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.
Datta Prasad Singh Vs. Kedar Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All739
Stuart and Sulaiman, JJ.1. Second Appeals Nos. 449 and 606 of 1921 are connected. These are cross appeals by the plaintiff and defendants, respectively, arising out of the same suit. The plaintiff zamindar brought a suit to recover one-fourth of the sale-proceeds together with interest, on account of a sale-deed, dated the 14th December, 1916, executed by the defendants second party in favour of the defendants first party in respect of even shops and two houses, including one ruined house in the form of a chabutra or platform. The plaintiff's case was that he is the owner of the sites of all these houses and that under a custom which prevails in the village of Mursan, where the property sold is situated, the zamindar is entitled to claim his haq-i-chaharum. On behalf of the defendants the custom alleged by the plaintiff was denied and it was further pleaded that the inhabitants of the village of Mursan which was alleged to be a town and not a mere agricultural village, were absolute ow...
Kedar Nath and anr. Vs. Datta Prasad Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All370; 69Ind.Cas.99
1. Second Appeals Nos. 449 and 306 of 1921 are connected. These are cross appeals by the plaintiff and defendants respectively arising out of the same suit. The plaintiff Zemindar brought a suit to recover one-fourth of the sale-proceeds together with interest, on account of a sale-deed dated the 14th of December 1916, executed by the defendants second party in favour of the defendants first party in respect of seven stops and two houses including one ruined house in the form of a chabutra or platform. The plaintiff's case was that he is the owner of the Bites of all these houses and that, under a custom which prevails in the village of Mursan where the property sold is situated, the Zemindar is entitled to claim his haq-i-chaharum. On behalf of the defendants the custom alleged by the plaintiff was denied and it was further pleaded that the inhabitants of the village of Mursan, which was alleged to be a town and not a mere agricultural village, were absolute owners of their houses and...
Jan and Son Vs. Cameron A.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.679
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 front the room he occupied while he was at dinner in another part of the building. He claimed to recover the value of the goods stolen 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 travellers staying in the hotel, and...
Bhoj Raj Vs. Hardeva and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All726; 77Ind.Cas.140
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (appellant) to recover a certain plot of waste land in the village from the defendants who, according to the plaintiff's allegation, have erected certain thatched sheds and cattle troughs without his permission a short time ago.2. The defence raised was (1) that the sheds were 25 years old, (2) that the plaintiff had lost title because of want of possession for 12 years, and (3) that these constructions were necessary for the defendants' cultivation in the village, or, in other words, that they were appurtenant to their holding.3. The first court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by time because the plaintiff had not proved his possession within 12 years of suit.4. The lower appellate court found, in concurrence with the first court, that the constructions were more than 20 years old and that the defendants were mere licensees; that the plaintiff having got the proper...
William Fitzroy Howard Vs. Doris May Howard and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All43; (1922)ILR44All728
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Walsh and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. On the 24th of August, 1921, Mr. Sherring, sitting as District Judge at Lucknow, grand a decree nist to William Fitzroy Howard The petition set out the marriage, the cohabitation of the parties, and the birth of a child, and the subsequent death of that child, and then alleged that on the 4th of August, 1917, and on other days between that and December, 1920, the wife committed adultery with Thomas Dennet, the co-respondent 'with whom she is living now and has an illegitimate child by him.' There does not appear to be on the record any answer by the respondent or co-respondent. The next document we have after the register of marriage is one which is headed 'In the Court of the District Judge.' The suit is described as 'Regular Suit No. 4 of 1921' and sets out the names of the parties and then states, 'Petitioner, the respondent and the co-respondent are present.' Then it immediately begins by saying that 'Doris May Howard, the respond...
Howard Vs. Howard
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.509
1. On the 24th of August 1921, Mr. Sheering, sitting as District Judge at Lucknow, granted a decree nisi to William Fitzroy Howard. The petition set oat the marriage, the cohabitation of the parties, and the birth of a child, and the subsequent death of that child, and then alleged that on the 4th August 1917, and on other days between that and December 1920, the wife committed adultery with Thomas Dennet, the co-respondent, 'with whom she is living now and has an illegitimate child by him.' There does not appear to be on the record any answer by the respondent or co respondent. The next document we have after the register of marriage is case which is headed, 'In the Court of the District Judge' The suit is described as 'Regular Suit; No. 4 of 1921' and sets out the names of the parties and then states: 'Petitioner, the respondent and the co-respondent are present,' Then it immediately begins by saying that 'Doris May Howard, the respondent, states that she was married to the petitione...
Dilsukh Rai, Sewak Ram Vs. Basdeo, Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All718
Stuart and Sulaiman, JJ.1. Second Appeal No. 862 and Second Appeal No. 960 of 1921 are connected appeals arising out of the same suit. The plaintiffs' firm brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1,265-13-0 with interest, on the following allegations. Their case, devoid of all unnecessary details, was that the plaintiffs, as agents of the Standard Oil Company, sold 900 tins of kerosine oil to the defendants, the price of which was Rs. 3,982-13-0, that the defendants paid only a sum of Rs. 2,717, and that the balance of Rs. 1,265-13-0 was still due. The plaintiffs claim to recover this amount with interest.2. On behalf of the defendants it was contended that the sum of Rs. 2,717 had been paid in full payment of the plaintiffs' claim and that, having accepted that amount, the plaintiffs are no longer entitled to claim any balance. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs. 500 had been paid by the defendants as advance money for the oil contract and should be deducted.3. The court of first ...
Ram Das and anr. Vs. Dubri Koeri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All336; (1922)ILR44All724; 77Ind.Cas.139
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Gokul Prasad, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Revenue Court to eject the defendant as his sub-tenant. The suit was fought out up to the court of the Commissioner and it was held that the defendant was not a sub-tenant, but a tenant-in-chief paying rent to the zamindar.2. After failing in the Revenue Court, the plaintiff instituted the present suit in the Civil Court for setting aside the decree of the Revenue Court above-mentioned and for the possession of the land in dispute.3. The defendant's contention was that he was the chief tenant and that such a suit did not lie and was barred by the rule of res judicata.4. The Munsif decreed the suit, holding that the Revenue Courts were not competent to decide the question that the defendant was the chief tenant and not a sub-tenant of the plaintiff, and the present suit, being between rival tenants, was one cognizable by the Civil Court. This decision was affirmed on appeal.5. The defendant appealed to this ...
Daya Nand Vs. Puttu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All721
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (respondent) for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to act as the sarbarahkar of a certain temple and of the property appertaining thereto and for possession of the said property. The allegation of the plaintiff was that he had been appointed sarbarahkar of the said property and temple by Ganga Prasad, the founder of the trust, by a deed executed by him and registered on the 27th of February, 1901. By virtue of that deed Ganga Prasad had dedicated certain property for the benefit of the temple which he had constructed in his life-time, and appointed himself a trustee for his life and nominated the plaintiff as his successor in that office. By a subsequent document, executed by him on the 22nd of May, 1919, he appointed his nephews as trustees after him. These nephews are the defendants to the present suit. They succeeded in getting mutation of names effected, on the death of Ganga Prasa...
Mohammad Razi Khan and ors. Vs. Mohammad Askari Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All485; 70Ind.Cas.758
Piggott, J.1. In the suit oat of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs came into Court alleging themselves to be the owners of a strip of land described as a lane, situated between their house and that of the defendant. They claimed a decree in ejectment, by removal of certain constructions, alleged to have been newly set up by the defendants on the land in suit, together with a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from taking any action in respect of the said lane, or from offering any obstruction to the lane being used by the plaintiffs as a passage. It is quite clear that the plaintiffs did not sue as members of the public whose right of passage had been interfered with by the blocking of a public thorough fare on the part of the defendant, Had they done so, other questions would have arisen, as, for instance, whether the plaintiffs were in a position to prove any special damage. The whole frame of the suit shows that the plaintiffs came into Court on the basis of propri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »