Allahabad Court December 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.
Musammat Khatoon Bibi and anr. Vs. Nazir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All815; 78Ind.Cas.1049
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of this case which have give rise to this appeal are these: The plaintiff, Nazir, is the husband, the appellant, Musammat Khatoon Bibi, is said to be his wife. Muhammad Ismail, appellant No. 2, is father of Mt. Khatoon Bibi. In a previous suit between the husband and wife it was held that there was no divorce. Nazir instituted this suit, out of which this appeal arises, for the restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. The father-in-law, Ismail, was made a party to the suit on the ground that the father-in-law was putting obstructions in the way of the wife's going to live with the plaintiff. The lower Court found that the question of divorce was res judicata and did not permit the father-in-law, Ismail, to adduce evidence in proof of his allegation that there was in fact a divorce. Ismail raised a further plea that there was no cause of action against him. On that plea the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has pointed out that it was clear from ...
Meghraj and ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra Bhatta Charji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All365; (1924)ILR46All286
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. These two cases are connected together. The earlier one, F.A. No. 334 of 1921, ought strictly speaking to be decided first, but in view of the facts we are about to set out, we consider it expedient to dispose first of F.A. No. 86 of 1923. The record in that case has not been printed. We were of opinion that it was unnecessary to have this done in view of the decision at which we are about to arrive.2. Before we proceed to deal with the questions which arise for determination before us, it is necessary to set out a number of fact's which will have to be referred to hereafter.3. We are concerned in these two cases with certain items of property which belonged to a Bengali gentleman named Kailash Chandra Bhattacharji.4. This gentleman, on the 16th of August, 1910, in order to raise a loan of Rs. 25,000 mortgaged three items of property to a mortgagee named Lala Ram Das.5. Those items of property were as follows:1. Mauza Sherpur. 2. Mauza Lalpur. 3. The Christy...
Rajpal Misir Vs. Randhir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All478
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal which has arisen out of a suit for pre-emption. It came before a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Sulaman and myself, and in view of the course which the case took in the lower appellate court we found it necessary to refer it for decision to a Full Bench by our order dated the 22nd of November last.2. The question is one of general importance, for we have to construe a wajib-ul-arz of a type which is very common in the Azamgarh district. This case, we may mention, comes from the district of Azamgarh.3. A string of cases beginning with the case of Surajbali Singh v. Mohammad Nasir (1918) A.L.J. 879, has laid down certain principles of decision which govern the interpretation of wajib-ul-arzes which are framed in this peculiar way, and if those cases are to be followed it must be held in the case, now before us that the wajib-ul-arz relied upon by the plaintiff does not contain a record of custom.4. In this particular case, however...
In Re: Dwarka Dhish Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All245
Piggott, J.1. The application before me is one presented on the 8th of September, 1923, asking this Court to review an order of the 11th of June, 1923, according to which it was held that a certain suit pending before the Court had been wholly; adjusted by a lawful agreement and it was ordered that a decree should be passed on the terms contained in a certain paragraph of an affidavit purporting to be sworn by the plaintiff in connection with the aforesaid agreement. The application, as presented to the Court, did not refer to any provision of the Code of Civil Procedure; but I have been informed in argument that it is intended to invoke either the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 151 of that Code, or the power of review given by Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the same. When I set myself to specify the grounds upon which this application is made to me, I find it exceedingly difficult to compose any coherent summary of the 66 paragraphs of the affidavit which has been sworn in...
Babu Dwarka Dhish Prasad Singh Vs. the Hon'ble Maharaja Keshva Prasad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All398; 82Ind.Cas.1022
Piggott, J.1. The application before me is one presented on the 8th of September 1923, asking this Court to review an order of the 11th June 1923, according to which it was held that a certain suit pending before the Court had been wholly adjusted by a lawful agreement and it was ordered that a decree should be passed in the terms contained in a certain paragraph of an affidavit purporting to be sworn by the plaintiff in connection with the aforesaid agreement. The application, as presented to the Court, did not refer to any provision of the Code of Civil Procedure; but I have been informed in argument that it is intended to invoke either the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 151 of that Code, or the power of review given by Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the same. When I set myself to specify the grounds upon which this application is made to me, I find it exceedingly difficult to compose any coherent summary of the 66 paragraphs of the affidavit which has been sworn in suppor...
B. Randhir Singh Vs. Rajpal Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All321; 81Ind.Cas.25
Lindsay, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal which has arisen out of a suit for pre-emption. It came before a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Sulaiman and myself and in view of the course which the case took in the lower Appellate Court we found it necessary to refer it for decision to a Full Bench by our order dated the 22nd November last.2. The question is one of general importance for we have to construe a wajib-ul-arz of a type which is verv common in the Azamgarh District. This case we may mention comes from the District of Azamgarh.3. A string of cases beginning with the case of Suraj Bali v. Mohammad Nasir 48 Ind. Cas. 220 : 16 A.L.J. 879 has laid down certain principles of decision which govern the interpretation of wajib-ul-araiz which are framed in this peculiar way and if those cases are to be followed it must be held in the case now before us that the wajib-ul-arz relied upon by the plaintiff does not contain a record of custom.4. In this particular case, however, the Judge o...
Lala Meghraj and ors. Vs. Mr. K.C. Bhattacharji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.243
1. These two cases are connected together. The earlier one, F.A. No. 433 of 1921, ought strictly speaking to be decided first, but in view of the facts we are about to set out we consider it expedient to dispose first of F.A. No. 86 of 1923. The record in that case has not been printed. We were of opinion that it was unnecessary to have this done in view of the decision at which we are about to arrive.2. Before we proceed to deal with the questions which arise for determination before us, it is necessary to set out a number of facts which will have to be referred to hereafter.3. We are concerned in these two cases with certain items of property which belonged to a Bengali gentleman named Kail ash Ghandar Bhattaoharji.4. This gentleman, on the 16th August 1910, in order to raise a loan ofRs. 25,000 mortgaged three items of property to a mortgagee named Lala Earn Das.5. Those items of property were as follows: --6. 1. Mauza Sherpur.7. 2. Mauza Lalpur.8. 3. The Christy Cotton Bailing Pres...
Bohra Tara Chand and ors. Vs. Murtaza Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1030
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. The suit in which the decree was passed, was based on a mortgage. The preliminary deoree was passed on the 4th of May 1908. As on this date the new Code of Civil Procedure had not come into force the decree was passed under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. The final decree was obtained by the decree-holders on the 19th of August 1909, when the new Act had come into force. The last application for execution was presented after the expiry of 12 years from 19th August 1909. The question, therefore, arises whether this last application would be governed by the old Code of Civil Procedure or by Act V of 1908. If the old Code governed the case, he 12 years' limitation would not apply because the decree in the case is a mortgage-decree. If the new Code applies the application would be barred by time.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants relies on the case reported in Kousilla v. Ishri Singh 6 Ind. Cas. 188 : 32 A. 499 : 7 A.L.J. 420. But in ...
Alkhu Rai and ors. Vs. Lachhman Upadhiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All324; (1924)ILR46All274
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. A mortgage by conditional sale was executed in the year 1861, but no suit for preemption was brought then. Recently a suit for foreclosure was instituted and after the preliminary decree for foreclosure the decree was made absolute on the 12th of April, 1919. On the 15th of September, 1920, the present suit was instituted on the ground that the defendant, who was originally the mortgagee and in whose favour the mortgage had since been foreclosed, was a stranger to the mahal. Reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiffs mainly on an extract from the wajib-ul-arz which contained a clause to the effect : 'In the mahal if any one of the co-sharers would wish to make a mortgage by conditional sale or an absolute sale he would do so, on the same price as the price offered by others, to pattiwala karibi, next to other hissedar patti, and when they would not take, to his hissedar karibi who may b...
Emperor Vs. Lachhman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All243
Stuart, J.1. This case presents unusual features. There is not the slightest doubt that on the 18th of August, 1923, Lachhman appellant murdered a man of the same name in the village of Samadhanpurwa. These are the circumstances. Lachhman appellant is a Pasi. The deceased man was a chamar. It is established to our satisfaction that for some time previous to this occurrence the appellant had shown peculiarities from which it can only be inferred that he was at that period insane. We are satisfied that he used to talk' wildly and incoherently, tear up his clothes, strip himself stark naked in public, and we see no reason to distrust the evidence which would show that he besmeared himself occasionally with faecal matter. His family believing him to be insane sent for the deceased man, Lachhman chamar, who had a reputation as an exorcisor of evil spirits, to remove the insanity by exorcism. Apparently the presence of Lachhman chamar irritated the appellant to such an extent that he attacke...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »