Allahabad Court March 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.
Shahzad Singh Vs. Hanuman Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All562
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises under peculiar circumstances. The appellant Shahzad Singh obtained a mortgage decree for sale of the property of Hanuman Rai and others, the final decree having been passed some time in December, 19:20. The appellant put in his application for execution of the decree on 1st July, 1921, and declared that the property was ancestral. He also stated that the property was subject to no incumbrances. His duty included the production of a certificate from the Sub-Registrar as to whether there was any incumbrance or not, and this he performed. But it was the duty of the Collector and the Collector alone to find out with the assistance of both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor what were the incumbrances that were to be notified as existing over the property. The decree was transmitted to the Collector for execution, apparently with a note that there were no incumbrances over the property. The property was sold by the Collector and the decree-holder himse...
Sanwal Das Vs. the Collector of Etah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All560; 83Ind.Cas.848
Mukerji and Daniels, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by the decree-holder in execution proceedings. The facts are that a simple money decree was obtained by the appellant against one Rao Maharaj Singh in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad. The judgment-debtor held property in Aligarh. After the decree was passed, the estate of the judgment-debtor was taken over by the Court of Wards. The appellant decree-holder applied to the learned Subordinate Judge to have the Collector of Etah, as manager of the estate of the judgment-debtor under the Court of Wards, added on the record and for the decree to be transferred for execution to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. The Collector was given notice of this application. He apparently at one time contemplated filing objections, for he sent a telegram asking for time to do so. Ultimately, however, no objections were filed and an order was passed adding the name of the Collector as manager on behalf of the Court of Wards an...
Janeshar Das Vs. Phulwanti Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All575
Lindsay, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is one Lala Janeshar Das and the defendant Musammat Phul Kunwar alias Phulwanti Kunwar is the widow of the plaintiff's deceased brother Lala Badri Das.2. The father of the plaintiff and Lala Badri Das was one Lala Paras Das, who died on the 2nd of May, 1903. Paras Das, in addition to the plaintiff and Badri Das, left another son named Dharam Das who died several years before the present suit was brought.3. At the time of their father's death Badri Das and Janeshiar Das were minors.4. On the 16th of November, 1902, Lala Paras Das executed a will dealing with all the property belonging to himself and to the joint family. He executed a codicil to this will on the 12th of March, 1903, and a second codicil on the 17th of April, 1903.5. The will and the codicils were deposited in the office of trie District Begi&trar; of Saharanpur and were opened in the presence of one Girdhari Lal on the 9th of May, 1903. Girdhari ...
Phulwanti Kunwar Vs. Janeshar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All625; 83Ind.Cas.782
Lindsay, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is one Lala Janeshar Das and the defendant Musammat Phul Kunwar alias Phulwanti Run war is the widow of the plaintiff's deceased brother Lala Badri Das.2. The father of the plaintiff and Lala Badri Das was one Lala Paras Das,who died on the 2nd of May 1903. Paras Das, in addition to the plaintiff and Badri Das, left another son named Dharam Das who died several years before the present suit was brought.3. At the time of their father's death Badri Das and Janeswar Das were minors.4. On the 16th of November 1902 Lala Paras Das executed a Will dealing with all the property belonging to himself and to the joint family. He executed a codicil to this Will on the 12th of March 1903 and a second codicil on the 17th of April 1903.5. The Will and the codicils were deposit- ' ed in the Office of the District Registrar of Saharanpur and were opened in. the presence of one Girdhari Lal on the 9th of May 1903. Girdhari Lal, ...
Babu Shahzad Singh Vs. Babu Hanuman Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.766
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises under peculiar circumstances. The appellant Shahzad Singh obtained a mortgage-decree for sale of the property of Hanuman Rai and others, the final decree having been passed some time in December 1920. The appellant put in his application for execution of the decree on 1st July 1921 and declared that the property was ancestral. He also stated that the property was subject to no; encumbrances. His duty included the production of a certificate from the Sub-Registrar as to whether there was any encumbrance or not, and this he performed. But it was the duty of the Collector and the Collector alone to find out with the assistance of both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor what were the encumbrances that were to be notified as existing over the property. The decree was transmitted to the Collector for execution, apparently with a note that there were no encumbrances over the property. The property was sold by the Collector and the decree-holder himself ...
Radhe Lal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All455
Lindsay, J.1. I have heard the counsel in this case. I do not think any ground has been made out for interference with the judgment of the court below. The facts are simple enough. The plaintiff Badhey Lal sent a parcel containing a number of brass rings from Muttra to Badrinath.2. This parcel was sent V.-P.P. and apparently never reached the consignee at Badrinath. The evidence is to the effect that the label had become torn and the result of all this was that in due course the parcel reached the Dead Letter Office at Lucknow.3. There the parcel was opened but no clue having been obtained as to where the parcel had come from nothing more could be done. The officer in charge of the Dead Letter Office says that the seal of the office of posting had left an indistinct impression so that it was impossible to say from what post office the article had been posted. After being kept in the Dead Letter Office for a period of about a year the parcel was sold and brought a sum of Rs. 15 odd.4. T...
Mahabir Singh and anr. Vs. Matabadal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All735; (1924)ILR46All549; 79Ind.Cas.327
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, and the question for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim pre-emption in respect of the property in dispute. The property in question comprises a certain zamindari share in pargana Kariat Medha in the district of Jaunpur and was sold by Gay a Din Singh, the defendant No. 12, in favour of the defendants Nos. 1, 5, 10 and 11 for Rs. 1,300, on the 25th of February, 1919. The parganas constituting the district of Jaunpur were evidently recast some time after the permanent settlement of 1795, and pargana Kariat Medha is evidently identical with or included, in pargana Karindah, referred to at pages 185 and 245 in the Duncan Records of 1795.2. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that there was a custom of pre-emption prevailing in the village and that the real sale consideration was Rs. 1,025. The trial court found that there was a custom of pre-emption in the village as recorded in th...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Radhey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.334
Lindsay, J.1. I have heard the Counsel in this case. I do not think any ground has been made out for interference with the judgment of the Court below. The facts are simple enough. The plaintiff Radhey Lal sent off a parcel containing a number of brass rings from Muttra to Badrinath.2. This parcel was sent V.P.P. and apparently never reached the consignee at Badrinath. The evidence is to the effect that the label had become torn and the result of all this was that in due course the parcel reached the Dead Letter Office at Lucknow.3. There the parcel was opened but no clue having been obtained as to where the parcel had come from nothing more could be done. The Officer in charge of the Dead Letter Office says that the seal of the office of posting had left an indistinct impression so that it was impossible to say from what Post Office the article had been posted. After being kept in the Dead Letter Office for a period of about a year the parcel was sold and brought a sum of Rs. 15 odd.4...
Sheo Prakash and anr. Vs. Ala-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.599
Lindsay, J.1. My learned colleague and myself are agreed that the decree given by the Court below in this suit is erroneous but we differ, unfortunately, as to the relief which the mortgagee-plaintiffs are entitled to obtain. The principal facts are set out in my learned brother's order, but I desire to lay particular stress on the position and constitution of the family to which the mortgagors belonged and for this purpose reference must be made to the award made by Moulvi Farid-ud-din and Munshi Shaikh Shams-ud-din on the 26th July 1897. This document is to be found in Part III of the printed record of this case. Reference must also be made to a further award by Muhammad Rahmat Ullah in the year 1901, which is to be found in the printed record of First Appeal No. 193 of 1915, (see the appellants book, page 10 et seq).2. To deal first with the award of the 26th July 1897. This document sets out in detail the constitution of the family to which the mortgagors belong. Although a Muhamma...
Emperor Vs. Ram NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All446
Ryves, J.1. For the reasons given by the Sessions Judge, I accept this reference and set aside the summary trial and order that Ram arain and Sita Ram be re-tried according to law....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »