Allahabad Court January 1924 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.
Sheikh Abdul Shakur Vs. Syed Muhammad Matin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.429
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. There were two decrees one No. 15 of 1912 in favour of one Parsidh Narain and against the judgment-debtor Muhammad Matin. There was another decree, No. 95 of 1912, in fvour of Abdul Shakur against the same judgment debtor Muhammad Matin. The decr.ee No. 95 of 1912 ordered the sale of some property which was included in the decree No. 15 of 1912. In fact, the decree No. 15 of 1912 was passed on an earlier mortgage. The two decrees were put into execution and, the property involved being anoestral, they were sent to the Collector for execution. Tusr subsequent mortgagee, Abdul Shakur, satisfied the earlier decree, No. 15 of 1912, on 18th of September 1914. He then asked the Subordinate Judge that the amount of the prior decree should be added to the amount due under his own decree, namely, decree No. 95 of 1912. The learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 3rd July 1915 found that this could not be done but he suggested that Ab...
Musammat Mahadei Vs. Jagannath Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All313; 78Ind.Cas.225
1. The litigation which has resulted in this appeal has taken a most unfortunate course. A woman called Mahadei, the widow of a Halwai called Mahadeo, on the death of her first husband married a certain Chunni Lal. Second marriages are permitted amongst Halwais. Mahadeo had owned two houses. On the 26th February 1907 a mortgage was executed for consideration in favour of Mahant Ishar Das by which these two houses were hypothecated. Ishar Das' successor-in-interest filed a suit upon this mortgage against Mahadei and Chunni Lal. The suit was decreed against both of them. Mahadei alone appealed. The District Judge found in appeal that there was an irregularity in the execution of the mortgage which vitiated it against both executants but as Chunni Lal had not appealed he allowed Mahadei's appeal only. It is quite clear that the effect of his judgment was in no way to absolve Chunni Lal from liability and that the preliminary decree remained a good decree as against Chunni Lal. The decree ...
James Maclean and ors. Vs. Bihari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All297
Kanhaiya Lal and Mukerji, JJ.1. The plaintiff, Tmamuddin, owns a house situated in Bazar Katra Ahmadganj, in Farrukhabad city. The house is occupied by the other plaintiffs, one of whom is a clergyman and the other, who is his wife, practises as a lady doctor. Behind this house is situated a house belonging to the defendant where a flour mill worked by an oil engine has been recently started. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the working of the flour mill caused great trouble to the occupants of the house and interfered with their business and ordinary physical comfort. The defendant stated that be had been working the flour mill in another house situated at a distance of about 20 to 25 paces from that place from nine years, that that house was recently purchased by Mathura Prasad who started a steam engine of his own in that locality, and that he had consequently to shift from that place to the present house.2. Both the courts below inspected the locality and came to the conclu...
Ram Prasad Tiwari Vs. Anantu Kalwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All295
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. The essential facts to be considered may be stated thus. Two brothers, Sahadeo and Jagat, were members of a joint Hindu family. We must take this fact as established by the findings which have been recorded, although there has been some argument to the contrary before us. Jagat died first, leaving two sons, Ram Das and Ram Prasad, of whom Ram Das was very considerably the older. Sahadeo has died since, leaving one son of the name of Ram Rup, who is a major, and another son named Lalji who was still a minor on the date of the institution of this suit. We may take it that after the death of Jagat there was in existence a joint Hindu family consisting of Sahadeo, his two sons Ram Rup and Lalji, and his two nephews Ram Das and Ram Prasad. On the 30th of June, 1910, two members of this joint family were majors and the rest were minors. The two major members of the family, Sahadeo and Ram Das, joined in executing a deed of sale by which they convey...
Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Bhim Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All301
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This was a suit by two Hindu sons to contest an alienation of joint family property made by way of sale, on the 14th of October, 1919, by their father, in favour of one Bhim Singh, who is now the appellant before us. It has been found that the consideration for the sale consisted of the satisfaction of two older debts. One of these was incurred under a mortgage of the 5th of December, 1904, and one under a mortgage of the 19th of July, 1910. On the bond of 1904 a suit had been brought and a decree passed. The satisfaction of this decree formed the major part of the consideration for the sale in suit. The satisfaction of the mortgage of 1910 constituted the remainder of the consideration. Both these mortgages had been contracted by the father of the plaintiffs. In the plaint the transactions were challenged on the ground that these older debts, incurred in the years 1904 and 1910, were for immoral purposes, and therefore not binding upon the s...
Bhim Singh Vs. Ram Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All309; 84Ind.Cas.13
1. This was a suit by two Hindu sons to contest an alienation of joint family property made by way of sale on the 14th of October 1919 by their father, in favour of one Bhim Singh, who is now the appellant before us. It has been found that the consideration for the sale consisted of the satisfaction of two older debts. One of these was incurred under a mortgage of December 5th, 1904, and one under a mortgage of the 19th of July 1910. On the bond of 1904 a suit had been brought and a decree passed. The satisfaction of this decree formed the major part of the consideration for the sale in suit. The satisfaction of the mortgage of 1910 constituted the remainder of the consideration. Both these mortgages had been contracted by the father of the plaintiffs. In the plaint the transactions were challenged on the ground that these older debts, incurred in the years 1904 and 1910, were for immoral purposes, and therefore, not binding upon the sons. This point was found against the plaintiffs. N...
Musammat Wasi Fatima Bibi Vs. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All743; 78Ind.Cas.171
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. On the 7th December 1905 Muhammad Amin and Musammat Shakira Bibi executed a deed of transfer in favour of one Lala Gur Dayal for a sum of Rs. 700. Under this document a two-annas semindari share of the lady and eight-pies semindari share of Muhammad Amin were transferred. On the same date a deed of agreement was executed by Lala Gur Dayal, the transferee, which recited that he had entered into a contract with Muhammad Amin, one of the two vendors, to the effect that in case a sum of Rs. 300 were paid by him within thirty years he would be entitled to get possession of his eight-pies share and if a further sum of Rs. 750 were paid he would get back possession of the two-annas share of Musammat Shakira Bibi also.2. In 1919 the present defendant-vendee obtained a sale-deed of a certain share in the same village from a number of other co-sharers. The present plaintiff instituted a suit to pre-empt this sale-deed but whi...
Anantoo Kalwar and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad Tivari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All465; 78Ind.Cas.619
1. The essential facts to be considered may be stated thus: Two brothers, Sahdeo and Jagat, -were members of a joint Hindu family. We must take this fact as established by the findings which have been recorded, although there has been some argument to the contrary before us. Jagat died first, leaving two sons, Ram Das and Ram Prasad, of whom Ram Das was very considerably the older. Sahdeo has died since, leaving one son of the name of Ram Rup, who is a major, and another son named Lalji who was still a minor on the date of the institution of this suit. We may take it that, after the death of Jagat, there was in existence a joint Hindu family consisting of Sahdeo, his two sons Ram Rup and Lalji, and his two nephews Ram Das and Ram Prasad. On the 30th of June 1910 two members of this joint family were majors and the rest were minors. The two major members of the family, Sahdeo and Ram Das, joined in executing a deed of sale by which they conveyed certain property to the defendants in thi...
Behari Lal Vs. J. Maclean and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.506a
1. The plaintiff, Imamuddin owns a house situated in bazar Katra Ahmad-ganj in Farrukhabad City. The house is occupied by the other plaintiffs, one of whom is a olergyman and the other, who is his wife, practises as a lady doctor. Behind this house is situated a house belonging to the defendant, where a flour mill worked by an oil engine has been recently started. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that the working of the flour mill caused great trouble to the occupants of the house and interfered with their business and ordinary physical comfort. The defendant stated that he had been working the flour mill in another house situated at a distance of about 20 to 25 paces from that place from nine years, that that house was recently purchased by Mathura Prasad who started a steam engine of his own in that locality, and that he had consequently to shift from that place to the present house.2. Both the Courts below inspected the locality and came to the conclusion that the working of the...
Kalpu Rai and anr. Vs. Rameshra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All264
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Pigggtt, J.1. After hearing arguments in the case and considering the recently pronounced decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council, in the case of Brif Narain v. Mangal Prasad (1923) I.L.R. 465 All. 95, we are of opinion that this case was rightly decided by the learned Judge of this Court. There is nothing in the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case above quoted to warrant the view that an uncle acting' as manager of a joint family is entitled to sell the share of his nephew in the joint family property in order to discharge a debt incurred by his own father, even though the said father be also the grandfather of the nephew whose property is alienated. On this ground we dismiss this appeal with costs....