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.
Mufti Ali Jafar and anr. Vs. Fazal HusaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All349; (1922)ILR44All622
Piggott, J.1. It is impossible to understand the questions raised by this first appeal without going back to the facts of a previous litigation, determined by a decree of this Court dated the 20th of March, 1914, and a subsequent compromise. One Ghazanfar Husain Khan, a Shia gentleman residing at Jaunpur, executed, shortly before his death, a deed of endowment by which he constituted a trust for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature and appointed three trustees for the management of the said trust. The heirs-at-law of the deceased founder of the trust brought a suit against the trustees contesting the validity of the entire transaction. The eventual result was that the deed of endowment was declared invalid and the heirs-at-law of Ghazanfar Husain Khan were found to be the rightful owners as regards the larger part of the property affected by the deed of endowment, but the deed was affirmed in respect of a certain portion of the property affected. The trustees filed an a...
Khem Chand and ors. Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All620
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Khem Chand and others who had purchased certain property on the 18th of July, 1908, from one Pokhar Prasad. Pokhar Prasad was adjudicated an insolvent on the 30th of November, 1917; Kundan Lal was appointed receiver. Kundan Lal advertised the property, purchased by Khem Chand and Chuni Lal from Pokhar Prasad in 1908, for sale as the property of the insolvent. Khem Chand and Chuni Lal then applied to the District Judge under the provisions of Section 22 of Act III of 1907 for an order setting aside the proposed sale and a declaration that the property was theirs. This application was dismissed on the ground that it had not been filed within 21 days of the act complained of Khem Chand and Chuni Lal subsequently, with the permission of the District Judge, instituted a suit against the receiver and the insolvent for a declaration that the property in question belonged to them. The suit has been decreed in their favo...
Chhedi Rai and anr. Vs. Ram Kishan Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All628
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of the amount due to them on three bonds executed by the father of the defendant. The only plea which has been argued before us is one of limitation. The case has been put before us by the learned vakil for the appellant in this form. He said that on the date the father executed the bonds which are now being sued upon, the earlier bonds in exchange for which the fresh bonds were executed had become barred by time and, therefore, there was no consideration for them and execution of these bonds would not be binding on the sons. There is no doubt whatever that the father was competent to execute the present simple bonds in lieu of time-barred debts. Against him the contract would have been a valid one under Section 25, Clause (3), of the Indian Contract Act. Moreover, the Hindu law does not recognize any rule as to the extinction of claims by the efflux of time, so that looke...
Kundan Lal Vs. Khem Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All407; 70Ind.Cas.97
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Khem Chand and others who had purchased certain property on the 18th of July 1908 from one Pokhair Prasad. Pokhar Prasad was adjudicated an insolvent on the 30th of November 1917, Kundan Lal was appointed Receiver. Kundan Lal advertised the property purchased by Khem Chand and Chuni Lal from Pokhar Prasad in 1908 for sale as the property of the insolvent. Khem Chand and Chuni Lal then applied to the District Judge under the provisions of Section 22 of Act III of 1907 for an order setting aside the proposed sale and a declaration that the property was theirs. This application was dismissed on the ground that it had not been filed within 21 days of the act complained of. Khem Chand and, Chuni Lal subsequently, with the permission of the District Judge, instituted a suit against the Receiver and the insolvent for a declaration that the property in question belonged to them. The suit has been decreed in their favour on the merits. In second ap...
Kandhaia Singh Vs. Musammat Kundan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.641
1. We are agreed that no application in revision lies against an order admitting an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis.2. We dismiss this application with costs....
Mufti Ali Jafar and anr. Vs. Fazal Husaim Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.659
Piggott, J.1. It is impossible to understand the question raised by this first appeal without going back to the facts of a previous litigation, determined by a decree of this Court, dated the 20th of March 1914, and a subsequent compromise. One Ghazanfar Husain Khan, a Shia gentleman residing at Jaunpur, executed, shortly before his death, a deed of endowment by which he, constituted a trust for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature and appointed three trustees for the management of the said trust. The heirs-at-law of the deceased founder of the trust brought a suit against the trustees contesting the validity of the entire transaction. The eventual result was that the deed of endowment was declared invalid and the heirs-at-law of Ghazanfar Husain Khan were found to be the rightful owners as regards the larger part of the property affected by the dead of endowment but the deed was affirmed in respect of a certain portion of the property affected. The trustees filed an ap...
Muhammad Fatima Vs. Muhammad Mashuq Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All617
Lindsay and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. Although we do not agree with the reasons given by both the courts below in support of their judgments, we are nevertheless of opinion that the decree in favour of the plaintiff is substantially correct. The plaintiff is receiver in insolvency of one Abdur Rauf who was declared insolvent on the 13th of July, 1915. More than two years after the adjudication order, a sister of the insolvent, Musammat Musharraf-un-nissa, died and Abdur Rauf, as one of her legal heirs, became entitled to a two-ninths share of her estate.2. It appears that after the death of Musharraf-un-nissa, the appellant before us managed in some way or other to have a mutation order made in her favour. It seems that she put forward a will which she said had been executed in her favour by Musharraf-un-nissa who was her aunt.3. The receiver brought this suit asking for a declaration that a two-ninths share of the estate of Musharraf-un-nissa became the property of the insolvent, Abdur Rauf...
Sheo NaraIn Vs. Bala Rao
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All616
Lindsay and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal and the connected second appeal No. 24 of 1921 arise out of suits for profits brought by the plaintiff appellant against his brother, lambardar, defendant. The suits were for profits of two mahals for the years 1323, 1324 and 1325. The defendant pleaded in answer that he and his brother were members of a joint Hindu family and that such a suit was not maintainable.2. The first court came to the conclusion that the parties were divided in status, and decreed the claim of the plaintiff in part for the periods in suit.3. On appeal the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the parties were joint in the year 1823 Fasli and has dismissed the claim for profits for that year. The names of the parties to the suit are entered on a moiety share in each of the two mahals and having regard to the view taken of Section 201(3) of the Tenancy Act by this Court, the claim of the plaintiff, whose name was entered on a moiety of the property, ought to h...
Kanhaya Vs. Shambhu and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All619
Ryves and Stuart, JJ.1. The point that arises in this appeal is fully covered by authority. The suit was brought by a mortgagee on the loot of a mortgage to recover the loan. It was instituted against the mortgagor who executed the mortgage and his minor son. After attempts had been made by the plaintiff to get various persons appointed guardian ad litem to the minor, the Nazir of the court was ultimately appointed. The suit was heard, evidence was given and it was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff against both the father and the son. Thereafter an appeal was presented to the District Judge by one Bhagwanji on behalf of the minor. He was not the guardian ad litem and had never applied to be made guardian. On the appeal coming before him, the learned District Judge refused to hear it on the ground that there was no valid appeal before him. He held that the Nazir having been appointed guardian ad litem, his authority must be held to continue as long as the Us continued and th...
Sheo NaraIn Vs. Rala Rao
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.208
1. This appeal and the connected second appeal No. 24 of 192l arise out of suits for profits brought by the plaintiff-appellant against his brother, lambardar, defendant. The Baits were for profits of two mahali, for the years 1323, 1324 and 1325. The defendant pleaded in answer that he and his brother were members of a joint Hindu family and that such a suit was not maintainable.2. The First Court came to the conclusion that the parties were divided in status, and decreed the claim of the plaintiff in part for the periods in suit.3. On appeal the learned Judge has come to the conclusion (bat the parties were joint in the year 1323 Fasli and has dismissed the claim for profits for that year The names of the patties to the suit; are entered on a moiety 'share in each of We two mahals, and having regard to the view taken of Section 201 (3) of the Tenancy Act by this Court; the claim of the plaintiff, whore name was entered on a moiety of the property, ought to Have been decreed. All that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »