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.
Muhammad Hafiz and anr. Vs. Badr-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All743
Piggott and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This appeal represents a further stage in certain execution proceedings which have been once already before this Court, vide the case of Muhammad Hafiz v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1920) I.L.R. All. 152. The appellant now before us, Sheikh Badr-ud-din Khan Bahadur, is one of the two sureties who bound themselves for the satisfaction of a certain decree. One of the points taken in appeal before us is as to the interpretation of the security bond and the nature of the obligations thereby undertaken by the sureties. We do not say, for a moment, that Sheikh Badr-ud-din Khan Bahadur, who was not a party to the appeal before the Court in the reported case referred to, is not entitled to be heard on this point; but, having heard him, we are still of opinion, that the terms of the security bond were rightly interpreted by this Court when delivering the aforesaid judgment. The result is that one of the obligations, jointly and severally as sumed by the two sureties, was the ...
A.A. Garlinge Vs. Irene Rebecca Garlinge and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All504; (1922)ILR44All745
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a reference from the Court of the District Judge of Ajmer Merwara, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, No. IV of 1869. The petitioner is Alfred A. Garlinge, described as a guard in the employment of the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway. The respondent is his wife, Irene Rebecca Garlinge, and the co-respondent is Joseph William Prior, employed in the Locomotive shops at Ajmer.2. The fact that the petitioner and the respondent were married on the 16th day of May, 1910, and the further fact that one child was born of the marriage, a daughter, in the month of December, 1910, are admitted. The said daughter is still living and is referred to by the name of Dorothy in the evidence.3. In the third paragraph of the petition it is alleged in general terms that soon after the marriage the respondent began to misconduct herself and continued in her evil conduct in spite of repeated promises to reform. A general allegation of t...
(Saiyad) Abdullah Vs. Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1929All817
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, and for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 12th January 1225 executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is null and void as against the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff's case was that defendant 1 contracted to sell his 1 anna 7 ganda and odd share in mauza Dharamsipur to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,925, and, on receipt of Rs. 99 by way of earnest money, on 26th December 1924, executed an agreement embodying the terms of the contract and promised to execute the sale-deed on 5th January 1925, but notwithstanding the said contract defendant 1 sold 17 gandas share to defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 2,700 on 12th January 1925.3. The suit was contested by all the defendants. The case put forward by the defendants was that, prior to the agreement alleged by the plaintiff, defendant 1 had on 17th November 1924 agreed to sell his 1 anna 7 ganda and odd share to defendant...
Musammat Durga Devi and ors. Vs. Girwar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All11; 70Ind.Cas.958
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage effected by Mahipat Singh and Gopal Singh, the predecessors of the plaintiffs, in favour of Sewa Ram, the predecessor of defendants Nos. 1-3, and Pahalwan Singh on the 2nd March 1870. The mortgage was usufructuary. The mortgagees got possession over the mortgaged plots, which consisted of an occupancy holding belonging to the mortgagors. The rights of Pahalwan Singh subsequently devolved on the present plaintiffs. The suit, therefore related to the remaining half share of the mortgaged property which was in the possession of the successor of Sewa Ram. The name of Sewa Ram and his successor continued in the, revenue papers up to 1320 Fasli. In 1918, the defendants, who had somehow obtained possession of the mortgaged plot, got their names entered in the revenue papers as if they were occupancy tenants of the disputed land, and set up their title by adverse possession, which the Courts below repelled, holdin...
Jagar Nath Umar and ors. Vs. Ram Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.251
1. The fasts are as follows:---Bildeo Singh and Lakhpati executel a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of Bhurai. Ram Karan Singh and others instituted a suit to set aside the mortgage On the 8th September 1914 a compromise was executed between the plaintiff and the defend-ants to the effect that if the plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,200 to Bhurai on or about the 15th Jane 1916, the mortgage would stand redeemed and that if they did not pay that amount by that date, the mortgage property should be put to sale and the amount due to Bhurai should be recovered therefrom, A portion of the mortgage money was paid before the 10th July 1916, and the parties agreed to an extension of time by which the remainder should be paid within a year later. Bhurai died, it is not clear when, but at any rate, before the end of 1916. Now, Moti Lal v. Ram Narain, 40 Ind. Cas, 1006 : 39 A, 55(sic) : 15 A. L. J. 540. is authority for the view that a preliminary decree doss not put an end to a suit which remains p...
Maulvi Mahomed Naseer and anr. Vs. Mahabir Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.836
Stuart, J.1. The findings of fact show that the defendants, having been granted a user of certain land for certain purposes, used it for purposes other than the purpose for which it had been, granted, by digging a baol which is used by the public. This baoli was constructed 2 years before the date of suit. The plaintiffs, who are the proprietors of the village, took no active steps to prevent the baoli being constructed, but, at the same time, did not consent to this construction. The lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit upon a finding of equitable estoppel. The decision of the lower Courts cannot be upheld. The question was considered at some length by their lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Beni Ram v. Kundan Lal 21 A. 496 : 1 Bom. L.R. 400 : 3 C.W.N. 502 : 26 I.A. 58 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 523 (P.C.) and applying the law laid down in that decision to the facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises, it is clear that the defendants have no case at all There was ...
Seth Roshan Lal Vs. Bhuri Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All479; 70Ind.Cas.899
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The only point raised in this appeal is a purely technical one. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for redemption of a mortgage and, under the provisions of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, he actually deposited in Court the amount due on the mortgage. The mortgagees refused to accept the amount so deposited in satisfaction of their claim. The plaintiff who has succeeded to the rights of the mortgagor then brought the present suit for redemption. The defendants are the successors-in-interest of the original mortgagee, and the defendant No. 1 contested the claim by denying, the existence of the mortgage set up by the plaintiff. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the mortgage set up by the plaintiff had been proved, and that the deposit made by the plaintiff in the proceedings under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act was sufficient. Under the circumstances, it did not consider it necessary to prolong the proceedings by passi...
Shaikh Abdur Rashid Vs. Musammat Qudrat-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All510; 70Ind.Cas.817
Lindsay, J.1. The only question for decision in the second appeal is whether the suit out of which it has arisen was barred by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts are as follows.--The plaintiff in the suit is one Musammat Qudrat-un-nissa Bibi and it appears that she had a sister named Musammat Ashraf-un-nissa. This lady died on the 28th of January 1914. and left three heirs under the Muhammadan Law, One of these was the plaintiff, Qudiat-un-nissa, the other was her husband, Shaikh Abdul Rashid, and the third was her minor daughter, Musammat Kaniz Fatima.3. After the death of Ashraf-un-nissa a suit was brought by Musammat Qudrat-un-nissa against her two co-heirs, namely, the husband and the minor daughter of her deceased sister. This suit was brought in the year 1914. In that suit the claim which was made by Qudrat-un-nissa was for the recovery of her share of certain zemindari estate which had belonged to her deceased sister, The two defendant...
A. Cameron Vs. Jan and Son
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All735
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these-:The plaintiff (respondent), who is a commercial traveller, went to Cawnpore, in September, 1918, and put up as a guest at the Civil and Military Hotel, Cawnpore, which was owned by the defendant (appellant). While staying in the hotel, he alleged that a suit-case of his, containing valuables to something over Rs. 3,000 in value was stolen from the room he occupied, while he was at dinner in another part of the building. He claimed to recover the value of the stolen goods from the defendant on the ground that the loss was due to the neglect of the defendant in keeping the premises in an unsafe condition. The defendant (appellant), among other pleas, pleaded that if the theft was committed, it was due to the fault or connivance of the plaintiff's own servant and that the defendant was not liable, and that the defendant had kept proper care and had taken proper steps to provide for the security of traveller...
Hari Ram and ors. Vs. Indraj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All730; 69Ind.Cas.167
Ryves, J.1. In this appeal two important and difficulty points of law arise, and, our attention has been drawn to a number of decisions of the various High Courts in India, more or less relevant. I think, however, that we are bound by two Full Bench decisions of this Court, and, therefore, need not consider nor discuss any other cases.2. The facts are as follows, so far as they are relevant:The father of the present plaintiffs, brought a suit in 1905 in the court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad to redeem the simple mortgage now in suit, and obtained a decree for redemption on payment of Rs. 2,647-11-2 within six months of the date of the decree. The decree went on to say, 'otherwise the suit, will be considered dismissed.'3. The money was not paid and the defendants recovered their costs. Nothing further was done until the present plaintiffs brought this suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut to redeem the same mortgage on payment of Rs. 2,647-11-2 (as found due in the previou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »