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.
Muhammad Iftikharullah Vs. Banke Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.950
1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the decree-holder-respondent for the recovery of certain costs awarded to him by an appellate decree of this Court from the person of the judgment-debtors. It appears that the decree-holder obtained a preliminary decree for the sale of certain-property against the present judgment-debtors and other persons which provided that, in the case of non-payment of the decretal money, including the costs awarded by the Trial Court, the mortgaged property was to be sold. From that decree some of the heirs of the original mortgagor appealed to this Court. Their appeal was unsuccessful, and was dismissed excepting so far that the time for the payment of the money was extended; and the decree -holder-respondent was awarded his costs as against them. The effect of the dismissal of the appeal with the modification mentioned above was that the decree of the Trial Court, as amended, merged into the decree of this Court, and until it was made final it ...
Balgobind, Since Deceased and ors. Vs. Badri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All413
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Conda, and dismissed the suit. The suit was a suit for the possession of the village Aunian Durga in the district of Gonda, and for mesne profits, and it depended on whether there was or was not a family custom in the village by which daughters and their issue were excluded from inheritance. The Subordinate Judge found that there was such a custom and decreed the suit. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner on appeal found that the custom was not proved, and accordingly dismissed the suit.2. In order to understand how this question as to a custom excluding daughters and their issue from inheritance has arisen in this suit, it is necessary to refer briefly to the family to which the plaintiff, Balgobind Pande, had belonged. Balgobind Pande and his three elder brothers, Sital Prasad Pande, Radha Pande, and Ragbubar Pande, had, with their f...
Badri NaraIn Vs. Jarbandhan and Musammat Ram Rati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All621
Walsh and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. We are both satisfied with the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge, which is an admirable one, and the case is really covered by the decision of the late Sir Sundar Lal in the case of Mohammad Shakur v. Gopi (1922) I.L.R. 44 All. 619 which the learned Judge hag followed. This application is dismissed with costs....
Jarbandhan Vs. Badri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.19
ORDER1. This revision raises a question of some importance which is likely to recur. The defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff's father and executed a bond agreeing to re-pay it on a certain date. There was a further condition that if the money was not re-paid on that date the creditior could enter into possession of the defendant's cultivatory holding as a usufructuary mortgagee. It is admitted that this latter covenant was. contrary to the provisions of the Tenancy Act and illegal. The plaintiff sued for a simple money-decree for the amount advanced by him. The defence was that the whole contract was illegal within the meaning of Section 24 of the Contract Act and that the plaintiff could get no decree. Two judgments of this Court were cited before the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court. Neither of them has been reported except in Indian Cases, One of the rulings is in favour of the plaintiff, the other in favour of the defendants. Under these circumstances it seems desirab...
Emperor Vs. Abdus Samad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All616
Daniels, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares in a case under the Workman's Breach of Contract Act, 1859, as amended by Act XII of 1920. It is admitted that the Magistrate omitted, before ordering the complainant to pay compensation under Section 2B of the Act, to call on him to show cause. I accordingly set aside the order of compensation passed and direct the Magistrate to do now what he should have done in the first instance, namely to call upon the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation. The Magistrate will then pass final orders after considering any cause that may have been shown. The amount of compensation, if already deposited, will remain in deposit pending the decision of the case....
Ram Charan Lal Vs. Raghubir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All551; (1923)ILR45All618
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of certain property.2. It appears that the property in question was sold by Musammat Reoti Kunwar, on the 29th of November, 1916, to one Chandan Singh. The case for the plaintiff was that Musammat Reoti Kunwar had no authority to sell thisproperty as she had only the estate of a Hindu widow.3. Chandan Singh is dead and is represented on the record by his sons and grandsons.4. The defence put up to the suit was that Musammat Reoti Kunwar was full owner of the property under a will executed by her husband in her favour.5. We have to deal, in the first instance, with the history of the suit in the trial court.6. It seems quite clear that after the plaint had been filed summonses were issued to the defendants and 8 date was fixed for the first hearing and for framing of issues.7. It is not disputed that the defendants all combined to file a written statement embodying the defence to which we have ...
Chhajju and ors. Vs. Jhabba and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All293; 74Ind.Cas.681
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of ft suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs Who are muafidar sued under Section 63 for the; efecfcrnent pf tile defendants as their tenants. The first written Btatemeu't filed by the defendants was to the effect that the defendants tad been in possession for more than twelve years and as the plaintiffs were muaftdars the defendants had acquired occupancy rights and were occupancy tenants. This was on the 6th of January 1921. A supplementary written statement was filed on the is on April 1931, in which the defendants pleaded that they were Zemindars an d as the plaintiffs were muafidars they ought to have proceeded under Section 79 of Act II of 1901, and having failed to take any such steps for 14 years the suit was liable to dismissal. They further contended that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist betweet the parties and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The suit was brought in the Revenue Court and ...
Jhari Koeri and Mangru Koeri and ors. Vs. Bijai Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All109; (1923)ILR45All613
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. Jhari Koeri, the plaintiff appellant in this case, is the auction-purchaser of a fixed-rate holding. The holding originally belonged to one Babu Lal and was inherited by his wife Musammat Chaurasi. Musammat Chaurasi was in possession of another holding, either a fixed-rate or occupancy holding, probably the latter, which she had also inherited from her husband. A decree for arrears of rent against this latter holding was obtained against her. Instead of taking ejectment proceedings under Sections 57(a) and 61 of the Tenancy Act, the landholder put to sale the fixed-rate holding now in dispute, which was already mortgaged to him, and it was purchased by the plaintiff under two sale certificates, dated the 21st of June, 1909, and the 24th of November, 1910. The plaintiff obtained possession of the holding. Musammat Chaurasi died about two years before the suit, and on her death the defendants, who are remote reversioners of Baba Lal, managed to get possession of ...
Ram Adhar Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Manohar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All114; (1923)ILR45All610
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether a gift of an estate by a widow in possession in favour of the next reversioner, which operates as an acceleration of the estate to the latter, is vitiated by its containing a provision for the maintenance of the widow. In this case Musammat Sumera Kunwar was in possession of the estate of her husband, Rameshar Singh, as a Hindu widow. On the 22nd of April, 1909, she made a gift of the entire estate to the sole-, surviving daughter Musammat Ram Kali Kunwar. Musammat Ram Kali obtained possession, and, after her death, the estate has been taken possession of by her two sons, the respondents. The original plaintiff Jai Mangal Singh, now represented by his sons, was the son of another daughter of Rameshar Singh who was dead at the time of the gift to Musammat Ram Kali. The succession having opened on the death of the latter he claims his one-third share in the property as reversioner jointly with the defendants. His c...
Hargobind Singh Vs. Hukm Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All94; (1923)ILR45All608
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. Second Appeals Nos. 40 of 1922 and 144 of 1922 are connected appeals and arise out of two suits for pre-emption. On the 27th of February, 1919, one Ant Ram executed a sale-deed of certain shares in mauza Pawaoli in favour of Hukm Chand, Sukhdeo and Rup Singh, defendants vendees. On the 25th of February, 1920, Har Gobind, who was a co-sharer in the village, instituted a suit No. 149 of 1920 for pre-emption of this property. This was followed by another suit instituted on the 27th of February, 1920, by Ram Dayal, Bansidhar and Jagram, numbered as suit No. 159 of 1920. The two plaintiffs Bansidhar and Jagram have since withdrawn from the suit. These two suits were instituted in the court of the Munsif.2. A third suit was instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge by Ram Dayal the second, but we do not know the date on which it was filed. Ram Dayal the second was impleaded in the two suits first mentioned but the plaintiffs of those suits were 'not implead...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »