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.
Dip NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Raghubar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All311
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. Babu Ram Sewak Singh, defendant respondent No. 2, was implicated in the murder of one Mr. Lawrence Barber, in the district of Azamgarh, in the year 1915. While Babu Ram Sewak Singh was in jail he, with his two sons and his brother, executed a deed of mortgage for Rs. 10,000 in favour of Lala Ram Raghubar Lal, the defendant appellant before us. Subsequently Babu Ram Sewak Singh was tried and acquitted. On the 1st of April, 1920, the uncle of Babu Ram Sewak Singh, namely, Dip Narain Singh, brought, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration that the mortgage deed of the 16th February, 1915, executed by Ram Sewak Singh in favour of Raghubar Lal, was fictitious and give a without legal necessity. The material allegations were made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint. They were as follows:In 1915 Babu Ram Sewak Singh, defendant No. 3, was charged with the murder of Mr. Lawrence Barber. The criminal court had ordered an attachment of the, property in ...
Ram Ghulam Shukul and ors. Vs. Suraj Narayan Prasad and Sadho Saran Sh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All321
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendant vendee in a suit described as one for pre-mortgage; i.e., certain zamindari shares have been mortgaged to the appellant and the plaintiffs came into court claiming that as co-sharers in the villages in question they possess a preferential rig]it, established by village custom, to obtain a contract of mortgage in their favour on the same terms on which the mortgage had been granted to the appellants There was controversy, in the trial court, also as regards the amount of the mortgage debt, and this point is also raised in the memorandum of appeal before us. We are concerned, however, mainly with the question whether the plaintiffs have or have not established their preferential right on the basis of village custom. The main evidence consisted of records of rights for the three villages, namely, Kusmaha, Kanail and Doboli. As. regards the settlement record of 1833, the entry would seem prima facie to record a customary ...
Sri Ridhnath Mahadeoji and anr. Vs. Sheo Ramji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All319
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the name of an idol, through Vivekanand as next friend, to recover property belonging to the idol which had been wrongfully sold by a relative of the original Mahant Ajudhia Puri. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below. The defendant appellant does not assert that his vendor had any right to dispose of the property, which admittedly belonged to the idol; but he attacks the decree on the technical ground that Vivekanand was not authorized to sue on behalf of the idol. Other pleas taken in the grounds of appeal were not urged. The endowment is a recent one and there is no rule of succession laid down in the deed establishing it. The original manager of the property was one Ajudhia Puri who is dead. Two persons, Ram Kishan Das and Baijnath Tewari, were appointed to supervise the management. Ajudhia Puri's chela and successor is a minor and Ram Kishan Das, in virtue of his powers of supervision, has, rightly o...
Sheo Ramji and ors. Vs. Sri Ridhnath Mahadeoji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All282; 71Ind.Cas.480
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the name of an idol through Vivakanand 4 as next friend to recover property belonging to the idol which had been wrongfully sold by a relative of the original Mahant Ajudhia Pari. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant-appellant does not assert that his vendor had any right to dispose of the property, which admittedly belonged to the idol; but he attacks the decree on the technical ground that Vivakanand was not authorised to sue on behalf of the idol. Other pleas taken in the grounds of appeal were not urged. The endowment is a recent one and there is no rule of succession laid down in the deed establishing it. The original manager of the property was one Ajudhia Puri who is dead. Two persons, Ram Kishun Das and Baijnath Tewari, were appointed to supervise the management. Ajudhia Puri's chela and successor is a minor and Ram Kishun Das in virtue of the powers of his supervision has, rightly or wrongly, appointed...
Sheo Ram Koeri and ors. Vs. Musammat Ikramunnissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.631
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 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 Execution Court had time to consider that application on its me...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Musammat Gora and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All436; 71Ind.Cas.564
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a grandmother gets a share in the family property on a partition between her grandsons. The facts are as follows: One Nain Sukh Das was the owner of certain property. He died leaving a widow, Musammat Gaura at and a son, Chunni Lal. The names of both the above persons were entered in the revenue papers on the property of the deceased. Chunni Lal died about 9 years ago. In the year 1920 there was some dispute between his two sons, Kanhaiya Lal, the present plaintiff, and Makhan Lal, the present defendant, about the partition of the family property. The matter was referred to arbitration and under an award each of the above-mentioned two brothers was given half of the property. To this partition Musammat Gaura, the mother of Chunni Lal, was no party. After the award the present plaintiff wanted to have the name of Musammat Gaura expunged from the revenue papers but she objected successfully and hence the present suit for a ...
Ram DIn Singh Vs. Naujadak Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All484; 71Ind.Cas.668
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Magistrate setting aside an order directing the seventeen accused persons to file bonds to keep the peace under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate purported to act under Section 125. He had previously sent up the case in revision to this Court on the ground that the order of the Deputy Magistrate was wrong and should be set aside. A learned Judge of this Court passed the following order:I see no reason to interfere in this matter. The Magistrate has authority, if he so wishes, to cancel the bonds under the provisions or Section 126 (this is clearly a mis print for 125) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The learned District Magistrate has interpreted this order as authority for dealing with the application under Section 125 as an appeal. In this he is clearly wrong. There is a series of rulings of this Court which lay down definitely that an application under Section 125 is ...
Lala Ram Raghubir Lal Vs. Babu Dip NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All287; 71Ind.Cas.749
Rafique, J.1. Babu Ram Sewak Singh, defendant-respondent No. 2, was implicated in the murder of one Mr. Lawrence Barber in the District of Azamgarh in the year 1915. While Babu Ram Sewak Singh was in Jail he with his two sons and his brother executed a deed of mortgage for Rs. 10,000 in favour of Lala Rain Raghubir Lal, the defendant-appellant before us. Subsequently Babu Ram Sewak Singh was tried and acquitted. On the 1st of April 1920 the uncle of Babu Ram Sewak Singh, namely, Dip Naraiu Singh brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for a declaration that the mortgage-deed of the 16th February 1915 executed by Ram Sewak Singh in favour of Raghubir Lal was fictitious and given without legal necessity. The material allegations were made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint. They were as fellows:Para. 4. In 1915, Babu Ram Sewak Singh, defendant No. 2, was charged with the murder or Mr. Lawrence Barber. The Criminal Court had ordered an attachment of the property in dispute...
Suraj Narayan Prasad Pande Vs. Ram Ghulam Shukul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.1050
1. This is an appeal by the defendant vendee in a suit described as one for pre-mortgage i.e., certain Zemindari shares have been mortgaged to the appellant and the plaintiffs came into Court claiming that as co-sharers in the villages in question they possess a preferential right established by village custom to obtain a contract of mortgage in their favour on the same terms on which the mortgage had been granted to the appellant. There was controversy in the Trial Court also as regards the amount of the mortgage-debt and this point is also raised in the Memorandum of Appeal before us. We are concerned, however, mainly with the question whether the plaintiffs have or have not established their preferential right on the basis of village custom. The main evidence consisted of Records of Rights for the three villages namely, Kusmaha, Kanai and Doboli. as regards the Settlement Record of 1833 the entry would seem prima facie to record a customary right of pre-mortgage in favour of any co-...
Mukhtara Vs. Sardara
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All417; 71Ind.Cas.444
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house against the defendant as a trespasser. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. The defendant went up in appeal and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court referred certain issues for trial to the Court of first instance. After the findings which were against the defendant had been received the defendant failed to prefer objections to the findings within ten days' time allowed. The learned District Judge thereupon without considering the findings on the merits decided the appeal considering those findings to be final, and dismissed the appeal. The defendant comes here in second appeal and says that this action of the learned District Judge was not warranted by law, and that he ought to have himself considered whether the findings were good or bad findings and should have then decided the case. In support of this contention the case of Mumtaz Begam v. Fateh Husain 6 A. 391 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »