Allahabad Court July 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.
Oudh Narayan Singh and ors. Vs. Kauleshwar Sing
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All463; 76Ind.Cas.516
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a judgment and decree of a Bench of this Court in a second appeal. The value of the subject-matter of the litigation was admittedly much below Rs. 10,000. As a matter of fact, the value of the subject-matter of the appeal is now stated to be Rs. 2,000 It is, therefore, for the applicant to show very special cause why leave to appeal should be granted. The suit was one for specific performance of a contract for sale. There were certain issues of fact which were concluded by the decision of the lower Appellate Court. In this Court only one point was argued. The suit had been instituted on the last possible day of limitation, that is to say, exactly three years from the date of the contract for sale. It was strongly of intended before this Court that, under these circumstances, a decree for specific performance ought not to be granted, more especially as there was an alternative plea for relief by way of damag...
Parsotam Das Kolapuri and ors. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All67; 69Ind.Cas.688
Ryves, J.1. The fasts of this case are simple. Jamna Praead, Gharib Das and Khedu Ram were three separate Hindu brothers. The ports and grandsons of Jamna Prasad, (now plaintiffs respondent's) and the sons of. Gharib Dap, (now defandants-. appellants) combined together to bring a suit against the sons of Khedu Earn. They were unsuccessful both in the Trial Court. and on appeal in this Court, and their suit and appeal were dismissed with costs.2. Shortly afterwards, distensions arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the decree holders (defendants in that suit) siding with the present defendants, recovered the whole of the costs from the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs now sue to recover from the defendants half of the costs, the whole; of which they had to pay, The main defense was that the defendants had paid their half share. This was disbelieved by both the lower Courts, who decreed the suit.4. In the Courts below, although the plea was not taken specifically in the writte...
Munna Lal and ors. Vs. the Collector of Shahjahanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All96
Stuart and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. It appears that a mortgage was made on the 5th of August, 1882, by Nirmal Singh, the predecessor in interest of the judgment-debtors respondents, hypothecating 21/2 biswa of mahal No. 3 in Bajhera Bhagwanpur in favour of Basant Rai, the father of the decree-holders appellants. In the settlement of 1899 mahals Nos. 2 and 3 were amalgamated and formed into a single mahal. The 21/2 biswa share of the mahal No. 3, which was mortgaged with Basant Rai, corresponds with 3 bighas 18 biswansis and odd of the amalgamated mahal No. 2.2. Subsequently a suit was filed by the grandsons of Musammat Umed Kunwar for the recovery of the entire old mahal No. 3 and a decree was obtained, in pursuance of which they obtained mutation of names in their favour against Jit Singh, the son of Nirmal Singh. Later on the mortgagee filed a suit on his mortgage and got a decree against the judgment-debtors respondents, in execution of wh...
Tirbeni Sahu Vs. Lachmi Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All346; 75Ind.Cas.666
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for profits for the years 1323, 1324 and 1325 Fasli. It appears that the defendant-appellant owns an 8-annas share in the village and is also a Lambardar. In the year 1314 Fasli he executed a mortgage of a 3-annas 1-pie out of the 8-annas share in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs giving them a lease for 7 years of the mortgaged property. The period of lease expired in 1322 Fasli but the defendant continued to make collections and now prevents the plaintiffs from making collections from the tenants. The mortgage has not yet been admittedly redeemed. The plaintiffs brought the present suit under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act as a suit for recovery of profits. One of the pleas raised in defence was, that such a suit did. not lie. The learned Assistant Collector fixed Issue No. 3 on this point and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs being co-sharers, such a suit was maintainable. This decree was confirmed...
Soha Lal and anr. Vs. Amba Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.685
1. This appeal must be allow ed. The learned Judge has jumped too soon and tried to out things rather fine. It is quite true that the decree drawn up went too far in granting the plaintiff a permanent injunction. The plaintiff was never entitled to an injunction beyond the 18th of April 1921, nor did he claim it. All that he wanted was relief--it might be only sentimental--against an actual trespass by the defendant. The defendant endeavoured to justify the trespass and failed, and thereupon the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a declaration and injunction which should have been limited to the date of the expiration of the lease, namely, the 18th April 1921, but the lower Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit altogether on the ground that the plaintiff's cause of action expired on the 18th of April 1921 and that the decree granted by the Trial Court was in excess of the relief claimed and that the plaintiffs were no longer entitled on the date of the Appellate Court's decree t...
Kishen Singh and ors. Vs. Chhajju Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All206; (1923)ILR45All90; 79Ind.Cas.238
Stuart and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding and the question for consideration is whether the property in dispute was liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, obtained against Kallu Singh personally. The objectors are the son and grandsons of Kallu Singh, who had been exempted by the decree from liability. They contest the right of the decree-holders to attach the family property.2. It appears that Kallu Singh, Nathu Singh and Maru Singh took a lease of certain property from Pirthi Singh and executed a mortgage to secure the payment of the lease money. The mortgage purported to hypothecate certain properties belonging to the lessees. As the lease money was not paid, a suit was filad by the lessor for the recovery of the money due to him against Kallu Singh and the present respondents, who are the legal representatives of the other lessees. The present respondents paid the entire decretal money and saved their property and the property...
Rajindra Prasad and anr. Vs. Kallu Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All79
Kanhaiya Lal and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of a 3/4 ths share of a sum of Rs. 750, said to be the price of a nose-ring offered by certain wealthy pilgrims to the temple of Bindbasini Devi, at Bindhiachal. The plaintiff's case was that on the 2nd of September, 1919, he entered into an agreement with the defendants under which he was entitled to get a 12 anna share in all the offerings made by the said pilgrims; that he has received his share in respect of a number of items but the defendants have not given him anything out of the proceeds of the nose-ring., On behalf of the defendants the alleged agreement was denied and it was further pleaded that such an agreement was without consideration and was unenforceable in law. The value of Rs. 750 fixed by the plaintiff was also disputed. Both the courts below have decreed the suit in toto.2. On appeal by the defendants it is strongly contended that the finding is ...
Sheo Charan Vs. Panna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All41; (1923)ILR45All84; 70Ind.Cas.917
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This was a suit in which the lambardar of a certain village claimed from the entire body of co-sharers the remuneration, at the rate of 5 per cent. on the revenue payable in respect of their shares, to which he was entitled under the provisions of Section 144 of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, Local Act No. III of 1901, subject to rules properly made by the Board of Revenue under Section 234 of the said Act. The rules which were so made have been laid before us, and they seem on their wording clear and simple enough. They are reproduced at page 132 and the following pages of Dr. M.L. Agarwala's valuable Commentary on the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, edition of 1919. They appear to have been promulgated in the year 1902. By paragraph 22 of the said rules, where there was in existence on the date on which those rules came into force an agreement between the lambardar and the co-sharers fixing the amount which the lambardar, by virtue of...
Raghubar Dayal Vs. Balkishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All81
Kanhaiya Lal And Sulaiman, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a certain house and a shop standing in Hathras city. They practically formed one building and belonged to Jamna Das, who on the 4th of June, 1890, made a gift thereof in favour of the plaintiff. Jamna Das died in Sambat 1961. Shortly afterwards the plaintiff hypothecated the said house including the shop, by way of a simple mortgage, in favour of Makhan Lal for a sum of Rs. 100. The allegation of the plaintiff was that that mortgage was intended for the benefit of Bhola Nath who held a contiguous house, and that about two years later Bhola Nath took possession of the mortgaged property on an agreement to pay rent at Rs. 2 per mensem, out of which Re. 1 per mensem was to be credited in payment of interest due on the mortgage and the balance in payment of the principal due thereon;2. The plaintiff goes on to say that in defiance of that arrangement a suit was brought by Makhan Lal for recovery of the money due on the ...
Kallu Tewari and ors. Vs. Rajinder Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All56; 70Ind.Cas.124
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of a the share of a sum of Rs. 750 said to be the price of a nose-ring offered by certain wealthy pilgrims to the temple of Bindbasani Devi, at Bindhiachal. The plaintiffs' case was that on the 2nd of September 1919 he entered into an agreement with the defendants under which he was entitled to get a 12-anna share in all the offerings made by the said pilgrims, that he has received his share in respect of a number of items but the defendants have not given him anything out of the proceeds of the nose-ring. On behalf of the defendants the alleged agreement was denied and it was further pleaded that such an agreement was without consideration and was unenforcible in law. The value of Rs. 750 fixed by the plaintiffs was also disputed. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit in toto.2. On appeal by the defendants it is strongly contended that the finding is insufficient to show that there was a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »