Allahabad Court March 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 Chitto Vs. Ganga Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All527; 77Ind.Cas.638
Rafique, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by her for a declaration that she was the sole occupancy tenant of the holding mentioned in the plaint. She stated in her plaint that the occupancy Inkling originally belonged to her husband Baldeo Singh who died some time ago without any issue, leaving her surviving as the sole heir. After the death of her husband she applied for mutation of name and also asked the Revenue Court to include with her name the name of her sister-in-law Musammat Kesar, the widow of a deceased brother of Baldeo Singh. She extended this indulgence to Musammat Kesar by way of consolation. At the last Settlement Ganga Sahai, son of Bhupal Singh, and Fateh Singh in collusion with Musamma Kesar and without the knowledge of the plaintiff got their names entered as joint occupancy tenants of the said holding with the plaintiff. She came to know of the fraud practised upon her some time in March 1919. She applied to the Revenue Court for the ...
Mannu Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All472
Lindsay and Daniels, JJ.1. After hearing the learned Counsel in this case we are of opinion that this appeal should be allowed and that the order of the first court should be restored.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs respondents to recover a certain sum of money alleged to be due in respect of a contract which was entered into on the 12th of September, 1918, for the delivery by the 18th, of November of that year of a bale of dhotis at a certain rate.3. The date fixed for payment was the 27th of November, 1918.4. It is not denied that the goods were delivered to the defendant on the date in question and it is also not denied that the price was not paid on the date fixed for payment.5. It appears, however, that after this latter date, inasmuch as there had been much speculation in this class of goods, a committee of the cloth merchants of Jhansi assembled and brought out a plan by which claims for breach of contract of delivery of those goods or for failure to pay the price due ...
Musammat Sheobai and anr. Vs. Rekhab Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All466
Walsh, J.1. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed and the suit dismissed. The point is a short one, but an interesting one and not so technical and artificial us it appeared at first sight. We are much indebted to Mr. Piari Lal Banerji for his able argument on behalf of the appellant. The point may be stated in a very small compass. There is an undoubted mystery about the fate of one Kedar Nath, who was engaged in commercial pursuits. He was a Bania who lived in Calcutta and who, for adequate reasons, namely, that he was accused of embezzlement, disappeared. This happened in December, 1907, that is to say, just a little more titan 13 years before this suit. He was only 23. He had no children. He had a young wife, and although feeble efforts have been made to prove his subsequent existence, no tiling (infinite is known about it. If one had merely, on questions of fact, to draw inferences permitted by Section 114 of the Evidence Act, many considerations would ha...
Jodha Singh and anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All482
Lindsay and Daniels, JJ.1. This is an appeal in a suit for possession brought by the plaintiffs respondents, Jodha Singh and Dilla Singh. The land in suit originally belonged to one Murat Singh who mortgaged it for Rs. 300 with possession on the 19th of May, 1891, to one Ganga Ram. Ganga Ram remained in possession as mortgagee till the year 1918, but the rights of the mortgagor were the subject of various transfers which it will be necessary to specify.2. On the 12th of December, 1903, Murat Singh sold his equity of redemption to the defendants appellants, Raghubir Singh and Gajraj Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,300. Rs. 300 of this amount was left with the vendees for payment to the mortgagee, Ganga Ram, to pay off his mortgage. One Bharat Singh instituted a pre-emption suit in respect of this sale of the equity of redemption and obtained a decree against the defendants on the 25th of January, 1905. Under this decree the whole of the purchase money, Rs. 1,300, was made payable to the defend...
ishdat Tiwari and anr. Vs. Tameshwar Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All537
ORDERPiggott, J.1. I have considered the office report and the arguments of counsel. The cross-objections are admittedly liable to an ad valorem fee on the subject matter in dispute. This can only be ascertained by an examination of the decrees passed by the courts below. The first court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit: the lower appellate court gave the plaintiff Ishdat a decree 'ba qadr jaedad maliyat mubligh Rs. 100-10-0.' The defendants in their petition of cross-objections ask for the restoration of the first court's decree. I hold that the value of the subject matter in dispute on their petition of cross-objections is Rs. 100-10-0: they must pay an ad valorem fee on this amount. I allow them one month within which to make good the deficiency....
Bhikam Khan Vs. Dan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All544; 74Ind.Cas.7
Rafique, J.1. It appears that on the 15th January 1921 Dan Singh, the opposite party, put in an application trader Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for cancellation of sale in favour of the applicant and recovery, of the property on the allegation that the property did not belong to the judgment-debtor of the applicant. The application of Dan Singh was struck off in default on the 28th May 1921. On the nth June 1921 Dan Singh moved the? Court to restore his application that was struck oft in default. Objections were taken on behalf of Bhikam Khan, the applicant before me. The learned Munsif rejected the objection and restored the application of Dan Singh on the 9th July 1921. The present application for revision is against the order of the learned Munsif restoring the application of Dan Singh which had been struck off in default.2. In my opinion the applicant must succeed in view of the case law on the subject. I would refer to the latest case on this point of our own Court, n...
Rekhab Das Vs. Musammat Sheobai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All495; 74Ind.Cas.656
Walsh, J.1. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed and the suit dismissed. The point is a short one, but an interesting one arid not so technical and artificial as it appeared at first sight. We are much indebted to Mr. Peareial Banerji for his able argument on behalf of the appellant. The point may be stated in a very small compass. There is an undoubted, mystry about the fate of one Kedar Nath, who was engaged in commercial pursuits. He was a Bania who lived in Calcutta and who, for adequate reasons, namely, that he, was accused of, embezzlement, disappeared. This happened in December 1907, that is to say, just a little more than 13 years before this suit. He was only 23. He had no children. He had a young wife, and although feeble efforts have been made to prove his subsequent existence, nothing definite is known about it. If one had merely, on questions of fact, to draw inferences permitted by Section 114 of the Evidence Act, many considerations would have ...
Raghubir Singh and anr. Vs. Jodha Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All507; 73Ind.Cas.646
1. This is an appeal in a suit for possession brought by the plaintiffs-respondents, Jodha Singh and Dilla Singh. The land in suit originally belonged to one Murat Singh, who mortgaged it for Rs. 3C0 with possession on 19th May 1891 to one Ganga Ram. Ganga Ram remained in possession as mortgagee till the year 1918. but the rights of the mortgagor were the subject of various transfers which it will be necessary to specify.2. On 12th: December 1903 Murat Singh sold his equity of redemption to the defendants-appellants, Raghubir Singh and Gajraj Singh, for a sum of Rs. 1,300. Rs. 300 of this amount was left with the vendees for payment to the mortgagee, Ganga Ram, to pay off his mortgage. One Bharat Singh instituted a pre-emption suit in respect of this sale of the equity of redemption and obtained a decree against the defendants on 25th January 1905. Under this decree the whole of the purchase-money, Rs. 1,300, was made payable to the defendants though Rs. 300 of it was really for paymen...
Ram Nath Vs. Mannu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All518; 73Ind.Cas.615
1. After hearing the learned Counsel in this case we are of opinion that this appeal should be allowed and that the order of the First Court should restored.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents to recover a certain sum of money alleged to be due in respect of a contract which was entered into on the 12th September 1918, for the delivery by the 18th November of that year of a bale of dhotis at a certain rate.3. The date fixed for payment was the 27th of November 1918. It is not denied that the goods were delivered to the defendant on the date in question and it is also not denied that the price was not paid on the date fixed for payment.4. It appears, however, that after this latter date, inasmuch as there had. been much speculation in this class of goods, a Committee of the Cloth Merchants of Jhansi assembled and brought out a plan by which claims for breach of contract of delivery of those goods or for failure, to pay the price due in respect of these goods were to be...
ishdatt Tewari and anr. Vs. Tameshar Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All175; 83Ind.Cas.780
ORDERPiggott, J.1. I have considered the Office Report and the arguments of Counsel. The cross-objections are admittedly liable to an ad valorem fee on the subject-matter in dispute This can only be ascertained by an examination of the decrees passed by the Courts below the First Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit: the lower Appellate Court gave the plaintiff Ishdatt a decree be qadr jaedad maliyat mubligh Rs. 100-10'. The defendants, in their petition of cross-objections, ask for the restoration of the First Court's decree. I hold that the value of the subject-matter in dispute on their petition of cross-objections is Rs. 100-10: they must pay an ad valorem fee on this amount. I allow them one month within which to make good the deficiency....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »