Allahabad Court June 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.
Gopal Das and anr. Vs. Babu Gauri Shanker Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All122; 74Ind.Cas.186
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. In a suit for partition a preliminary decree was passed appointing a Commissioner to make a partition and to ascertain the debts and outstanding amounts and the capital and stock-in-trade of a certain shop and to take them in account in flaming his proposals. That decree was the subject-matter of an appeal to this Court. While that appeal was pending, the Commissioner proceeded* with his work and found that a sum of Rs. 100, settled as payable to him for executing the commission, was insufficient in consideration of his labour. He, therefore, when submitting his accounts and the list of the properties proposed, to be partitioned, moved the Court to award him Rs. 800 as his fees for the work he had done. The Court thereupon ordered that Rs. 600 should be paid to him by the plaintiffs and Rs. 200 by the defendant, and that if the appeal from the preliminary decree was successful, the defendant would be entitled to recover the latter sum from the plaintiffs. It further ...
Sham Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Kali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.495
1. This was a claim to certain property by inheritance. It was at one time the stridhan property of Musammat Sahodra and descended after Sahodra's death to Musammat Ram Piari, her daughter. Ram Piari is now dead and the defendant in possession is Ram Kali; daughter of Ram Piari. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Ganga Din, who was a son of Musammat Sahodra. As the Trial Court has rightly remarked, it is now quite settled law that Musammat Ram Piari, taking this property by inheritance from her mother, did not take it as her own stridhan, that she took it with a limited estate, with the remoter after her death to the heirs of her predecessor.2. The question for determination then is whether the defendant, Musammat Ram Kali, as the daughter's daughter of Musammat Sahodra, is a nearer heir to Musammat Sahodra than the two plaintiffs who are the son's son of that lady.3. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that, under the Mitakshara School of law, there can be but one answer to th...
Kamlapat Dubey and ors. Vs. Ram Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All103; 79Ind.Cas.450
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No. 5842 Khasra, measuring 3 biswas 18 dhurs and situated in the village Mahnlia. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of that plot and complain that the defendants had without any right constructed certain cattle troughs and fixed certain pegs for tying cattle other a portion of the said land in the month of Bhadon preceding the suit. The defendants, on the other hand, assert that the cattle troughs and pegs in question stand on their own land and have been in existence for more than 12 years prior to the suit. The Courts below found that the land in question belonged to the plaintiffs but the cattle troughs had been in existence for more than 12 years prior to the suit. They dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as barred by time.2. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants relies on the decision in Framji Cursetji v. Goculdas Madhowji 16 B. 338 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 703. and contends that such temporary user, even ...
Harbans and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Raghubir Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.658
Boys, J.1. The facts of this case are set out in my order of the 23rd of May 1924. On the 23rd of February 1924 the Trial Magistrate acquitted the present applicants of a charge under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code on the case being compounded between them and Amar Singh the complainant. So far there cannot be really any serious doubt that the Magistrate was acting perfectly properly and within his jurisdiction. It was alleged, however, very shortly afterwards by Raghubir Saran, the master of the complainant Amar Singh that though, as a matter of fact, Amar Singh had filed the complaint under his (Raghubir Saran's) authority, he had no authority to compound the complaint without his (Raghubir Saran's) sanction which had not been given. However, the situation may lie between Raghubir Saran, the master and Amar Singh the employee. I feel no hesitation in saying that if Raghubir Saran sent Amar Singh to Court to represent him in filing the complaint the Court was perfectly justified...
Hawal Rai and ors. Vs. Har Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All57; (1923)ILR45All711
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. One Ram Naresh was the occupancy tenant of a certain holding. He mortgaged the same with possession to one Dukhit Misir, at a time when such mortgages were not forbidden by law. Dukhit accordingly entered into possession of the holding lawfully with the status of a mortgagee. Earn Naresh died in the year 1913. Dukhit remained for a time in possession as a ,tenant-at-will. His rights as mortgagee had been determined because Ram Naresh had left no heir entitled to succeed to, the tenancy. Dukhit has let into possession Har Prasad Rai and others, who are co-sharers in the village, and we may take it as-found that he has let them into possession in return for a money payment made in recognition of his rights as mortgagee. The plaintiffs, came into court alleging that they were the sole proprietors of the land which formed the occupancy holding of Ram Naresh. They claimed that Dukhit was their tenant-at-will, and that they were entitled to eject him un...
Ram Lagan Shukul Vs. Baldeo Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All709
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's: appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The; main plea taken on behalf of the defendant was that the plaintiff had no preference over him. The court of first instance dismissed the suit on the 24th of July, 1920. On appeal the lower appellate court was of opinion that under the custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz the plaintiff had a right of preference as against the defendant vendee though the latter was a co-sharer in the same thok. The decree of the first court was accordingly set aside and the suit decreed. A second appeal was preferred to this Court on the 28th of July, 1921, and one of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal was that inasmuch as the plaintiff respondent had ceased to be a co-sharer at the time of the lower appellate court's decree, his suit should have been dismissed.2. An affidavit was filed in support of the allegation implied in that ground and time was given to the opposite party to file a, count...
Bholai Pandey Vs. Khiali Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All456; 84Ind.Cas.701
1. This is a defendant-vendee's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiffs alleged that there was custom of pre-emption in the mahal in which the shares sold were situated and according to it they had a preference against the defendant, who also was a co-sharer in the same mahal. The defendant denied the existence of the custom and also denied that the plaintiffs had any preference over him.2. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs and the vendor were co-sharers in one and the same patti but that the defendant-vendee was a co-sharer in another patti though situated in the same thok. It held that there was a custom of preemption in the village, and was of opinion that the plaintiffs being nearer in space had a preferential right over the defendant. That decree was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court, however, confused the meaning of thok with a 'revenue-paying unit' as it calls it. It thought that the plaintiffs and the vendo...
Girdhar Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All77; 75Ind.Cas.353
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an application under Section 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the determination of the question of the competency of the Magistrate at Basti to try a complaint against an accused under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the complainant is that the accused sent notices to different persons, including the complainant, offering to act as a Commissi on Agent at Bombay for such persons as may choose to entrust their business to him, and that in pursuance of that notice the complainant appointed the accused as a Commission Agent and advanced to him Rs. 10,000 on the understanding that the accused was to purchase and sell goods at Bombay on his behalf. The complaint was, that the accused had no bona fide intention to carry on the business of a Commission Agent at Bombay, and that he dishonestly obtained money from the complainant under the pretext that he would carry on such business and wrongfully appropriated what was paid to...
Hawal Rai and ors. Vs. Har Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.835
1. One Ram Naresh was the occupancy tenant on a certain holding. He mortgaged the same with possession to one Dukait Masir, at a time when such mortgag aes were not forbidden by law. Dukhit accordingly entered into possession of the. holding lawfully with the status of mortgagee. Ram Naresh died in the year 1913 Dukhit remained for a time in possession as a tenant-at-will. His rights as mortgagee had been determined, because Ram Naresh had left no heir entitled to succeed to the tenancy. Dukhit has let into possesion Har Prasad Rai and. others who are co-sharers in the village, and we may take it as found that he has let them into possession in return for a money payment made in recognition of his rights us mortgagee. The plaintiffs came into Court al eging that they were the sole property tors of the land which formed the occupancy holding of Ram Naresh. They claimed that Dukhit was their tenant at-will, and that they were entitled to eject him under the ordinary procedure proscribed ...
Sheikh Muhammad Ali Vs. Sheikh Sultan Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All123; 83Ind.Cas.49
1. Both these appeals arises out of Suit No. 76 of 1920 instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Azamgarh by two plaintiffs Sultan Ahmad and Iqbal Ahmad. The suit was a suit for pre-emption and various parties were impleaded as defendants. One of these parties was Sheikh Muhammad Ali who was impleaded as defendant second party. lie is the purchaser of the property and he is the appellant in first Appeal from order, No. 40 of 1923. The other sets of defendants were Muzaffar Husain the vendor first party and two other parties who were rival pre-emptors and who had instituted separate suits for pre-emption.2. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiffs could not succeed as no proof of a custom of pre-emption was forthcoming. The lower Appellate Court reversed this decision of the Court of first instance and having done so remanded the suit for disposal on the merits.3. We now have these two appeals, one by Sheikh Muhammad Ali the purchaser who was impleaded as defendant second pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »