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.
Mohan Lal Vs. Prasadi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.999
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 plaintiff had a share in...
Badri Prasad Vs. Raj Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All337; 75Ind.Cas.686
Stuart, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration brought by a vendee of property at a sale in execution of a decree that the property in question was not covered by a certain mortgage. The Courts below have found that the mortgage in question did not affect that property and that the property could not be and has not been transferred by a sale in execution of a decree obtained upon that mortgage. The appeal questions that decision. It appears to me that such a point cannot be raised in second appeal, for the plea challenges a question of fact. It challenges the decision as to the meaning of the words used in the mortgage describing the property transferred. It does not challenge the legal effect of the words. I need only refer to the decision of Lindley, L.J., in Chatenay v. Brazilian Submarine Telegraph Co. (1891) I.Q.B. 79 at p. 85 : 60 L.J : Q.B. 2 95 : 63 L.T. 739 : 39 W.R. 65 : 'The expression 'construction,' as applied to a document, at all events as used by Englis...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Great Indian Peninsula Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All22; 68Ind.Cas.981
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 August, 1918, the plaintiff purchased sertain 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 G. 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 point4. 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 by the E.I. Railway Company...
Sahib Dayal Vs. Meharban and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All27
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Piggott, Walsh, Ryves and Sulaiman, JJ.1. Second Appeal No. 801 and Second Appeal No. 802 of 1920 are plaintiff's appeals arising out of a suit for sale, on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 16th of November, 1905, executed by the father of the present defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants did not put in an appearance in the court of first instance and no written statement was filed on their behalf. The learned Subordinate Judge, relying on a clause in the mortgage-deed, which entitled the mortgagee to sue for the whole amount of principal and interest, on default of payment of annual interest, held that the claim to enforce the charge was barred by time under Article 132 of the Limitation Act, but he was, however, of opinion that the personal remedy was not barred. He, accordingly, granted the plaintiff a simple money-decree.2. Both parties appealed to the learned District Judge who, holding that the personal remedy also was barred, dismisse...
Emperor Vs. Ashiq HusaIn Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All25
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application in revision to set aside an order passed under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the following circumstances:The applicant and two others were charged by one Altaf Husain of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., the offence of criminal trespass. The complainant alleged that he was in possession of certain fields and that when he went to them one morning he found the accused and their servants ploughing the fields and uprooting his sugarcane crop. He remonstrated and stood in front of the ploughs to stop the ploughing, whereupon the accused who were armed with sticks and lathis rushed at him with threats and chased him out of his fields. This prosecution story was accepted and the accused were convicted. The conviction was upheld in appeal. After the order in appeal had been passed the complainant applied to the Magistrate to be restored to possession and an order was passed accordingly under Section 522, Crim...
Shib Dayal Vs. Meharban and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All1; 69Ind.Cas.981
1. Second Appeal No. 801 and Second Appeal No. 802 of 1920 are plaintiff's appeals arising out of a suit for sale, on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 16th of November 1905, executed by the father of the present defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants did not put in an appearance in the Court of first instance and no written statement was filed on their behalf. The learned Subordinate Judge, relying on a clause in the mortgage-deed, which entitled the mortgagee to sue for the whole amount of principal and interest on default of payment of annual interest, held that the claim to enforce the charge was barred by time under Article 132 of the Limitation Act, but he was, however, of opinion that the personal remedy was not barred. He, accordingly, granted the plaintiff a simple money decree.2. Both parties appealed to the learned District Judge who, holding that the personal remedy also was barred, dismissed the whole suit. The plaintiff appealed to this Court from the...
Ram Das and ors. Vs. Musammat Basanti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All519; 77Ind.Cas.97
1. We have come to the conclusion that the learned Judge has misdirected himself in this case as to what really is a public trust and that he has failed to appreciate the strong points in the evidence. The respondent has not been represented, but perhaps in view of the overwhelming character of the evidence it is not surprising. The suit is brought alleging that a certain temple and idol constituted a public trust, having been built and dedicated for the use and benefit of the Hindu public. That it was built and dedicated by the original owner out of his private purse, and as his private property, to be used for religious purposes, there can bi no doubt whatever. No doubt also a man can create a private trust by building a temple and an idol and endowing it with funds or income for strictly private purposes, not merely retaining the management and control in the hands of himself and he family but restricting the enjoyment to himself and his family or other individuals, and he may out o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›