Such being the case, the plaintiffs' suit, which was a suit for the price of ...
Surat Singh and ors. Vs. Umrao Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All410; 77Ind.Cas.113
1. The only question with which we are concerned in this second appeal is the question of limitation. It arose in the following way. It seems that two cousins named Sughar Singh and Kesari Singh were the owners jointly of a 1 anna 7 pie 10 karant share in the village of Atagaon. It has been found that this property was joint family property.2. The plaintiffs in the present suit are the descendants of Sughar. Singh, while the principal contesting defendants %re the descendants of Kesari Singh.3. In the year 1872 it is found that Kesari Singh as head of the joint family made a mortgage with possession of a 9 pie 15 karant share out of the, joint share already mentioned. This mortgage was made in favour of Sughar Singh son of Risal Singh.4. The Settlement of the district took place in the year 1885 and it is shown that after Kesari Singh's death the entries in the revenue papers stood as follows with regard to the 1 anna 7 pie to karant share above mentioned: One-half of this share was en...
Jethu Misir Vs. Godawari Dutt and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All411; 77Ind.Cas.107
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house.2. The defence pleaded was (1) adverse possession (2) that as the plaintiffs' father he d already obtained a decree for possession against the defendant and had failed to execute it, therefore, no second suit lay and (3) that, when this house had been attached by one Baijnath, a creditor of Godawari Dutt, the defendant-appellant put in an objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code, and succeeded in it and as Godawari Dutt brought no suit within one year under Rule 63 so the title of the appellant to the property became absolute. All these pleas were found against the defendant by both the lower Courts which have decreed the claim the defendant comes here in second appeal the first plea argued before us was that of adverse possession. This is disposed of by the lower Appellate Court with the finding that Mama Lal, the former owner of the house, admitted the plaintiffs' title on the 15th of...
Bishwa Nath Singh Vs. Rup NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All629
Piggott, J.1. The Stamp Reporter has done no more than his duty in bringing this question forward, and the position taken up by him can be supported by strong arguments based upon the actual wording of the relevant clauses of the Court Fees Act. Nevertheless 1 cannot escape from the feeling that the line of action suggested does violence to the spirit of the Act. The plaintiff's case is that property of which he is the joint owner has been sold without his concurrence or authority, and the essential relief sought is recovery of possession upon such terms as the trial court may see fit to impose. The suit could have been framed as one for recovery of possession pure and simple; this is made the more apparent by the form of decree actually passed. The case of Raja Dhakeswar Prasad Singh v. Jivo Chaudhry (1918) 3 Patna L.J. 448 is not really in point. The sale in that case had been held by order of a public officer acting under statutory powers; it conveyed a good title to the purchaser u...
Rup NaraIn and ors. Vs. Bishwa Nath Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All358; 68Ind.Cas.265
Piggott, J.1. The Stamp Reporter has done no more than his duty in bringing this question forward, and the position taken up by him can be supported by strong arguments based upon the actual wording of the relevant clauses of the Court Fees Act. Nevertheless, I cannot escape from the feeling that the line of action suggested does violence to the spirit of the Act. The plaintiff's case is, that property of whish he is the joint owner has bean gold without his concurrence or authority, and the essential relief sought is recovery of possession upon such terms as the Trial Court may see fit to impose. The suit could have been framed as one for recovery of possession pure and simple; this is made the more apparent by the form of decree actually passed. The case of Dhakeswar Prasad Singh v. Jioo Choudhry 46 Ind. Cas. 38(sic), 3 P. L. J. 448 is not really in point. The sale in that case had been held by order of a public officer acting under statutory powers; it conveyed a good title to the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »