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.
Lalsa Rai and ors. Vs. Udit Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All149; 75Ind.Cas.114
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit brought under the following circumstances. It appears that one Ugrah Rai was the owner of certain property. He mortgaged it to the defendant first set. The defendant first set brought a suit for sale on his mortgage and impleaded as defendant Musammat Bhagwanta, the widow of a pre-deceased son of Ugrah Rai who was found to be in possession of the property. The matter was compromised between the two sets of defendants and the mortgagee decree-holder has now put up his decree in execution and asked for sale of the property. The plaintiffs alleged (i) that this decree was not binding on them as they being the next reversioners to the estate of Ugrah Rai were the owners of the property and were not made a party to the decree, and (2) that under the compromise decree the mortgagee applied for sale of more property than was mortgaged to him. They, therefore, sued for a declaration, that they were the reversioners and as su...
Thakur Hargobind Singh Vs. Hukum Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.351
1. Second Appeal Nos. 40 of 1932 and 144 of 1922 are connected appeals and arise out of two suits for pre-emption. On the 27th February 1919 one Ant Ram executed a sale-deed of certain shares in Mauza Pawaoli in favour of Hukum Chand, Sukhdeo and Rup Singh defendants vendees. On the 25th 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 February 1920 by Ram Dial, 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 The two plaintiffs, Bansidhar and Jagram, have since withdrawn from the suit.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 Dial, the second, but we do not know the date on which it was filed. Ram Dial, the second, was impleaded in the two suits first mentioned but the plaintiffs of those suit were not impleaded in the suit by Ram Dial the second. The ...
Ram Adhar Singh and anr. Vs. Babu Ram Manohar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.990
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 estateof her husband, Ramweshar Singh, as a Hindu widow. On the 22nd April 1909 she made a gift of the entire estate to the Sole surviving daughter, Musammat Ramkali Kunwar. Musammat Ramkali 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 Ramkali. 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 claim was decreed by the Trial ...
Emperor Vs. Muhammad Yakub Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All594
Walsh and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. We accept this reference and restore the sentence to the original three months' simple imprisonment given by the Magistrate who tried the caw. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Mohammed Yakub Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.1032
1. We accept this Refererce and restore the sentence to the original three months' simple imprisonment given by the Magistrate who tried the case. The fine, if paid, will be regarded....
NaraIn Singh Vs. Zalim Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All573; 74Ind.Cas.351
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a defendant appeal arising out of the folio vying circumstances. It appears that there were tyro decrees outstanding against the plaintiff, one No. 1653, and the other No. 1307. The defendant Lal Hans was a decree-holder in both these decrees but in decree No. 1653 there were other decree-holders also. A contract was entered into between the present plaintiff and Lai Hans, the decree-holder aforesaid, that the latter would pay off both the decrees and the plaintiff would transfer 14 1/2 bighas to him out of 16 bighas and odd share which the plaintiff had purchased at auction on the 20th of July 1905. The plaintiff carried out his port of the contract and executed a sale-deed of the property in favour of Lai Hans. Lai Hans satisfied the decree No. 1307 only but did not pay off the other decree-holders in decree No. 1653. Lal Hans, however, got mutation of names effected in his favour of only 4 bighas and odd out of 14 bighas and odd share sold to him. The decr...
Ahmad-ullah Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All592
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are best stated in the judgment of the lower appellate court, dated the 24th of July, 191.9, where the essential question for determination is clearly set forth. That question is whether the making by a mortgagor of a deposit, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, ipso facto extinguishes the mortgage in spite of the fact that the mortgagee has refused to accept the deposit. In our opinion that question can only be answered as it was answered by the lower appellate court--the mortgage is not extinguished. The parties remain in the relationship to one another of mortgagor and mortgagee. It is for the mortgagor, dissatisfied with the action of the mortgagee in refusing to accept the money deposited in full, satisfaction of the mortgage, to bring a suit for the enforcement of his legal rights. Unless and until he does so successfully, the mortgage still subsists. There is some complication introduc...
L. Jagmohan Saran Vs. Sahu Deoki Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All572; 84Ind.Cas.535
1. On the 3rd of May 1922 this High Court passed the decree Which is sought to be made the subject of an appeal to the Privy Council. On the 10th of November 1922 a certificate was granted, and thereupon it became obligatory upon the proposed appellant to the Privy Council, to furnish security and to make a deposit within, the period now prescribed by Act XXVI of 1920. As regards the security this Court did permit an alteration in the nature of the security but no question arises on this matter; to day. The difficulty in the way of the proposed appellant is that he being, as we conceive him to be, out of time in the making of a deposit, the certificate which has been granted to him must be revoked on the ground that it cannot be said that a deposit made out of time is one made to, the satisfaction of the Court under Order XLV, Rule 8. We are of opinion that the periods both for security and deposit are identical, and that they cannot in any event exceed a period of 150 days from the ma...
Padam Singh and anr. Vs. Umrao Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All48; 75Ind.Cas.104
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The Court of first instance had decreed the plaintiffs' suit, but on appeal after some further evidence had been taken the learned District Judge dismissed it. His findings ore that the plaintiff and the vendor are co-sharers in the same mahal in which the property in dispute is situtaed and that a custom of pre-emption exists in the village. There is a further finding that the defendant vendee is recorded as a mortgagee in possession of some share in the same mahal. On this latter finding the learned District Judge was of opinion that the defendant himself was a co-sharer and that, therefore, the plaintiff had no preference over him. The entry as to the custom of pre-emption in the wajib-ul-arz is as follows:2. Every owner of a patti will lave the right of transferring his share in the property first in favour of bahi haqiqi eh jaddi (own brothers descended from a common ancestor) and in case of their refusal to oth...
Balwant Singh Vs. Mare Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All52; 74Ind.Cas.322
1. This is a defendant-vender's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The defendant had denied the existence of any custom and the Court of first instance dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge set aside the decree of the First Court and decreed the suit, holding that the custom of pre-emption alleged by the plaintiff had been established. The evidence as to the existence of the custom produced by the plaintiff consists of an entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1870 as well as decrees the years 1885 and 1916. As against that the defendant relied on the judgment and decree of; the year 1913.2. An entry as to the right of pre-emption recorded in a wajib-ul-arz is certainly good prima facie evidence of the existence of the custom unless there is internal evidence in the wajib-ul-arz itself, or some other evidence or circumstance to rebut it. In the present case, although it appears that there was an earlier wajib-ul-arz of 1860 in existence, none was filed. We have only...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »