Allahabad Court May 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.
Aftab Begam and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ayub and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All65; (1923)ILR45All653
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. This appeal has been argued on one single point. It relates to a shop in Landour, which together with other properties was mortgaged by the first four defendants to the defendants Nos. 5 to 12. These defendants brought a suit against their mortgagors and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree they have applied for the sale of the shop in suit. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the shop, was not liable to sale. The plaintiff has died during the course of the proceedings and the appellants are his heirs. The facts on which they based their claim are that in 1905 the 13th defendant instituted a partition suit against the first four defendants, and obtained a decree declaring her right over 4 sihams out of 84 in this shop find in nine other houses and a grove. These partition proceedings were subsequent to the mortgage, and the mortgagees were not parties to them. The partition decree is, therefore, not binding on the m...
Jagesar Pande and anr. Vs. Deo Dat Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All51; (1923)ILR45All654
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. This case has been referred to a Bench because the precise point has not been previously decided. The question is whether the reversioner has a right to challenge an alienation made by the father as manager of a joint Hindu family which the son, who had a right to challenge it, did not challenge during the father's life-time. The facta are these. Mahabir Pande and his minor son, Bansgopal, constituted a joint Hindu family. Mahabir Pande, on the 2nd of February, 1917, made a gift of the suit property to his wife Musammat Ramraji. The deed of gift purported to constitute her full owner of the property. Mahabir died shortly after making the gift. Bansgopal died in November, 1917. On the 3rd of May, 1920, Musammat Ramraji executed a deed of conditional sale in favour of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 316. The plaintiff, who is the next reversioner, sues, on the assumption that Musammat Ramraji held only the estate of a Hindu widow or a Hindu mother, for a declarati...
Nasir Khan Vs. Itwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All144; (1923)ILR45All669; 74Ind.Cas.903
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The appellant before us was the judgment-debtor, and on an application being made to execute the decree against him, he objected that the application was time-barred. The trial court dismissed the objection. The objector appealed and on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal failed to put in an appearance, and he was not represented by counsel. The learned District Judge recorded the following order:Counsel for the appellant is absent. Appellant is himself absent. His brother, or a person alleging himself to be his brother, applies for an adjournment. I see no good reason to grant this. There does not Seem to me to be the least force in this appeal; the reasons given by the Subordinate Judge for holding that the application of the decree-holder respondent for execution was in time and not time-barred, are good and sound. I dismiss this appeal, with costs, on the merits.2. The appellant comes here in second appeal and urges that under Order XLI, Rule 17, t...
Aftab Begum and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ayub and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.345
1. This appeal has been argued on one single point. It relates to a shop in Land our, which, together with other properties, was mortgaged by the first four defendants to the defendants Nos. 5 to 12. These defendants brought a suit against their mortgagors and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree they have applied for the sale of the house in suit. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the shop was liable to sale. The plaintiff has died during the course of the, proceedings and the appellants are his heirs. The facts on which they based their claim are that, in 1905 the 13th defendant instituted a partition suit against the first four defendants, and obtained a decree declaring her right over 4 sihams out of 84 in this shop and in 9 other houses and a grove. These partition proceedings were subsequent to the mortgage, and the mortgagees were not parties to them. The partition decree is, therefore, not binding on the mortgagees. The plaintiff'...
Jagesor Pande and anr. Vs. Deo Dat Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.931
1. This case has been referred to a Bench because the precise point has not been previously decided, he question is whether the reversioner has a right to challenge an alienation made by the father as manager of a joint Hindu family which the son, who had a right to challenge it, did not challenge it during the father's lifetime. The facts are these. Mahabir Pande and his minor son, Bansgopal, constituted a joint Hindu family. Mahabir Pande, on 2nd February 1917, made a gift of the suit property to his wife, Musammat Ramraji. The deed of gift purported to constitute her full owner of the property. Mahabir died shortly after making the gift. Bansgopal died in November 1917. On 3rd May 1920 Musammat Ramraji executed a deed of conditional sale in favour of the defendant for 0 sum of Rs. 316. The plaintiff, who is the next reversioner, sues, on the assumption that Musammat Ramraji held only the estate of a Hindu widow or a Hindu mother, for a declaration that the deed of conditional sale i...
Chhammu Lal and ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All47; 73Ind.Cas.985
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage of some shops executed in 1843 by the predecessors in little of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that the principal and interest had been more than paid up by the usufruct. Various defences were raised in the suit, but it is now only necessary to consider two points. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs must pay Rs. 1,099-0-9 plus interest at 9 per cent, per annum to the defendants for necessary repairs made by them in the premises they held under the terms of the mortgage-deed. It further held that Chhammu Lal and Ram Narain who had obtained possession of two of the shops had made certain improvements in their shops which had cost them about Rs. 109 each, and directed the plaintiffs to pay this amount to Chhammu Lal, and Ram Narain with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. On appeal the lower Appellate Court held that the defendants were not entitled to interest on the sum of Rs. 1,099 spent by them in...
Sujan Kunwar Vs. Bu Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All667
Grimwood Mears, C.J., and Piggott, J. 1. The question before us is whether we can or ought to certify that the appeal proposed to be preferred by the unsuccessful defendants appellants against a decision of this Court, dated the 3rd of August, 1922, satisfies the conditions laid down by Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure,, so as to make it a proper case for an appeal to His Majesty in Council. As regards the value of the subject-matter in dispute it is admitted that the requisite conditions are fulfilled. It is, however, also admitted that inasmuch as this Court affirmed the decision of the court below, this appeal must involve some substantial question of law before we can certify it as a suitable appeal to be preferred to His Majesty in Council. We had to deal, in substance, with two points, and the petition laid before us today shows that these are the points which it is desired to raise before His Majesty in Council. Neither of these points has anything whatever to do with ...
Bu Ali Khan Vs. Sujan Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All66; 75Ind.Cas.100
1. The question before us is whether we can or ought to certify that the appeal proposed to be preferred by the unsuccessful defendants-appellants, against a decision of this Court, dated the 3rd of August 1922, satisfies the conditionso laid down by section no of the Code of Civil Procedure, so as to make it a proper case for an appeal to His Majesty in Council. As regards the value of the subject-matter in dispute, it is admitted that the requisite conditions are fulfilled. It is, however, also admitted that, inasmuch as this Court affirmed the decision of the Court below, this appeal must involve some substantial question of law before we can certify it as a suitable appeal to be preferred to His Majesty in Council. We had to deal, in substance, with two points, and the petition laid before us to-day shows that these are the points which it is desired to raise before His Majesty in Council. Neither of these points has anything whatever to do with the merits of the case. They were bo...
Basanti Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All245
Daniels, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur asking that the order of the Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 247 of the U.P. Municipalities Act be set aside and a fresh enquiry ordered on the ground that the Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 350, Cr.P.C. The enquiry was commenced by one Magistrate and concluded by another. The accused asked to have the witnesses re summoned before the Second Magistrate as ha was entitled to do, but this was not done. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the provisions of Section 350 apply to an enquiry under Section 247 of the Municipalities Act. I accordingly accept the reference, set aside the Magistrate's order, and direct that the case be re-heard....
Beti Mahalakshmi Bai and anr. Vs. Badan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All105; (1923)ILR45All649
Walsh and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to enforce a security bond, filed under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by an execution proceeding. In the course of an appeal pending in this Court, an order for the stay of execution of a decree for costs was obtained by the judgment-debtor pending the decision of that appeal, and a security bond, executed by him and his surety Chaudhri Badan Singh, was filed, whereby the latter agreed to stand security for Rs. 15,000 and hypothecated certain property for the payment of the same in case the money which, might be found due under the decree was not realized from the judgment-debtor. The security bond stated: 'We the executants willingly give security for Rs. 15,000 and after hypothecating the property specified below agree that if the appellate court affirms the decree of the court of first instance, then I, Rao Narsing Rao, will duly carry out the decree of the appellate court, and whatever costs ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »