Allahabad Court July 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.
Lal Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All596
Phillimore, J.1. The dispute in this case concerns the succession to a taluqdari estate in Oudh, which at the time of the confiscation was held by one Raja Hanwant Singh, the ancestor of all the parties. Their position would best be explained by a short pedigree.Raja Hanwant Singh(died 30th June, 1881)|-------------------------------------| |Lal Partab Singh = Dirgaj Kunwar Lachman Singh(died in 1857) | (died in 1882) (died 18tb July, 1888)| |Ram Rampal Singh |(died 28th Fab., 1909) |---------------------|-----------|------------| |Lal Ram Prasad Singh Baby Narain Singh(died in 1901) (plaintiff)| |---------------------------- Three Sons| | | (now appellants)Ram Gulem Singh Ram Dim Ram Adhimalias Ramesh (died Singh SinghAugust, 1910)|--------------------------|---------------------------------------| | |Avadhesh Singh Brijush Singh Suresh Singhdefendant respondent (alive) (alive)2. Narain Singh, the original plaintiff, is dead, and his three sons take his place as the present appellants...
Maharana Kunwar Vs. E.V. David and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All16
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that she is the owner in possession of a certain house situated in the city of Cawnpore; and that the insolvent, defendant No. 2, had no concern with it, and it is not liable to be attached by the official receiver. The house in question was purchased on the 29th of May, 1914, under a registered sade-deed in the name of the plaintiff. Some years afterwards, in 1919, Chhote Lal defendant, the plaintiff's husband, entered into a partnership with one Ram Dutt--a commission agency business--which ultimately failed in 1920. On the petition of certain creditors, the firm was adjudicated an insolvent, and the official receiver took charge of the insolvent's estate. On the 6th of November, 1920, he attached the house in question as property belonging to the insolvent Chhote Lal. The report of the receiver says that the present plaintiff protested and stated that the house belonged to her parents.2. It is import...
Mustafa HusaIn Vs. Amrit Bibi and Manzur HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All28
Pramada Charan Banerji, Acting C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 178 of 1921 arise out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent for possession of immovable as well as movable properties of various descriptions. The bulk of this property is alleged to have belonged to one Abid Husain, who died in the year 1909. He left surviving him his widow, Musammat Amrit Bibi, the first defendant, a grand-daughter Musammat Umme Habiba (the daughter of a deceased daughter) and three grandsons of one of his sisters. These grandsons are the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4.2. Abid Husain is said to have made a will in the year 1907 when he was going to Karbala. Musammat Umme Habiba died in 1919. The plaintiff is her husband and he claims a share in the property which according to him passed to Umme Habiba. If Abid Husain did not make a will, 14 annas of his property would go under the Shia Law, to which sect he belonged, to Musammat Umme Habiba and 2 annas to Musammat Amrit Bib...
Gaya Singh and ors. Vs. Surajbali Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All832; 75Ind.Cas.931
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage by conditional sale effected by Ram Dayal Singh and others in favour of Sukhai Singh and Gopal Singh on the 12th of January 1862. The suit was resisted by the defendant No. 1 who claimed in addition the money due on what he described as two other deeds of further charge. One of them was disallowed by the Court of first instance but allowed by the lower Appellate Court, and it forms the subject-matter of the present appeal. The latter deed recited the earlier mortgage by condtional sale and stated that a further loan of Rs. 400 was taken from the mortgagees, which was to be included in the money due on the earlier mortgage and re-paid with it. It also contained a covenant that until the money due on the latter deed was paid, the mortgagors could not be entitled to redeem the mortgage by conditional sale or to transfer any portion of the mortgaged property elsewhere, the deed was described as a deed of furth...
Musammat Mahrana Kunwar Vs. Mr. E.V. David, Official Receiver of the P ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All40; 77Ind.Cas.57
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that' she is the owner in possession of a certain house situated in the City of Cawnpore; and that the insolvent defendant No. 2 had no concern with it, and it is not liable to be attached by the Official Receiver. The house in question was purchased on the 29th of May 1914 under a registered sale-deed in the name of the plaintiff. Some years afterwards, in 1919, Chhote Lal defendant, the plaintiff's husband, entered into a partnership with one. Ram Dutt--a commission agency business which ultimately failed in 1920. On the petition of certain creditors the firm was adjudicated an insolvent and the Official Receiver took charge of the insolvent's estate. On the 6th of November 1920 he attached the house in question as property belonging to the insolvent Chhote Lal. The report of the Receiver says that the present plaintiff protested and stated that the house belonged to her parents.2. It is important to n...
In Re: Lalla Mal and Hardeo Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All1
Pramada Charan Banerji, Acting C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, No. XI of 1922. The assessees, at whose instance the reference has been made, are a firm carrying on business at Hathras in the Aligarh district, under the style of the 'Lalla Mal Hardeo Das Cotton Spinning Company': they may be conveniently referred to hereafter as 'the objectors.'2. In the petition which led to the reference, they sought to raise sundry questions of detail in respect of which no reference had been made. The Commissioner's action in this respect has been perfectly correct. The Commissioner is required to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of any order made by him under Section 32 of the Act. The objectors are seeking' to raise questions not referred to in their petition of appeal to the Commissioner; obviously no reference can be made to the High Court on any such question.3. There remain tw...
Bansidhar and ors. Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All12; 75Ind.Cas.309
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought to recover a sum of Rs. 17,000 odd, the defendants in the case being Babu lal and Kishun Gopal, sons of Kedar Nath. These defendants apparently are the owners of the firm called 'Babu Lal and Kedar Nath,' carrying on business at Cawnpore. The firm has become insolvent and the estate of the defendants is now represented by the Official Receiver.2. The plaintiffs in the suit are the descendants of one Bhawani Shanker who died on the 12th of February 1912. This man, Bhawani Shanker, owned a business at Farrukhabad which was carried on in the name of Mahanand Ram Bhawani Shanker.3. On the 27th or 28th of December 1911 Bhawani Shanker sent certain hundis to the defendant firm at Cawnpore for realisation and credit to his account.4. It is stated that the directions to the defendant firm were that the money should be treated as a fixed deposit payable six months after date.5. On the 8th of February 1912 Bhawani Shanker wrote a letter...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›