Allahabad Court February 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.
Kaniz Fatima Begam Vs. Ram Nandan Dhar Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All384
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings. The respondent, Ram Nandan Dhar Dube, held a simple money decree against the assets of Muhammad Ghulam Muhi-ud-din Ashraf Baksh Khan who is said to have died in 11.903. In execution of that decree a share of 1 anna 7 pies and a fraction, in mauza Bhupgarh, alleged to have been inherited by Musammat Kaniz Fatima Begam, the widow of the deceased, was attached and sold. Musammat Kaniz Fatima had a claim for dower against the estate of the deceased. It is now common ground that the share which she inherited in this village; from her husband was 7 1/2 pies-only, and, on her objection, the sale has been set aside except as regards this 7 1/2 pies as to which it has been maintained. The remainder of the share owned by the deceased in this village passed to the other heirs of the deceased. Musammat Kaniz Fatima Begam instituted a suit to recover her dower debt, and, in execution of the decree which she obtained, the whole sha...
Jagdeo Tiwari and ors. Vs. Kuber Nath Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All312; 71Ind.Cas.755
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly as follows and the following pedigree will make them more clear. BUJHAWAN | |---------------------|----------------------| Bhagwan Ram Agyan= | | Musammat Sheoamber | Rekha, | | defendant No. 2 | |------------------------| | Jagdeo, Sahdeo. | Plaintiff No. 1 plaintiff No. 2. | | |-------------------------| Madho' Musammat defendant Dukhan, No. 3 daughter | | Kuber Nath defendant No 1.2. The suit was by the plaintiffs to set aside a gift made by Musammat Rekha of certain property to Kuber Nath; They pleaded that Musammat Dukhan was not the daughter of Rekha but she was the daughter of Sheoamber and, consequently, the transfer by Rekha was not justified in any case. They, therefore, prayed for a declaration of the invalidity of the gift in favour of defendant No. 1 and consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs' suit was based on the ground that the three brothers, Bhagwan, Ram Agyan and Sheoamber, were members of a joint Hindu fam...
Habib Khan Vs. Fida HusaIn Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All270; 71Ind.Cas.1017
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows : Fida Husain Khan, Madar Baksh and Muhammad Ali were co-sharers of the village in suit. Madar Baksh and Muhammad Ali sold' their shares to Musammat Saidunnissa, who was the predecessor-in-title of Habib Khan, defendant No. 1. They became ex-proprietary tenants of their sir. They relinquished their rights, and Bangur, defendant No. 2, became non-occupancy tenant of the plots in suit. In proceedings under Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act it was decided that certain plots, including the plots in suit, were in the exclusive possession of Musammat Saidunnissa Bibi, under a partition of sir land in those proceedings. Subsequently, Habib Khan sued Bangur for the whole of the rent of the two plots in suit. Bangur pleaded that he had paid the rent in good faith to Fida Husain. Fida Husain thereupon was made a party to the suit and the suit was ultimately decreed by the Appellate Court, which decided against Fida Husain. Thereupon Fi...
Musammat Kaneez Fatima Begum Vs. Ram Nanda Dhar Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All331; 73Ind.Cas.977
1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings the respondent, Ram Nandan Dhar Dube, held a simple money-decree against the assets of Muhammad Ghulam Muhi-ud-din Ashraf Baksh Khan who is said to have died in 1903. In execution of that decree a share of i-anna 7-pies and a fraction in Mama Bhupgarh, alleged to have been inherited by Musammat Kaneez Fatima Begum, the widow of the deceased, was attached and sold. Musammat Kaneez Fatima had a claim for dower against the estate of the deceased. It is now common ground that the share which she inherited in this village from her husband was 7 1/2 pies only, and on her objection the sale has been set aside except as regards this 7 1/2 pies as to which it has been maintained. The remainder of the share owned by the deceased in this village passed to the other heirs of the deceased. Musammat Kaneez Fatima Begum instituted a suit to recover her dower-debt and, in execution of the decree which she obtained, the whole share of the deceased in the vi...
Amar Singh Kondari Vs. Sadar Singh Kondari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All383
Piggott, J.1. I hold that the High Court of Kumaun is not a court subordinate to this High Court for purposes of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. There is a special procedure provided by statute, in accordance with which the Local Government can, upon cause being shown to its satisfaction refer to this Court for opinion any judgment or order passed by the Kumaun High Court. It cannot have been the intention of the Legislature that it should be left open to any dissatisfied litigant in Kumaun to evade these provisions by coming direct to this Court with a petition invoking its revisional jurisdiction. I reject this application....
Sadar Singh Kondari Vs. Amar Singh Kondari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.991a
Piggott, J.1. I hold that the High Court of Kumaun is not a Court subordinate to this High Court for purposes of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. There is a special procedure provided by Statute, in accordance with which the Local Government can, upon cause being shown to its satisfaction, refer to this Court for opinion any judgment or order passed by the Kumaun High Court. It cannot have been the intention of the Legislature that it should be left open to any dissatisfied litigant in Kumaun to evade these provisions by coming direct to this Court with a petition invoking its revisional jurisdiction. I reject this application....
Kunwar Kamta Singh Vs. Munni Babu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All378
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application for revision of a judgment of the Small Cause Court at Agra.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for the purpose of recovering a sum of Rs. 200 which he had paid as earnest money in the following circumstances:On the 11th of October, 1915, the plaintiff had entered into a contract with the father of the defendants for the sale of certain property. Afterwards the plaintiff sued the father of the defendants for specific performance of the contract. That suit was dismissed finally by a judgment of this Court. The plaintiff now brings the present suit for recovery, of the earnest money paid. The father having died in the) meantime, the suit was brought against the sons.3. Two pleas were raised in the court below in order to defeat) the plaintiff's claim. It was argued, in the first place that the suit was barred by the provisions of order II, Rule 2; of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower court overruled this) plea and in my opinion rightly.4. Th...
Muhammad Umar Khan Vs. Ummatul Rahim Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All376
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. These appeals arise out of three connected suits filed by the plaintiff appellant, Muhammad Umar Khan, for his share as heir, to the extent of one-third, of Ahmad Ali Khali deceased. In two of the suits he claims partition by metes and -bounds of different properties, together with certain rents alleged to have been wrongly realized by the defendants. In the third suit he claims joint possession of the fractional share to which he is entitled. The suits were disposed of by the court below in one judgment and were dismissed on the ground that they were barred by order II, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of a suit previously filed by the plaintiff against Musammat Ummatul Rahim and Musammat Mariam Bibi, defendants in these suits, and one Musammat Eukaiya Begam who is not a party to this litigation. The learned Munsif held that order II, Rule 2, had no application to the facts of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge in a very brief judgment ove...
Jiwan and Abdullah Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All380
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application for revision of a judgment of the Court of Small Causes at Saharanpur awarding the plaintiff firm damages against the Secretary of State as proprietor of the Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway.2. The facts found by the court below are as follows: On the 23rd of June, 1920, the plaintiff firm made over to the railway 58 parcels containing mangoes. The goods were consigned to Lahore. At the time of sending the goods the plaintiffs executed a risk-note in form B.3. The goods were delayed in transit and did not reach Lahore till the 4th of July, and, by that time, the fruit had become rotten. Delivery was offered to the consignee on the 5th of July but was refused by him, and under the orders of the Station Superintendent the goods were then destroyed.4. The Judge finds that the delay in the transit of the goods, and the resulting deterioration of the fruit, was due to gross negligence on the part of the railway's servants.5. The present suit was brought by th...
Ram Das Vs. Inayat-ullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All297; (1923)ILR45All374
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who sought to recover a sum of money from the defendants, one item of which was Rs. 660. This was claimed on a memorandum of accounts signed by one of the defendants, on the 27th of November, 1917, admitting that a sum of Rs. 660 was due by him to the plaintiff. This account, it appears, started in 1915. The suit was brought on the 14th of April, 1920, so that, unless the memorandum of the 27th of November, 1917, was legally admissible as an acknowledgment within Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, so much of the claim as referred to this account would be time-barred. Both the lower courts have held that this document came within the definition of an acknowledgment of a debt in article 1 of the first schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, and held that inasmuch as it did not bear a, one anna stamp, under Section 35 of that Act, it was inadmissible. Both courts, therefore, dismissed the suit so far as this claim was concerned. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »