Allahabad Court April 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.
Kedar Nath Singh Vs. Sheo Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All613; 76Ind.Cas.370
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of a seven storied house No. 7-27 called Chhoti Haveli situated near the golden temple in Benares. This house had been purchased by Musammat Lakhpat Kunwar, the widow of one of the Pandas of the temple, in 1898. She died on the 7th of January 1914. On the 30th of December 1903 she made a Will in favour of the plaintiff and Letters of Administration were, after her death, obtained by the guardian of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the property both as adopted son of the lady and also by virtue of the Will. The claim on the basis of adoption was repelled by the Court below, but the claim has been decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the property belonged to Musammat Lakhpat Kunwar at her death and that the plaintiff by virtue of her Will has acquired it. On the 2nd of August 1903 Musammat Lakhpat Kunwar executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant Kashi Na...
Ram Kishen Rai Vs. Sheo Sagar Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All304; 73Ind.Cas.462
Daniels, J.1. This appeal by the defendant, Ram Kishen Rai, arises out of a suit for possession of a 1-4th share in plot No. 590-1 in the village of Kosara in the Ballia District in which the parties are permanent tenure-holders. The plaintiffs' title to a 1/8th share in this plot based by purchase is (sic). The dispute is as to the remaining 1/8th. In the plaint the plaintiffs simply set up their ownership of the plot and their unlawful dispossession by the defendant in June 1918. The case which they set up at the trial and which has been accepted by both the Courts below is that they came into possession of the remaining 1/8th share, under a private partition which took place 8 or 10, according to one witness, and 15 or 16, years ago, according to another. A private partition can be efiected without any written document. In this Court the defendant's appeal is urged on two grounds neither of which was put forward in either of the Courts below and which this Court might, therefore, we...
Babu Bindeshri Prasad Vs. Kuar Sarju Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All590; 73Ind.Cas.458
1. We are of opinion that the decree of the lower Court must be affirmed. The facts are that, on the 20th August 1912, the father of the present defendant, Bindeshri Prasad, executed a promissory-note in favour of the plaintiff for a certain sum.2. At the time this promissory-note was executed the defendant's father was a ward of the Court of Wards and, consequently, it follows that the contract evidenced by this promissory-note was a void contract and that no debt resulted.3. After the release of the estate from the Court of Wards and the death of the Defendant's father, the present defendant on the 19th August 1915 executed a bond for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the plaintiff.4. It is found that this sum of Rs. 3,000 was made up of Rs. 1,800 advanced at the time and that the balance, Rs. 1,200, represented the sum which had been secured by the prom ssory-note executed by the defendant's father.5. The present suit was on this bond and the Courts below have decreed the claim. The argument i...
Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. Haji Muhammad Nur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.656
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the two minor sons of Suraj Prasad for a declaration that they are the owners of a two-thirds share in the house in dispute which was sold at auction in execution of a, simple money-decree- against the father. It appears that Suraj Prasad executed a simple money-bond on the 6th May 1913 in order to pay interest on a previous mortgage-deed. A suit was brought by the obligee on the basis of the bond and a decree, was obtained against Sura] Prasad. In execution of that decree the house in question was attached and was put up for sale and purchased by the decree-holder himself, namely, Pahlad Dass. In-spite of getting a formal delivery of possession Pahlad Dass was dispossessed end he had to bring a separate suit for the possession of the house which was decreed'; in 1919. On the 2nd June 1919 Pahiad Dass executed a sale-deed of the property in question- in favour of Janki Pande which sale was pre-empted by Haji Muhammad 'Nut...
Shankar Sahi and ors. Vs. Buichu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All569; 74Ind.Cas.18
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The point raised in this case is a very simple one and under the strict rule of Hindu Law the decision would have been in favour of the appellants. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent sued for foreclosure of a mortgage which had been executed for payment of a pre-emption decree. The sons of one of the mortgagors were also impleaded and their defence was that the mortgage-bond was not for consideration and at any rate was not for legal necessity. The Munsif held that consideration had pissed but that the pre-emption decree was not satisfied by the mortgage-money and, therefore, he passed a decree against the pre-empted property exempting from liability the ancestral property charged in the mortgage. The plaintiff's appealed and, the defendants put in cross-objections. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the mortgage went to satisfy the pre-emption 'decree and that the loan was for the benefit of the estate and decreed the claim against the whole...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›