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.
Bhola Nath and anr. Vs. Ram Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.472
Daniels, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, for revision of an appellate order of the District Judge of Furrukhabad in a case in which no second appeal lay. The suit was one to recover the price of potatoes. The applicants obtained certain potatoes from Musammat Ganeshi and Ram Sahai. There was a dispute between these two as to the ownership of the potatoes but it has been found that they really belonged to both jointly. In view of the dispute the applicants sent a money-order addressing to both as payees but the money was actually taken by Musammat Ganeshi alone. The question which the Court below had to consider was whether this was a good payment or whether the plaintiff who had not received his share of the price was entitled to sue the applicants for it in spite of the payment made to Musammat Ganeshi. The learned Judge applied his mind to this question and decided, though in view of Section 38 of the Contract Act it appears to me that he decided ...
Badlu Singh Vs. Panthu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All270; 71Ind.Cas.474
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of a Small Cause Court restoring to the file? The application is based on the ground that Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act was not complied with. That section requires that the applicant shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit the amount due from him or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree. In this case, the applicant gave a security bond on the date of his application. The next day the learned Judge of the Court below directed the applicant to deposit the amount in cash and the applicant did so in accordance with the order. The Court below did not record the reason for passing this order but the reason is apparent on an examination of the security bond itself. The bond was one purporting to hypothecate immoveable property. It was, therefore, invalid without registration and it was not registered. Under these circumstances I must hold that the appli...
Syed Shabbir HusaIn and anr. Vs. Syed Ghulam Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All437; 72Ind.Cas.276
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The facts are briefly as follows:--The plaintiff-respondent Syed Ghulam Husain obtained a decree for preemption against the defendants in 1908. He deposited the pre-emption money in Court, but did not proceed further to have mutation of names effected in his favour and to take delivery of possession. It appears, however, that he took possession privately and in the year 1913 the defendants-appellants sued him for profits as their names appeared in the khewat. That suit 5was withdrawn and then the defendants-appellants filed another suit for profits. The plaintiff then filed a suit for declaration of his title and for a declaration that the defendants had no right to get a decree for profits. This suit was decreed on the 2nd of September, 1916, but in the meanwhile the defendants had obtained a decree for profits on the 26th of August, 1916. The defendants have now put this decree in execution and the plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration that the defendants...
Jasram and ors. Vs. Babu Amar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All439; 71Ind.Cas.475
Daniels, J.1. The issue in these cases is as to the application of Section 202 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The plaintiff sued for possession of certain plots of agricultural land on the allegation that the defendants had been ejected by the Revenue Court and were mere trespassers. It appears that the defendants had been ejected on nth October 1918 and the plaintiff had obtained formal possession. The present suits were brought on 9th August 1920, nearly two years later. The defendants pleaded that they had been re-admitted to the tenancy. The Courts below practically admit that this was a state of things to which Section 202 was applicable, but they did not apply the section because they thought the defendants' claim was not bona fide and because they held that the defendants could go on delaying their ejectment by raising this plea whenever the plaintiff came to the Civil Court to get actual possession. As regards the first point, here is nothing in the section itself to require the Civi...
Emperor Vs. Mahadeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All323
Walsh, J.1. This conviction cannot stand. As an appellate court one would be bound to overrule it without hesitation. There is certainly a strong element of doubt. The fact that this is a revision application does make a difference and compels mo to express an opinion about the procedure as well as about the actual findings.2. The case is so exceptional that nothing like it will probably occur, at any rate, for some time, and I am not doing more than expressing an opinion, although I have had the advantage of arguments from two of the leading members of the bar and have been referred to one or two cases. The case against Mahadeo was built up upon two statements of one of the original thieves, a man named Jhit, who has already been sentenced to a well-merited thrashing which I hope he has received. These two statements must be clearly differentiated. The theft took place on the 14th of August. On the 16th, Jhit, who was only a carrier, confessed and made a formal confession under Sectio...
Tirlok Saithwar Vs. Lalsa Saithwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.465
Daniels, J.1. The present appeal raises a question of what constitutes antecedent debt within the meaning of Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 280 : 21 C.W.N. 698 : 1 P.L.W. 557 : 15 A.L.J. 437 : 19 Bom. L.R. 498 : 29 C.L.J. 1 : 33 M.L.J. 14 : (1917) M.W.N. 439 : 22 M.L.T. 22 : 6 L.W. 213 : 39 A. 437 : 44 I.A. 126. (P.C.). The mortgage in suit was executed by the father of the plaintiff as head of the joint family. Part of the consideration was applied to pay off a mortgage executed by the father at a time when the plaintiff was not born and no joint family was in existence. The lower Appellate Court held that this constituted a valid antecedent debt and that the plaintiff was not entitled to challenge it. There is direct authority for the view which it has taken in the case of Suraj Prasad v. Makhan Lal 66 Ind. Cas. 134 : 44 A. 382 : 20 A.L.J. 51 : (1922) A.I.R. (A) 200. Even apart from authority, the question appears to me as a matter of principle to be perfectly clear. The...
Rahima Vs. Razzak Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All256; 71Ind.Cas.562
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by three persons, namely, Mansur Ali, Sahab Ali and Rahima on the ground of pre-emption. It was alleged in the plaint that both the plaintiffs and the defendants vendor and the vendees were co-sharers, in the village but the plaintiffs had a preferential right because they were more nearly related to the vendor. The claim was resisted on various grounds, one of which was that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were not related to the vendor at all and, the having joined in the claim of Rahima 4 who was related to the vendor, the claim must fail. Both the lower Courts dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that Rahima, though having a preferential right, had associated with himself two persons whose rights were inferior to those of the vendees. Rahima alone has come up in second appeal before us and, accepting the finding against him as to the relationship of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 to the vendor, contends that as he had not associated w...
Tulshi Vs. Bishnath Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All284; 71Ind.Cas.623
1. The appellant, Tulshi, obtained a decree for redemption of a mortgage against the defendants of the second party, cm the 29th of January 1917, in accordance with a compromise entered into by those parties. The present suit was instituted by five plaintiffs for a declaration that the compromise and the decree are not binding on them. These plaintiffs and the defendants of the second patty are members of a joint Hindu family. In the suit which was brought by Tulshi for redemption of mortgage he made all the adult members of the family parties to the suit, and all these adult members entered into the compromise, the result of which was that a decree was made in favour of Tulshi for redemption, on payment of Rs. 160 instead of Rs. 60 which in his plaint Tulshi had offered to pay. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim but that decree was reversed by the lower Appellate Court which dismissed the suit on the ground that in the previous suit four of the plaintiffs, thoug...
Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All322; 76Ind.Cas.1025
Walsh, J.1. This conviction cannot stand. As an Appellate Court one would be bound to overrule it without hesitation. There is certainly a strong element of doubt. The fact that this is a revision application does make a difference and compels me to express an opinion about the procedure as well as about the actual findings.2. The case is so exceptional that nothing like it will probably occur, at any rate, for some time, and I am not doing more than expressing an opinion,although I have had the advantage of arguments from two of the leading members of the Bar and have been referred to one or two cases. The case against Mahadeo was built upon two statements of one of the original thieves, a man named Jhit, who has already been sentenced to a well-merited thrashing which I hope he has received These two statements must be clearly differentiated. The theft took place on the 14th of August. On the 16th, J hit. who was only a carrier, confessed and made a formal confession under Section 16...
Sheo Ram Koeri and ors. Vs. Ikram-un-nissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All316
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision which raises a question whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act applies when a sale in execution proceedings has already been confirmed. On the 20th of August, 1912, Sheo Ram obtained a final decree in a suit upon a mortgage for Rs. 685. On the 21st of January, 1913, he took steps in execution. The property in question was advertised for sale and on the 21st of April, 1913, was sold. The decree-holder had obtained permission to bid and, in fact, he bought the property on that day. On the 23rd of May, 1913, the sale was confirmed. On the 23rd of June, 1913, the guardian of the judgment-debtor, who throughout all the proceedings was a lunatic, asked that the sale might be set aside and he alleged a series of acts and calculated omissions by the decree-holder, and other conduct of the decree-holder and third parties, which pointed to fraud on the part of the decree-holder. It is said that before the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »