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.
KalidIn Vs. Chandika Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All182; 79Ind.Cas.503
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal raises a very simple question. The plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit for the removal of certain constructions which the defendants had made on a public thoroughfare in collusion with the second set of defendants, the remaining zemindars. The first Court decreed the claim in part and dismissed the rest on the grounds (1) that those constructions were not made on the plaintiff's land, and (2) that they did not interfere with the thoroughfare, and further that the plaintiffs bad not proved any special damage. The plaintiffs went up in appeal. The learned Judge has on appeal modified the decree of the first Court on the ground that the finding of the first Court that some of the constructions did not interfere with the thoroughare was erroneous. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has dmitted to consider the fact that, so far at least as the shaeban on No. 67-2 was concerned, it being admitted that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the plot...
Munna Lal Vs. the East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1922
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.772
Stuart, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought is 1918 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra by the proprietor of a firm carrying on business at Agra against the East Indian Railway Company on the following allegations:(1) that the plaintiff had had consigned to him 101 bales of strawboard from Howrah to Agra City in two waggons one containing 53 bales weighing 362 maunds 1 seer, and the other containing 48 bales weighing 315 maunds 30 seers by the defendant Company's line.(2) That the consignment arrived on 28th May 1918 and 1st June 1918.(3) That the 48 bales were delivered in good condition but that the consignment of 53 bales was carelessly unloaded with the result that damage was done to a certain number of bales.(4) That the plaintiff having sold 50 bales to a firm in Delhi to booked to Delhi the 53 bales which had been carelessly unloaded on a forwarding note which was accepted by the Station Master at Agra.(5) That at first there was a refusal to forw...
Ram Gopal Vs. Thakur Bakhtawar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All508; 70Ind.Cas.802
1. Second Appeals Nos. 529 and 852 of 1921 are connected, and may be disposed of in one judgment. The point raised in these appeals is a very nice one and has been argued on both sides with much ability. The property in suit originally belonged to Muhammad Ishaq and others who mortgaged it to Muhammad Ghaus Khan usufructuarily in return for a loan of Rs. 15,600. On the 28th of July 1886 Muhammad Ghaus Khan made a sub-mortgage of his mortgagee right in favour of Sukhdeo Prasad for Rs. 8,000 and on the 29th of August 1886 he executed a deed of further charge in favour of Sukhdeo Prasad for Rs. 400. In 1908 some of the heirs of Muhammad Ghaus Khan sold their shares, which corresponded to 218 sehams out of 288 sehams of the mortgagee rights, for Rs. 11,808 to Ram Gopal. On the nth of March 1913 Ram Gopal sold these rights to Dakhan Singh and Ram Kishun Das in equal shares. On the 23rd of September 1914 Ram Kishan Das sold his half to Lakhan Singh. On the 13th of July 1916 the remaining hei...
Musammat Bhaggo Vs. Mata Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All462; 76Ind.Cas.507
Stuart, J.1. The People's Industrial Bank held a decree against Musammat Bhaggo. In execution of this decree, two houses belonging to Musammat Bhaggo were brought to sale. They were sold separately. The sale took place on the 4th January 1921. The papers show that they were knocked down to Ram Narain who was the last bidder in each instance. Musammat Bhaggo applied under Order XXI, Rule 90 to set the sale aside. She issued notice to the decree-holder and to Ram Narain. Ram Narain took the objection that he was not the actual purchaser but that Mata Prasad was the actual purchaser. Now, it is clear that the bids were ma de by Ram Narain and that no mention took place during the auction-sale of Mata Prasad. But a ter the sale was over Ram Narain informed the Amin privately that he had actually made the bids on behalf of Mata Prasad. The Amin made a note to that effect and Mata Prasad deposited the balance of the sale consideration in Court. It is to be noted, however, that Ram Narain pai...
Raghubans Upadhya and anr. Vs. Indarjit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All526; 69Ind.Cas.683
1. This was a gait for a declaration that a certain mortgage deed executed by Musammat Rupkali, on behalf of her minor sod, Indarjit Singh, in favour of the defendants-appellants on the let of July 1919, was call and void and not enforceable against the minor. The mortgage was executed for the sum of Rs. 750 out of which Rs. 80 were found by the First Court to hare been taken for the benefit of the minor. The lower Appellate Court, however, held that a further sum of Rs, 41 had also been taken for his benefit. The item which the Court of first instance allowed was an amount taken to pay arrears of rent. The contention of the learned Council who appears for the defendants-appellants is that the amount of rent actually due by the minor was Rs. 125; but we cannot go behind the finding at which the learned District Judge has arrived on the evidence adduced.2. The item of Rs. 41 was allowed on account of a payment made to the Co-operative Bank Limited on account of a debt which existed from...
Maharaja Singh Vs. Mohindra Man Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All72
Kanhaiya Lal and Sulaiman, JJ.1. The facts are fully set forth in our judgment dated the 3rd of August, 1921. On the 9th of June, 1917, Mrs. Kinloch executed a sale-deed, in favour of the defendant vendee, of considerable property, including shares in two villages, Kachhpura Bibamau and mahal Girwar Singh of mauza Salehdi. In both these villages the plaintiff was a co-sharer at the time of the sale. On the 30th of January, 1918, under a private sale-deed, the plaintiff transferred all his interests in mahal Girwar Singh of village Salehdi in favour of a third party. A few months after this, the present suit for pre-emption was instituted in which the plaintiff omitted to pre-empt the share in mauza Salehdi. On behalf of the defendant it was pleaded inter alia that there was a custom of pre-emption existing in village Salehdi tinder which the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt the share transferred therein, and that inasmuch as the transaction of the 30th of January, 1918, was in realit...
Collector of Moradabad Vs. Chhotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All514
Buckmaster, J.1. On the 20th of November, 1911, Maulvi Maqbul-ur-Rahman executed a mortgage of considerable property in the district of Meerut in favour of Sabu Prasadi Lal, to secure repayment of Rs. 10,000 and interest. The mortgagor subsequently executed several transfers of the mortgaged property, some by way of mortgage and some apparently by way of absolute transfer.2. The appellant claims under one of such transfers, but the extent and character of his interest is nowhere stated, nor need it be investigated as it is admittedly sufficient to support the appeal. He contends that the mortgage of the 20th of November, 1911, was not properly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act (XVI of 1908), and is consequently invalid.3. The respondent is the Manager of the Court of Wards, acting on behalf of the three infant children of the mortgagee, who died on the 8th of February, 1912.4. That the mortgage required to be registered is plain. The only quest...
Mohindra Man Singh Vs. Maharaj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All48; 70Ind.Cas.132
1. The faces are fully set forth in our judgment, dated the 3rd of August 1921. On the 9th of June 1917 Mrs. Kinloch executed a sale-deed, in favour, of the defendant-vendee, of considerable property including share in two villages, Kachhpura Bibamau and Mahal Girwar Singh of Mouza Salehdi. In both these villages the plaintiff was a co-sharer at the time o the sale. On the 30th of January 1918 under a prviate sale-deed, the plaintiff transferred all his interest in Mahal Girwar Singh of village Salehdi in favour of a third party. A few months after this, the present suit for premption was instituted in which the plaintiff omitted to pre-empt the share in Mauza Salehdi. On behalf of the defendent it was pleaded inter alia that there was a custom of preemption existing in village Salehdi under which the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt the share transferred therein, and that, inasmuch as the. transaction of the 30th of January 1918 was in reality a mortgage by conditional sale, the pla...
Jaini Lal Vs. Firm Durga Prasad-dau Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All334; 75Ind.Cas.527
1. For the reasons stated in our judgment in First Appeal No. 28 of 1920, this appeal is dismissed. We ought, however, to take notice of one matter not discussed in that judgment. The appellant has taken the objection that the fees awarded to defendant No. 2 in the lower Court were not certified by the Pleader, nor were they certified by an affidavit of the defendant filed in accordance with Chapter XXI, Rule 1 of the General Rules for Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court. Looking at the matter very technically and narrowly, it does appear that there is no certificate by the Pleader and there is no affidavit by the defendant, but there is an affidavit by the Solicitors duly instructed by the defendant which sets out, what we have no doubt is the truth, that certain sums of money were duly paid by the Solicitors to the gentlemen named in the affidavit for and on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, in substance, though not in strict form, there is the certainty at which Chapter XXI...
Shafi-ud-dIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Hurmat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All10; 70Ind.Cas.849
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are these: A certain Nur Muhammad was maraud twice. By his first wife, now dead, he had two sons, Zahur-ud-din and Shakur-ud-din. The name of his other wife is Hurmat. By her he had three sons, Habibuddin, Shamsuddin, Azizuddin, and two daughters. On the 29th of May 1890 a t certain house was sold by Hasan to Zahuruddin for Rs. 99. On the 23rd of July 1904 Zahuruddin transferred this house by a registered sale-deed to his minor brother Shakuruddin for Rs. 300. This house is now occupied by Hurmat and her sons and daughters. Nur Muhammad has quarrelled with Hurmat and her children. Shakuruddin died some little, time ago, leaving as his heirs a widow of the name of Bigga or Langa and 3 minor son Shafiuddin. These two persons instituted the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, against Hurmat and. her sons for ejectment from this house. They joined Nur Muhammad as a co-defendant. Hurmat and her song setup as their ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »