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.
Syed Abdul Rauf Vs. Raju Muhammad Shah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All340; 75Ind.Cas.655
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by a zemindar for recovery of possession of four mango trees which had been purchased by the defendant in execution of a mortgage-decree against the widow of Dubri Koeri, a tenant. The plaintiff's case was that his tenant had no transferable right in this grove-land. The main plea on behalf of the defendant was that his mortgagor had the rights of a grove-holder in this plot and that the trees were saleable. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit.2. It appears that at the time of the Settlement in 1869, the ancestor of Dubri Koeri was recorded as an occupancy tenant of plot No. 293 which was shown as a culturable area. A portion of this plot seems to have been reserved for cultivation but on another portion some mango trees were planted. About the year 1899 this plot was divided into sub-divisions, namely, plot No. 293-1 and 293-2 and at the recent Settlement 293-1 was recorded as occupancy holding and 293-2...
Musammat Wasi Fatima Bibi Vs. Iqbal Haidar Khan and anr. and Lachmi Na ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All53
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. It is preferred by the defendants vendees in a pre-emption suit. We are concerned in this litigation only with the transfer of the vendors' proprietary rights in a village called Nawawan. The sale deed was dated the 9th of July, 1919, and according to its terms the vendors purported to convey to the vendees a share of 4 annas and odd in the proprietary rights of the said village, of which share the vendors described themselves as full proprietors. Now it was an admitted fact in both the courts below that this was a misdescription. The vendors did possess rights over the entire share purporting to be conveyed by the deed of sale; but as a matter of fact they were the proprietors of only a small fractional share and usufructuary mortgagees in respect of the remainder. The plaintiff pre-emptor was in this difficulty--she had admittedly no right to pre-empt the transfer of mortgagee rights by one usufructu...
J. Ovid Vs. Seth Chanda Bhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All473; 76Ind.Cas.650
Stuart, J.1. The Magistrate had certainly no jurisdiction to direct the lock to be broken and the property to be handed over to the third party as custodian, but, at the same time, I fail to see that either the Sessions Judge or the High Court has any jurisdiction, either, to interfere in the matter. The remedy of Ovid is clearly by a suit in the Civil Court. I do not consider it necesssary to make any remarks as to what the nature of this suit should be or who should be the defendant, but it is clear to my mind that any order I might pass in the matter will be absolutely without jurisdiction. I, therefore, direct the papers to be returned....
Chhajju and ors. Vs. Gokul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All338; 75Ind.Cas.593
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a one-third share of 49 bighas and old land. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the property on the death of his mother and aunt, Bhurya and Kirpya, daughters of Pirthi, the last male owner.2. On behalf of the defendants it was plea ed that the plaintiff was bound by a family settlement arrived at between the defendants and the ladies and that the claim was also barred by the principle of res judicata in consequence of a previous litigation.3. Pirthi, the last male owner, died some 22 years ago and his widow, Musammat Shibya, succeeded to the estate. She oied in 1910. On her death an application for mutation of names was made in the Revenue Court by Musammat Bhurya and Kirpya, the two daughters of Musammat Shibya, which was opposed by Chajju, defendant, on the allegation that he was the adopted son of Musammat Shibya. The matter remained pending in the Revenue Court for a long time and,...
iqbal Haidar Khan and anr. Vs. Musammat Wasi Fatima Bibi and Lachmi Na ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All358; 74Ind.Cas.1004
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. It is preferred by the defendants-vendees in a preemption suit. We are concerned in this litigation only with the transfer of the vendors' proprietary rights in a village called Nawawan. The sale-deed way dated the 9th of July 1919 and according to its terms the vendors purported to convey to the vendees a share of 4 annas and odd in the proprietary rights of the said village, of which share he vendors described themselves as full proprietors. Now, it was an admitted fact in both the Courts below that this was a mis-description. The vendors did possess rights over the entire share purporting to be conveyed by the deed of sale; but as a matter of fact they were the proprietors of only a small fractional share and usufructuary mortgagees in respect of the remainder. The plaintiff pre-emptor was in this difficulty--she had admittedly no right to preempt the transfer of mortgagee rights by one usufructuary mortgagee to another. Sh...
Devi Deen and Sons Vs. Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All342; 75Ind.Cas.669
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiffs are a firm of drapers, carrying on business at Naini Tal. On the 7th of August 1918 a consignment of cloth, weighing 26 seers, was sent by the firm of Chandu Lal-Munna Lal from Meerut to Naini Tal. The parcel arrived at Naini Tal on the 10th of August 1918; but the plaintiffs found that it weighed only 10 seers. On the 16th August 1918 they wrote to the defendant Railway, Company to give them open delivery as early as practicable. The Station Master states that he told the consignee to write to his head office, as he was not authorised to give open delivery. About wo or three weeks later Mr. Vaughan, the Manager of Messrs. Smith, Rodwell & Co., came to the Railway premises and, according to the Station Master, the parcel was opened in his presence and was found to contain two pieces of cloth. The consignee said that there ought to have been three pieces and wrote on the Railway Receipt that out of three pieces one piece was wanting, but Mr. Vaughan, wh...
Jugal Kishore Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All43
Stuart and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages for non-delivery of goods.2. On the 28th of August, 1918, the plaintiff purchased certain bales of cloth at Bombay, which his commission agents made over to the G.I.P. Railway for transmission to Chunar, which is on the E.I. Railway line, and duly obtained a Railway receipt for it. The goods, however, never reached Chunar. Hence the claim.3. Both the Railway companies pleaded the bar of limitation, and both tried to throw the responsibility on the other. The Gr. I. P. Railway Company asserted that the goods were handed over to the E.I. Railway, at Manikpur junction, while the E.I. Railway Company denied having received the goods at all. . At the trial no dispute was raised as to the amount of damages claimed, nor was any issue struck on the point.4. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiff has not yet received the goods and has suffered loss; and further that the plea raised...
Prasadi Lal and anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All46
Stuart and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed, dated the 21st of September, 1910, executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the father of defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiff No. 1, the father of plaintiff No. 2, and Mohan Lal, defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs' case was that they were entitled to half the mortgage money while Mohan Lal was the owner of the other half, but as Mohan Lal had purchased the entire equity of redemption in execution of a simple money decree, they sued to recover only half the mortgage money by sale of the entire mortgaged property. The pleas raised in defence by the contesting defendant Mohan Lal were (1) that the money was advanced by him alone and he was the sole mortgagee, the other names having been entered only fictitiously, and (2) that in any case the plaintiffs were entitled to sell only half of the mortgaged property.2. The court of first instance came to the conclusion that the ...
Bohra Nathu Ram and anr. Vs. Partab Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All49
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to enforce a simple mortgage of the 19th of January, 1909. The executants were four persons, Kanhaiya Lal, Gauri Shankar, Mangal Sen and Musammat Shiam Kunwar. In the suit as brought the defendants included Kanhaiya Lal and Gauri Shankar of the original executants. They included also two minor sons of Gauri Shankar and three sons of Mangal Sen. It was these sons of the original executants of the mortgage who really contested this suit, and the appeal before us is by the three sons of Mangal Sen and one of the sons of Gauri Shankar.2. The main question litigated in the court below was whether the consideration for the mortgage deed in suit, amounting to Rs. 26,750, was or was not raised for such legal necessity as to make it binding upon the sons of the original executants. The learned Subordinate Judge has traced back the entire series of transactions through one hypothecation deed or simple bon...
Partab Singh and ors. Vs. Bohra Nathu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All197; 79Ind.Cas.234
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to enforce a simple mortgage of the 19th of January 1909. The executants were four persons, Kanhaiya Lal, Gauri Shankar, Mangal Sen and Musammat Shiam Kunwar. In the suit, as brought, the defendants included Kanhaiya Lal and Gauri Shankar of the original executants. They included also two minor sons of Gauri Shankar and three sons of Mangal Sen. It was these sons of the original executants of the mortgage who really contested this suit, and the appeal before us is by the three sons of Mangal Sen and one of the sons of Gauri Shankar.2. The main question litigated in the Court below was whether the consideration for the mortgage-deed in suit, amounting to Rs. 26,750, was or was not raised for such legal necessity as to make it binding upon the sons of the original executants. The learned Subordinate Judge has traced back the entire series of transactions through one hypothecation deed or simple bond after another, till he comes to l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »