Allahabad Court January 1923 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.
Parsotam Dass Vs. Shiam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.513
Walsh, J.1. In our opinion there is no substance in this appeal. Questions of form have been so entangled in the argument with questions of substance that it is really difficult to say what question of principle, if any, is intended to be raised by the appeal. On the face of it the matter appears extremely simple. Such difficulties as have been created have been rather due to the absence of material from the record of the Court below, due in its turn to the objection raised in the Court below to this application having taken a very much narrower form than it has taken in the discussion before us. 2. The original parties to the dispute, being related, went to arbitration and the Arbitrator passed an award which left certain matters outstanding for subsequent division, such as had to be provided for by machinery created for the purpose, but not such as involved the determination of any substantial controverted question. It was agreed that a decree should be drawn, or rather that the awar...
The Cawnpore Cotton Mills Co. Limited Vs. the Great Indian Peninsular ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.614
1. This case has been before a Bench of this Court previously and the facts are all set out in an order of the 21st March last. By the order which was passed on that date it was directed that certain further evidence should be produced before this Court in order to enable us to deal with the particular question which was raised Both parties have filed documentary evidence and the case has now been argued before us.2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts which are all set out in the order of the Bench of the 21st March last. The suit was a suit brought by the Cawnpore Cotton Mills, limited, against the Great Indian Peninsular Railway. That suit has failed in both the Courts below on the ground that no notice as required by Section 77 of the Railways Act, Act IX of 1890, was served upon the defendant Company, and the only question which is now before us is whether both the Courts below were right in so holding or whether from the evidence before us it can be taken that there was due...
Fateh Singh Vs. Thakur Rukmini Ramanji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All387; (1923)ILR45All339
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, Piggott and Ryves, JJ.1. This second appeal raises certain questions regarding the position of a reversioner who has succeeded to immovable property on the death of a Hindu widow, in respect of an alienation by way of gift or endowment made by the said widow. The essential facts may be stated as follows. The property with which, we are concerned belonged to one Tulsi Ram, who died leaving a son, Daulat Ram. The latter died childless and was succeeded in the possession of the property, first by his own widow, Musammat Man Tumwar, and, afterwards, by his mother Musammat Munian, the widow of Tulsi Ram. On the 19th of April, 1905, Musammat Munian made a gift of certain immovable property in favour of the family idol, who is impleaded as the defendant in this suit, which is contested by Mahant Puran Das, the manager of the temple in which the idol is installed. At the time of this transfer the nearest reversioners to the estate of Daulat Ram ...
Jeot Ram Vs. Gopi Ram and anr. and Sheo Nath Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All478
Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. It appears that one Narain Ram was the owner of a house in the town of Ghazipur, which is the subject-matter of dispute in this appeal. He sold it to one Madhuri Das under a registered deed of sale on the 7th of March, 1894, in lieu of Rs. 275. One of the covenants of: the sale was as follows:If the vendee, his heirs or representatives, desired to sell the house purchased, they should, in such a case, first ask the executant, his heirs or representatives for the time being, to purchase it. But if the executant, or his heirs or representatives, refused to purchase, the vendee, his heirs or representatives had a right to transfer it to some one else. That, in case they make breach of this covenant, the executant, his heirs and representatives will be entitled to the specific performance of the contract.2. Both the vendor and the vendee are dead. On the 31st of July, 1919, the heirs of Madhuri Das, the vendee, who are represented by the defendants second party, so...
Kesho Ram Vs. Peare Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.761
Walsh, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. There is no question whatever but that the parties agreed to be bound by the defendant's oath. The document is in writing. No attack is made upon it. It is not contrary to law. It is in these terms as translated by the plaitiffs' Vakil in this Court. 'On behalf of the plaintiff an application has been made. On this defendant No. 1 refused to take oath on Ganges water. The Vakil for the plaintiff states that the evidence of the defendant may be taken with the ordinary oath and that the suit may be decided according to that.' This is signed by Kesho Ram, defendant No. 1, in Roman character, and by Peare Lal, the plaintiff, in Nagri character. There can be no serious question as to the interpretation of this document. 'Decided according to' is 'decided according to and nothing else.'2. There can be no doubt as to the deliberate intention of the parties, because the date of this document, the 17th of March, was the date of the filing of the written ...
Fateh Singh and ors. Vs. Thakur Rukmini Rawanji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.8
1. This second appeal raises certain questions regarding the position of a reversioner, who has succeeded to immoveable property on the death of a Hindu widow, in respect of an alienation by way of gift, or endowment made by the said widow. The essential facts may be stated as follows. The property with which we are concerned belonged to one Tulsi Ram, who died leaving a son, Daulat Ram. The latter died childless and was succeeded in the possession of the property, first, by his own widow Musammat Man Kunwar, and afterwards by his mother Musammat Munian, the widow of Tulsi Ram. On the 19th April 1905 Musammat Munian made a gift of certain immoveable property in favour of the family idol, who is impleaded as the defendant in this suit, which is contested by Mahant Puran Das, the manager of the temple in which the idol is installed. At the time of this transfer the nearest reversioners to the estate of Daulat Ram were the grandsons of one Daya Nand, who was the own brother of Sukh Deo, t...
Shib Lal Vs. Bidha Singh and Rup Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.140
1. On the 24th July 1919 one Rup Singh executed a sale-deed of his share in favour of Shib Lal in lieu of Rs. 2,000. The same day Shib Lal hypothecated the said share to third parties in lieu of Rs. 1,600. On the 30th March, 1920 the plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen against Shib Lal for preemption. On the 23rd April, 1920 after the summonses to the defendants had been issued and served, one Ram Prasad, a co-sharer in the village, executed a deed of gift in favour of Shib Lal in respect of a very small amount of the property in the village. The vendee, Shib Lal, after obtaining the deed of gift it his favour resisted the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents on the ground among others that he (Shib Lal) was already a co-sharer in the village and, therefore, no suit of pre-emption was maintainable against him. The Court of first intance dismissed the claim. On appeal the learned District Judge set aside the decree of the first Court and holding th...
Brijnandan Saran Vs. Gadre
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All332
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Second Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore in exercise of Small Cause Court powers.2. On the facts stated the case is a hard one on the applicant for revision, but I have come to the conclusion, after hearing the learned Counsel, that it is not possible for me to interfere.3. The facts are as follows: The applicant here was the defendant in a suit which was brought for the recovery of arrears of rent. That case was instituted in the court of the Judge, Small Cause Court of Cawnpore.4. Under an order of the learned District Judge the case was transferred for disposal to the court of the Second Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore and it was decided ex parte on the 28th of June, 1922.5. The Second Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore on this date was Babu Aghore Nath Mukerji.6. On the 28th of July, 1922, the defendant filed an application lo have the ex parte decree, which had been passed against him, set aside. This application was...
Faiz Muhammad and ors. Vs. Inayat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All335
Walsh, J.1. In this case I can see no satisfactory answer to the view expressed in the judgment of the first court. Left to my own view, I should hold unhesitatingly that this was a suit by the plaintiffs to recover possession of an imambara by virtue of having been appointed as trustees in the place of the defendants, and that the order asked for involved removing an old trustee and vesting the property in the plaintiffs as trustees, and that, in bringing this suit, they were asserting, not in private individual right merely, though no doubt a private individual right is involved, but a right on behalf of the community which has elected them; in other words, a general public right. This is, in substance, the argument which was submitted to this Court in the case of Muhammad Abdul Majid v. Ahmad Said Khan (1913) I.L.R. 35 All. 459 on behalf of the respondents, and if the matter were res Integra, I should feel difficulty in following the decision in that case. But as there seems a weigh...
inayat HusaIn and ors. Vs. Faiz Muhammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.767
Walsh, J.1. In this case I can see no satisfactory answer to the view expressed in the judgment of the First Court. Left, to my own view, I should hold unhesitatingly that this was a suit by the plaintiffs to recover possession of an Imambara by virtue of having been appointed as trustees in the place of the defendants, and that the order asked for involved removing an old trustee and vesting the property in the plaintiffs as trustees, and that in bringing this suit they were asserting, not a private individual right merely, though no doubt a private individual right is involved, but a right on behalf of the community which has elected them; in other words, a general public right. This is, in substance, the argument which was submitted to this Court in the case of Muhammad Abdul Majid v. Ahmad Saeed Khan 20 Ind. Cas. 37 A. 459 : 11 A.L.J. 673, on behalf of the respondents, and if the matter were res integra I should feel difficulty in following the decision in that case. But as there s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »