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.
Baldeo Misir Vs. Ramlagan Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All82; 77Ind.Cas.694
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. 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 July 1920. On appeal the lower Appellate Court was of opinion that under the custom recorded in the wajib-ul-urz the plaintiff had a right of preferences 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 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 counter-affidavit if necessary. No such affi...
Gopal Das Vs. Goswami Banmali Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All85; 75Ind.Cas.1004
1. The suit out of which this appeal has sprung was brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 16,990 and certain ornaments alleged to be worth Rs. 8,000.2. The two defendants to the suit are two brothers, Goswami Banmali or Banwari Lal and Goswami Damodar Lal. According to the allegations in the plaint these two defendants are members of a joint Hindu family, the second defendant being the managing member. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that he was the spiritual disciple (chela) of the defendant No. 1 while his wife is the disciple of the second defendant. The case for the plaintiff was that at various times he had advanced sums of money to those defendants and in particular to the second defendant. He also alleged that on the occasion of a gauna ceremony he had lent certain valuable ornaments and utensils to the defendants which they had not returned.3. The first defendant denied ever having received any money from the plaintiff. The second defendant, while admit...
Bansi and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All76; (1923)ILR45All700; 75Ind.Cas.984
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a proceeding pending against certain labourers under Section 2 of the Workman's Breach of Contract Act (No. XIII of 1859) as amended by Act No. XII of 1920. The employer is' a resident of Moradabad and carries on a stone ballast-business in Shankargarh in the district of Allahabad. He advanced' money to certain labourers and employed them for the purpose of working at Shankargarh. His complaint was that after working for a little while they disappeared. That complaint is, being inquired into by one of the Magistrates at Moradabad. The labourers are residents of Shankargarh and desire that the complaint should be inquired into in the district of Allahabad where the alleged breach of contract is said to have taken place. It is admitted that the advances were made at Shankargarh and that if any breach of contract took place, it must have taken place at Shankargarh too. The witnesses are all said to belong to the same place. It ...
Rahul AmIn Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All701
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. The three connected appeals before us arise out of one single suit. This was filed by Ruhul Amin, the appellant before us, as long ago as the 24th of March, 1916. The object was to set aside a transfer purporting to have been effected by a sale-deed of the 16th of November, 1906, executed by various persons, and, amongst others, by the mother of the plaintiff, who purported to act on behalf 'of the plaintiff, then a minor, as his natural guardian. There was a long array of defendants, including numerous subsequent transferees of the property concerned. In the written statements of at least two of these defendants the point was taken that the plaintiff had attained majority prior to the institution of the suit, and that the plaint purporting to be signed and verified on his behalf by a next friend, namely, the father's sister's son of the plaintiff, was not valid in law, and that there had been no valid presentation of the plaint. It is impossible ...
Ruhul AmIn Vs. Lala Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.30
1. The three connected appeals before us arise out of one single suit This was filed by Ruhul Amin the appellant before us, as long ago as the 4th of March 1916. The object was to set aside a transfer purporting to have been effected by a sale deed of November 16, 1906, executed by various persons and amongst others by the mother of the plaintiff, who purported to act on behalf of the plaintiff, then a minor, as his natural guardian. There was a long array of defendants including numerous subsequent transferees on the property concerned. In the written statements of at least two of these defendants the joint was taken that the plantiff had attained majority prior to the institute on of tie suit, and that the plaint purporting to be signed and verified on his behalf by a next friend, namely the father's sister's son of the plaintiff, was not valid in law, and that there had been no valid presentation of the plaint. It is impossible for us to say why the Trial Court ignored these pleadin...
Hardeo Sahai Vs. Inayat Ilahi and ors. and Bhawani Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All692
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. First Appeals Nos. 136 and 137 of 1921 are connected appeals by certain defendants arising out of two suits for sale on the basis of two mortgage deeds of she same date, namely, the 2nd of June, 1914.2. The first of the two mortgage deeds was executed by Bhawani Prasad and others in favour of Hardeo Sahai, and the second by the same mortgagors in favour of Hukam Chand and Gauri Shankar. Under these two deeds the amounts due under two prior mortgage deeds, dated the 16th of June, 1894, and the 1st of March, 1897. were paid off and only a sum of Rs. 500 was paid in cash, which was said to have been required for the purchase of corn for daily consumption and for the completion of the mortgage deeds in question.3. In the one case the only contesting defendant was a subsequent transferee, Inayat Ilahi; and in the other Maharaj Singh, one of the members of the mortgagor's family, also contested the suit. The other defendants did not put in any appearance. On behal...
Abdul Rashid Khan Vs. Nisar Muhammad Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All143; (1923)ILR45All691
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is a reference by the. Sessions Judge of Moradabad in a case in which the accused Abdul Rashid Khan has been directed to pay Rs. 300 to the complainant, Haji Nisar Muhammad Khan, by certain instalments, under Section 2 of Act No. XIII of 1859 as amended by Act No. XII of 1920. It appears that in 1920 Abdul Rashid Khan obtained an advance of Rs. 300 for doing a certain work. He worked for a few months after the execution of the agreement but failed to complete the engagement. He was arrested, fad, on being charged with a breach of the contract, executed another agreement in lieu of the former advance to work for another period of one year. Thereupon the complaint originally filed against him was withdrawn. After the execution of the second agreement he worked again for a little while and then broke off the engagement. The complainant thereupon proceeded against him again to enforce his agreement and obtained an order, the correctness of which forms the subject of...
inayat Ilahi and ors. Vs. Hardeo Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All29; 74Ind.Cas.325
1. First Appeals No.136 and 137 of 1921 are connoted appeals by certain defendants arising out of two suits for sale on the basis of two, mortgage-deeds of the same date namely the 2nd of June 1914.2. The first of the two mortgage deeds was executed by Bhawani Prasad, and others in favour of Hardeo Sahai, and the second by the same mortgagors in favour of Hukam Chand and Gauri Shankar. Under these two deeds amounts due under to prior mortgage-deeds dated 16th of June 1894 and the first of March 1897 were paid off and only a sum or Rs. 500 was paid in cash which was said to have been required for the purchase of corn for daily consumption and for the completion of the mortgage-deeds in question3. In the one case the only contesting defendant was a subsequent transferee Inayat Ilahi and in the other Maharaj Singh one of the members of the mortgagor's family also contested the suit. The other defendants did not put in any appearance. On behalf of the contesting defendants the execution of...
Maharaj Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All83; 74Ind.Cas.443
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The order passed by the Court below is irregular and cannot be sustained. In a suit for the recovery of money due on a mortgage made by Maharaj Prasad, the mortgagor, Maharaj Prasad, was examined and in the course of his deposition he made certain state-meats in regard to which the Court, below has directed his prosecution. The main question for consideration in that case was, whether the mortgage in question was made for legal necessity. Various questions were put to him about certain other transactions about which he made replies which he had subsequently to modify of a certain account, Exhibit 3, being shown to him. The Court below was of opinion that in saying what he did Maharaj Prasad had deliberately made false statements. But as pointed out in Lachhmi Narain v. Emperor 19 Ind. Cas. 712 : 16 O.C. : 81 : 14 Cr.L.J. 280, a witness is entitled to locus penitentiae and an opportunity to correct himself and if, when he gets that opportunity, he recalls to his mind ...
Sultan Bakhsh and ors. Vs. Abdul Hamid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All685
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is a reference to the High Court under Order XI/VT of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 23(c) of the Municipalities Act No. II of 1916. In Ward No. 4 of the Fatehgarh municipal elections five candidates were nominated for the Moslem constituency. Three of them withdrew before the polling day. On that day two candidates were opposed to each other, by name Umrao Khan and Abdul Hamid. There being only one seat, the poll was duly opened and voters commenced to record their votes in favour of one or the other candidate. At some time whilst the polling was open and continuing Umrao Khan went to the returning officer and told him that he no longer desired to contest the seat. Thereupon the returning officer closed the: poll and declared that the one remaining candidate, Abdul Hamid, was duly elected to the one vacancy. It is suggested in the petition that the withdrawal of Umrao Khan was due to some political manoeuvring: but be that as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »