Allahabad Court June 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.
Ram NaIn Misir and ors. Vs. Deoki Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All75; 69Ind.Cas.912
1. Second Appeal No. 799 of 1921 and Second Appeal No, 1098 of 1921 are plaintiffs' appeals arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain plots on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 1st of August 1879, against the defendants who were alleged to have been in wrongful possession of them and, in the alternative, for recovery of the amount due together with interest.2. The main plea on behalf of the defendants was that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of these plots within twelve years of the suit and that the defendants had been in possession of them, and, accordingly, the claim was barred by time, The Court of first instance, holding that the plaintiffs had been in possession within twelve years of the suit and that the defendants had not established their adverse possession for more than twelve years, decreed the claim for possession. On appeal, the learned District Judge has reversed that decree. On behalf of the plaintiffs, in second appeal, it is contended...
Mahant Kuber Das Vs. Ram DIn Kalwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1922
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.927
1. The point taken on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is an ingenious one and no doubt entitled to consideration; but we are satisfied on the whole that the ruling referred to by the learned Judge of this Court does govern the present case and that the decision under appeal was correct.2. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Raza Ali Vs. Moazzam Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All12; 70Ind.Cas.836A
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the following, circumstances: Musammat Mahmudunnissa made a waqf of certain, property in the year 1884 and she appointed her son, Mustafa Ali, as the first mutwalli. The rules for succession, to the office of mutwalli were, not fixed by the lady. It appears that in the year 1910 some misunderstanding arose between the two sons of Mustafa Ali and Mustafa Ali himself about the dower of Mustafa Ali's wife, and his sons further claimed to be appointed as managers of the property endowed by their grand-mother. These disputes were referred to the arbitration of one Ghulam Ameer and he decided that Mustafa Ali should continue to be mutwalli during his lifetime and that after his death, his two sons, the plaintiff and the defendant in the present suit, would be joint mutwallis and act according to the deed of endowment executed' by their grandmother, Musammat Mahmudunnissa. The present suit has been brought by the plaintiff for ...
Mahadeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Dhiraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All7; 77Ind.Cas.122
1. The question which is in controversy between the parties in. this appeal is whether in a mortgage by way of conditional sale the mortgagor is found to pay interest at the agreed fate from and after the day upon which he should have discharged his obligations under the deed. In other words, is interest during the frost diem period, though not expressly provided for, to be calculated under the particular provisions of the deed at the same rate as that stipulated for during the agreed period of the currency of the bond2. The position very shortly is as follows: The borrower should have re-paid, but did not re-pay, the principal and interest in December 1907, and though certain-payments of interest were made, the account at the commencement of this action on the 20th of October 1919, showed that Rs. 8,000 principal and Rs. 10,581 interest ware due. This was based upon the calculation that the express stipulation as to interest covered the whole period from the 8th of December 1902, down...
Sri Gangaji Cotton Mills Co., Ld. Vs. East Indian Railway Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.961
Lindsay, J.1. The suit which bas given rise to this appeal was brought against the East Indian Railway Company by the Sri Gangaji Cotton Mills Company, Limited, carrying on business at, Mirzapur and the claim was for Rs. 23,960 86 plus interest at Rs. 6 per sent, per annum, making a total of Rs. 25,360. 6.6.2. The suit has been dismissed in toto by the Subordinate Judge and the plaintiff Company appeals.3. The facts of the ease are that in May 1918, a consignment of 103 bales of cotton was booked, at Jaipur, on the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway, for delivery to the plaintiff Company at Mirzapur A Portion of this consignment consisting of 54 bales, was delivered to the plaintiff Company at Mirzapur, on the 22nd May, 1918.4.On that date, it appears, the plaintiffs handed over to the East Indian Railway toe Railway Receipt for the entire consignment of 10 bales, and paid the fall freight due amounting to Rs. 437-1.0.5. The rest of the consignment, 54 bales, was dalayed in transi...
Pandit Jiva Ram Vs. ThakuraIn Khem Koer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All24; 70Ind.Cas.811
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption brought by the plaintiff on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated 12th June 1919. The mortgage-deed had provided that if in any year in the month of Jeth when there are no crops on the fields the whole amount is paid, the plaintiff would be entitled to claim redemption. The plaintiff deposited the whole amount due under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act on the last day of the month of Jethtin the year 1917.2. On behalf of the defendant it was pleaded that there had been no proper tender and the suit for redemption was not maintainable and that in any case interest did not cease to run.3. The Court of first instance decreed the suit for redemption but directed that redemption should take place from the following Jeth. It disallowed the claim for mesne profits. On appeal the learned District Judge was of opinion that the deposit under Section 83 was sufficient compliance with the law to stay interest. He accordin...
Chhotey Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All33; 69Ind.Cas.457
Ryves, J.1. The Kotwal of Cawnpore, having reason to suspect stolen properly to be in possession of Chhotey, searched his shop in the Bazar, in Cawnpore. Chhotey had been absent from Cawnpore for some days. Husaini, a servant of Chhotey, was in charge of the shop. The Kotwal found a pistol lying on the floor of the shop. Both Chhotey and Husaini, his servant, were tried for an offence under the Arms Act and were both, convicted by the Magistrate who sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each. They applied for revision to the Sessions Judge who upheld the conviction of Husain bat has referred the case of Chhotey to this Court with a recommendation that the conviction and sentence be. set aside. The Magistrate convicted Chhotey, holding that under Section 27 of the Indian Penal Code the pistol being in the possession of his servant, Husaini, must be consider-ed to have bean in Chhotey's possession. The learned Sessions Judge points oat that the Magistrate hag apparently overlooked the i...
Durga Prasad Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All195; 67Ind.Cas.321
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an application in revision for the discharge of an order setting aside a sale held in execution of a decree under Order. XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The sale took place on the 25th August 1920. The Civil Courts closed for the vacation on the 16th September 1920 and re opened on the 25th October 1920. On that date an application was made by the judgment debtor for setting aside the sale. He filed with the application a tender offering the amount mentioned in the proclamation of sale with the compensation payable to the auction-purchaser. But his tender could not be signed by the presiding Judge of the court concerned that day and the actual payment of the money was not, therefore, made till the next day, though the applicant was ready to pay it on the day on which the tender was made. The Court below accepted the application and set aside the tale.2. The learned Counsel who appears for the auction purchaser contends that the deposit should hav...
Mannu Khan Vs. Chandi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All321; 67Ind.Cas.826
Ryves, J.1. Mannu Khan laid information before the Magistrate in consequence of which action was taken under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code against a number of persons. After enquiry, the Magistrate discharged these persons under Section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that the complaint made against them was vexatious and frivolous, and ordered the complainant to pay them each Rs. 15 as compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On revision before the learned District Magistrate he has referred the case to this Court with a recommendation that the order under Section 250 be sat aside. Section 250 is only applicable in a case instituted by complaint or on information given to a Police Officer or to a Magistrate whereupon a person is accused before a Magistrate of 'an offence.' It has been held by this Court in Ram Sukh Rai v. Mahudeo Rai 7 Ind. Cas. 290 : 7A.L.J. 743 : 11 Cr. L.J. 446 that Section 250 does not apply to an enquiry under Sectio...
Shuja-ud-dIn Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.834
Gokul Prasad, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the convictions in two trials of the appellant under Sections 408 and 477A, respectively, of the Indian Penal Code. The accused war, at first, tried in a single trial under both years' rigorous imprisonment. That trial was set side by this Court on the ground that a joint trial like that was illegal. The Sessions Judge thereupon tried the accused separately under etch of the two sections aforesaid and has convicted him as stated above. The accused comes up here in appeal and one of the points raised by him here, which was raided before Mr. Pullan, is that he has, as the result of the separation of the trials under the two different sections, been sentenced to a heavier sentence than he was sentenced before. As to this aspect of the case, the learned Sessions Judge observes as follows:--'I have been asked to recommend the Local Government to order that the sentences in this case should run concurrently with those in the connected case un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »