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.
Ahmadullah Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All26; 74Ind.Cas.763
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are test sifted in tie judgment of tie lower Appellate Court, dated the 24th of July 1919, where, the essential question for determination is dearly set forth. That question is, whether the making by a mortargor 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 he 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 mortgegor, 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 introduced into the present case by the fa...
Emperor Vs. C.J. Cadd
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All588
Walsh, J.1. This is an application in revision to review an order of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad confirming a conviction by the Magistrate for breach of trust. The charge is one which is only too familiar to lawyers, namely, a charge against the hirer of an article under a hire-purchase agreement, for having sold it, as his own before he had paid up all the instalments. The case is a perfectly clear one and there is really very little to be said about the very clear and interesting judgment of the Sessions Judge. On one point, with regard to the civil aspect of the matter, I do not quite agree with him, but he guarded himself against giving a confident opinion. When one is considering the decisions, so well known in England, of Lee v. Butler (1893) 2 Q.B. 318 and Helby v. Matthews (1895) A.C. 471 which latter case (decided by the House of Lords) practically settled all legal controversy about these agreements, one must remember that in those cases the Courts were deciding whether t...
Musammat Islam Fatima Vs. Syed Tamiz Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All938; 75Ind.Cas.111
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the possession of certain property said to have been sold by defendant No. 1, through defendant No. 2, who is her husband, to the plaintiff. The sale was effected on the 31st December 1918. The sale-deed was presented for registration on the 2nd January 1919. On that date the Registering Officer went to the house of defendant No. 1 and asked her whether she had executed a sale-deed. She admitted having done so, but when the terms of the sale-deed were read over to her, she said she had agreed to these terms except in so far as the amount of consideration payable to her was overstated in the sale-deed. The consideration specified in the sale-deed was Rs. 1,250 but the lady stated that she had agreed to sell the property in question for Rs. 1,100. The plaintiff asserted that the sale had been settled for Rs. 1,250 and that be had already paid Rs. 150 by executing a promissory-note in favour of def...
Musammat Bakhshi and anr. Vs. Hyder Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All571; 75Ind.Cas.270
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit by the plaintiff zemindar against the respondent for recovery of a certain amount as an artisan cess, as the plaintiff himself calls it in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The defendants are weavers and they have four handlooms. The plaintiff claims Re. 1 per handloom as artisan cess and says it is payable every year at the end of the month of June. He goes on to say that some years ago there was a criminal case between the zemindar and weavers and since then all the weavers have formed a clique and stopped the payment of the artisan cess. The present suit was, therefore, brought for recovery of Rs. 66 as artisan cess from the 30th of June 1919. The contention of the defendants was that they were licensees of the Zemindars and they settled long ago with the permission of the former zemindars without payment of any rent as artisan cess, and they constructed three houses and one loom house at their own cost; that neither they...
C.J. Cadd Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All598; 73Ind.Cas.508
Walsh, J.1. This is an application in revision to review an order of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad, confirming a conviction by the Magistrate for breach of trust. The charge is one which is only too familiar to lawyers, namely, a charge against the hirer of an article under a hire-purchase agreement for having sold it as his own before he had paid up all the instalments. The case is a perfectly clear one and there is really very little to be said about the very clear and interesting judgment of the Sessions Judge. On one point, with regard to the civil aspect of the matter, I do not quite agree with him, but he guarded himself against giving a confident opinion. When one isconsidering the decisions so well-known in England of Lee v. Butler (1893) 2 Q.B. 318 : 62 L.J.Q.B. 591 : R. 563 : 69 L.T. 370 : 42 W.R. 88 and (sic) v. Matthews (1895) A.C. 471 : 64 L.J.Q.B. 465 : 11 R. 232 : 72 L.T. 841 : 43 W.R. 561 : 60 J.P. 20 which latter case (decided by the House of Lords) practically settl...
Ashiq Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All596; 73Ind.Cas.337
Walsh, J.1. I on told that this is the 'first case in which revision being sought from a Sessions Judge of an order resulting from proceedings before a Sub-Divisional Officer and a District Magistrate under the badmashi section, the Sessions Judge, being himself unable to make any final order in the case, has expressed his opinion, that there is cause for interference by the High Court and referred the matter to the High Court with the recommendation that the order be set aside. Having regard to the amended procedure which is probable when the new Criminal Procedure Code becomes law, and 1o the imminence of some new legislation separeting the executive from the judicial, my decision is or very small importance and likely to be of short duration as an authority. But I am definitely of opinion that Section 435 does unable a Sessions Judge to call for the record of proccedings under Section 110, Criminal Peocedere Code, taken before an inferior Criminal Court within his jurisdiction, and ...
Bishambhar Nath Vs. Muhammad Ubaidullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All559; (1923)ILR45All581
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether a deed, dated the 25th of June, 1886, executed by Durga Prasad and others in favour of one Qudratullah Khan was an out and out sale or a mortgage by conditional sale. There is a subsidiary question as to whether this issue is res judicata between the parties by reason of the decision in suit No. 124 of 1886. The document was: on the face of it a sale-deed with a condition that if the purchase-money and any arrears of rent which happened to remain due at the time of repayment were repaid to the vendee on the last day of Jeth, sixteen years after the purchase, the vendors would be entitled to get back the property. It was clearly stipulated that unless payment was made on this particular date, no right of re-purchase was reserved to the vendors.2. The question has been argued on the footing that the test of whether the document was a sale or a mortgage was the intention of the parties at the time of entering int...
Sheikh Muiz-ud-dIn Vs. Mohammad Ikhlaq and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All59; 74Ind.Cas.756
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is, whether Sheikh Muiz-ud-din is entitled to obtain a refund of the money due to Bashir-ud-din, the late de facto mutwalli of the trust. It appears that a suit was filed by certain persons to dislodge Bashir-ud-din from the position of the mutwolli of the trust. It suit was decreed by the Trial court and a Board of Trustees was cointed, to whom Bashir-ud-din was feed to pay certain trust money sets. Subsequently, that decree was (sic) by this Court, which came to the in that Bashir-ud-din had acted, mutwalli of the trust sufficient-pitied to remain in possesion property as such. By decree of this Court Bashir-ud-din entitled to claim a refund by and costs, which he had to the judgment-debtors. A portion of the, said money was realised by Bashir-ud-din in his life-time. An application was now made by his son, Muiz-ud-din, for the recovery of the balance. Its allegation is that he was appointed by Bashir-ud-din, the late mutwalli, as his ...
Babu Bishambhar Nath Vs. Muhammad Ubaid Ullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.572
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether a deed dated, 25th June 1886 executed by Durga Prasad and others in favour of one Qudrat Ullah Khan was an out and out sale or a mortgage by conditional sale. There is a subsidiary question as to whether this issue is res judicata between the parties by reason of the decision in Suit No. 124 of 1886. The document was on the face of it a sale-deed with a condition that if the purchase-money and any arrears of rent which happened to remain due at the time of re-payment were re-paid to the vendee on the last day of Jeth sixteen years alter the purchase, the vendors would be entitled to get back the property. It was clearly stipulated that unless payment was made on this particular date 110 right of re-purchase was reserved-to the vendors.2. The question has been argued on the footing that the test of whether the document was sale or mortgage was 1he intention of the parties at the time of entering into the transaction. This rule was o...
Mahammad Hadi Vs. Debi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All600; 77Ind.Cas.871
1. There is no force in this appeal. On the 29th of January 1907 a decree was obtained under Section 90 of Act IV of 1882. The application for execution, with which we are at present concerned, was made on the 15th of April 1912, for the attachment and sale of certain property. An attachment followed but before the property could be sold the Court executing the decree found upon enquiry that the description of the property attached did not tally with the description given in certain Revenue Records. The decree-holder was called upon to explain he discrepancy but he did not turn up. misapplication was therefore, dismissed for default on the 25th of July 1913. On the 7th of August 1913 a fresh application was made for execution with a request that the previous execution proceedings should be sent for and the sale of the property attached proceeded with. On the 19th of September 1913 another application was filed by the decree-holder asking that, the order of the 25th of July 1913, should...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›