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.
Khiali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All480; 68Ind.Cas.41
1. On the 4th of April 1922 the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Aligarh, sitting at Etah, convicted two men, Khiali and Hulasi, on a charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and passed upon them substantial sentences of imprisonment and fines. On the 12th of April 1922 both Khiali and Halasi caused to be prepared in the Ja(sic)1, in which they were confined, petitions of appeal against their convictions and the sentences passed upon them. These petitions of appeal reached this Court on the 15th of April 1922. Hiving been examined and reported upon by a ministerial officer of this Court, they ware laid before a Judge of this Court on the 20ih of April 1922. On the day following, the Judge in question, dealing with the petitions of appeal under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissed both the appeals of Khiali and Hulasi summarily.2. On the 1st of May 1922 Counsel, having been instructed on behalf of Khiali and Hulasi, brought for presentation to this...
Madho Das Vs. Gokul Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All478; 68Ind.Cas.761
1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of money which, he stated, he had paid in excess to the defendants. The facts, as found by the Courts below, are that the plaintiff agreed to purchase 90 balss of cloth from the defendant; that he broke his contract to the extent that he refused to take delivery of 11 bales of cloth. He took delivery of 9 bales and refused to take delivery of the remainder. It is further found that the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,000 on one occasion, Rs. 1,000 on a second occasion before he received any sloth, and that he subsequently paid Rs. 4,950, Rs. 4,675 and Rs. 1,236. He thus paid Rs. 12,861 in all and took delivery of 9 bales of sloth which ware prised at IK 11,301-15.0. Thin left a balance of Rs. 1,556-1-0 which the plaintiff has aued to recover from the defendants. The lower Courts have dismissed his suit holding that he bad agreed to pay Rs. 2,000 earnest-money and that he had actually paid Rs. 2,000 earnest money and that, inasmuch as he...
Udai Bhan Singh and anr. Vs. Gajendra Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All28; 70Ind.Cas.815
Stuart, J.1. The main point for decision is whether the faces that the defendants and the deceased father of one defendant, were attesting witnesses; that one of the defendants purchased the stamp-paper and that another identified the widow before the Sub-Registrar and that the deed recites that the money was taken for the defendants' benefit, establish in law that the deed is binding upon the defendants. I note at the beginning my conclusion that the lower Appellate Court took into consideration all the evidence before it and that its judgment is not vitiated by any omission to consider the evidence. The case presents no difficulty. The decision of their lordships of the Privy Council in the comparatively recent case or Rungaswami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden 50 Ind. Cas. 498 : 42 M. 523 : 46 I.A. 73 : 17 A.L.J. 526 : 36 M.L.J. 493 : 29 C.L.J. 539 : 21 Bom. L.R. 640 : 23 C.W.N. 777 : (1919) M.W.N. 262 : 26 M.L.T. 5 : 10 L.W. 105 has laid down very clearly me principles upon which a Co...
Rashik Lal and anr. Vs. Radha Dulaiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All1
Stuart and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of certain property including a 5 anna 4 pie zamindari share in village Patora Kalan and a 6 pie share in Lalitpur. The plaintiffs' case, as set forth in the plaint, was that the property in dispute was given to one Musammat Sarawan Dulaiya under an award dated the 12th of July, 1891, that she was to have possession, of it for her life, and, under the said award, the property was to revert to the plaintiffs' family, and that she died on the 3rd of May, 1908, on which date the plaintiffs became entitled to recover possession of this property.2. The claim was contested mainly by the present defendant appellant, Musammat Radha Dulaiya, who pleaded that in fact there was no valid and binding award in existence, and further, that her deceased husband, Damodar Das, had been adopted by Musammat Sarawan Dulaiya and had been in possession of the property as such; and, lastly, that the claim was barred by ...
Baldeo Das Alias Krishna Das Vs. Pitambar Alias Ranugrah Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All29; 70Ind.Cas.840
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising under these circumstances,-On the 9th of May 1908 a preliminary decree based on a compromise was passed, under which the amount found due was to be. paid in three instalments in the years 1909, 1910 and 1911. It was provided that in case of default of payment of any instalment the decree-holder would be entitled to recover the whole of the decretal amount with interest, and it was also added that the amount will be realized in the first instance by sale of the share belonging to Rajender Misir, judgment-debtor, and in case the sale proceeds were insufficient to pay the decretal amount, then the share of Mussammat Bachchi, the other judgment-debtor, would be liable to be sold.3. It is admitted that no instalments were paid in time. An application was accordingly made on behalf of the decree-holder for an order absolute, and on the 30th of March 1913, a final decree was passed -by the Trial Court. It, however, appears that on that date Musammat Bac...
Musammat Amina Bibi and anr. Vs. Saiyid Yusuf and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All449; 70Ind.Cas.968
1. The dispute in these appeals relates to a 6 annas 4 pies share of the village Bawanda, which originally belonged to Paigambar Baksh alias Abdullah, a retired Subordinate Judge of these Provinces. He had purchased the entire village in the name of his wife. Musammat Allarakhi Bibi. She survived Paigambar Baksh and had by him two sons. Saiyid Muhammad, Saiyid Mahmud and a daughter Musammat Khudeja Bibi. She died in September 906. Her son Saiyid, Muhammad had died in her lifetime leaving two sons, Saiyid Husain and Saiyid Mohsin. Musammat Khudeja Bibi had died a few days after her leaving her husband, Saiyid Muhammad Zuber, as one of her heirs. On the death of Musammat Allarakhi a dispute arose between her grandsons, Saiyid Husain and Saiyid Mohsin, her son Saiyid Mahmud and Muhammad Zuber, the husband of Musammat Khudeja Bibi, each of whom claimed a right of inheritance to the said property. It was then disputed whether the real owner of that property was Musammat Allarakhi Bibi or he...
Radha Dulaiya Vs. Rashik Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All25; 75Ind.Cas.14
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of certain property including a 5-annas 4-pies zemindari share in village Patora Kalan; and a 6 pies share in Lalitpur. The plaintiffs' case, as set forth in the plaint, was that the property in dispute was given to one Musammat Sarawan Dulaiya under an award dated 12th July 1891, that she was to have possession of it for her life, and, under the said award, the property was to revert to the plaintiffs' family, and that she died on the 3rd of May 1908, on which date the plaintiffs became entitled to recover possession of this property.2. The claim was contested mainly by the present defendant-appellant, Musammat Radha Dulaiya, who pleaded that in fact there was no valid and binding award in existence, and, further, that her deceased husband, Damodar Das, had been adopted by Musammat Sarawan Dulaiya and had been in possession of the property as such; and, lastly, that the claim was barred by time. Both the Courts below h...
Peare Lal and ors. Vs. Sunder Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All436; 68Ind.Cas.805
1. In our view this appeal fails. It raises in form a nice question of onus in a case where the law has uncontrovertibly placed the onus of proof to support a mortgage of family property upon the shoulders of the creditor. It is sufficient, for the purpose of the preceding statement, to refer to the judgment of Sir John Stanley in the case of Chandradeo Singh v. Mata Prasad 1 Ind. Cas. 479 : 31 A. 176 : 6 A. L. J. 263 (F. B.) which has received the expressed approval and adoption, if one may use the term, of the Privy Council, more them once and particularly in the case of Sahu Earn Chandra v. Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 280 : 39 A. 437 : 21 C. W. N. 698 : 1 P. L. W. 557 : 5 A. L. I. 437 : 19 Bom. L. Rule 498 : 26 C. L. J. 1: 3 M. L. J. 14 : 19(sic)7, M. W. N. 439 : 22 M. L. T. 22, 6 L. W. 213 : 44 I. A. 126 (P. C.), and we, of course, faithfully adhere to Ibat decision which may be said to have a force in India equivalent to Statute Law.2. We adopt also the principle laid down by the Priv...
Mir Shahamat Ali Vs. Rahim Bux and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1922
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.1008
1. There is nothing in this appeal, The Receiver must enquire into all the debts when the estate is administered, and he will form his own judgment as to whether this alleged debt of Rs. 75 is a genuine one or not, and if it turns out to be, as suggested, fictitious, no dividend will be payable in respect of it. The same observation applies to the debt of the appellant, although he has got a decree. A decree obtained against the judgment-debtor is not binding against the Receiver in insolvency. There is always a possibility of its having been collusive between the parties' when the judgment-debtor has nothing in the world to bless himself with and does not care whether he has decrees for an unlimited amount against him or not. The appeal must be dismissed with costs, on the higher scale, if any....
Ram Ratan Misir and ors. Vs. Kapil Deo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All20; 83Ind.Cas.417
1. The plaintiffs-appellants in this case sued upon a mortgage of the 1st of March 1902. The, suit, which was filed in the month of July 1919, was within limitation by reason of the period prescribed for payment; but it is not denied that the plaintiffs' remedy against the mortgagors personally had long since become time-barred. The mortgagors were four brothers and it is admitted that they constituted on the date of the mortgage the adult members of a certain joint family., The suit is against three of the original mortgagors and a grandson of the fourth who is since deceased. The only question in issue before us in this appeal relates to the liability of the said grandson by name Kapil Deo Singh. The mortgage was for a thousand rupees; the details of the consideration have been fully set forth in the deed itself and in the judgments of the Courts below. Rs. 585 were set down as due on account of the principal and interest of five previous mortgage-deeds executed by different members ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »