Allahabad Court May 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.
Tara Chand Vs. Champi and anr. and Tirloki Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All744
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff, Tara Chand, who has since become a major, instituted a suit for cancellation of certain decrees of court, through his next friend, Musammat Parsauni his certificated guardian. He is the son of Jainti Prasad, and was born on the 13th of November, 1899. A guardian was appointed by court of his person and property on the 5th of October, 1907. He attained the age of majority on the 13th of November, 1920. After the guardian was appointed, his juncle Banarsi Das adopted him. In 1916 one Musammat 'Champi sued Banarsi Das and others for partition of a house, and all proceedings were completed in the first court on the 20th of March, 1917. Judgment was reserved on that day and the 30th of March was fixed for delivery. Banarsi Das died between those two dates, and on the 28th of March Musammat Champi applied to bring Tara Chand on the record in place of his adoptive father, Banarsi Das. He appointed a pleader and contested the suit. On the 14th of April, 1917, a preli...
Tameshar Prasad and anr. Vs. Durga Prasad Sahu and Ganga Dayal Naik an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All754
Mukerji and Dalal, JJ.1. The appellant in this Court was the defendant No. 1 in the court below. He purchased, on the 17th of January, 1908, a 4 anna share in each of the two villages Lachhmipur and Hannampur and a one dhur area land out of plot No. 95 in the village of Belaura for a consideration of Rs. 25,100. The vendor was one Ganga Dayal Naik. The pedigree of the family will be found at page 1 of the plaint and is as follows: HAENAM NAIK | Bhala Ncik .......... | ________________|________________ | | Dal Bahadur Naik. Ganga Dayal Naik, | (Defendant No. 2.) ________________| |_________________ | | | | Tameshar Prasad, Rnmeshur Prasad, Nacesbar Prasad, Sheo Lootaan Naik (Plaintiff.) (Plaintiff.) alias Baij Natli, (Defendant No 4) (Defendant No. 3.)2. The plaintiffs, who are sons of Ganga Dayal's brother Dal Bahadur, brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to have the sale set aside. The suit was instituted on the 14th of January, 1920, that is to say, just two days le...
Hunter Vs. Damodar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All759
Walsh, Acting C.J. 1. This is an application, dated the 22nd of April, 1924, by Mr. Hunter, the liquidator of the Bank of Upper India, Ltd., to restrain certain respondents named Damodar Das and P.N.S. Aiyar, from acting as liquidators of the Bank of Upper India, Ltd., and to restrain the two said persons and four others, namely, Piare Lal, F.W. Roberts, N.N. Das and Khan Bahadur Wahid-ud-din Saheb, from pretending to be a committee of share-holders or contributories.2. The matter came before a member of this Bench on the 22nd of April. Being obviously a matter of urgency and importance, an interim injunction was then granted and notice was given to the respondents to appear on the 9th of May to show cause why the injunction should not be continued. Appear they did in person, with one exception, by showing themselves in Court, but they remained concealed behind their counsel, Dr. Sen, who showed cause by advancing certain legal arguments. The matter, although urgent and important, is a...
Tara Chand Vs. Champi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All767
Mukerji and Dalal, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor, Lala Tara Chand, from the dismissal of his application for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He was made a party defendant to a partition suit while he was a minor. He was then over 18 years of age, but under 21; and was, therefore, not a major, being a ward of the Civil Court. On his being brought on the record, he entered into contest after appointing a pleader, and decrees (preliminary and final) were passed against him. He filed two 'appeals to this Court and his appeals were dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff of the suit recovered her costs of the first court and this Court. The present application was for refund of the costs. The preliminary and final decrees in the partition suit have been declared by this Court today to, be null and void.2. The learned Judge of the first court refused to order restitution and hence Tara Chand has appealed. It is argued here that the principle of Sec...
Durga Prasad Sahu Vs. Tameshwar Prasad Naik and anr. and Ganga Dayal N ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.213
1. The appellant in this Court was the defendant No. 1 in the Court below. He purchased on the 17th of January 1908 a four annas share in each of the two villages Lachhmipur and Harnampur and one dhur area land out of plot No. 95 in the village of Belaura for a consideration of Rs. 25,100. The vendor was one Ganga Dayal Naik. The pedigree of the family will be found at page 1 of the plaint and is as follows: HARNAM NAIK | Bhola Naik. ______________|_____________ | | Dal Bahadur Ganga Dayal Naik Naik (Defendant No. 2) __________|___________ | | | |Tameshwar Rameshwar | Prasad Prasad |(Plaintiff) (Plaintiff) | ____________________| _________________|_________________ | |Nageshar Prasad Sheo Lochan Naik alias. (Defendtan No. 4) BaijNaht(Defendtan No. 3)2. The plaintiffs who are sons of Ganga Dayal's brother Dal Bahadur brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to have the sale set aside. The suit was instituted on the 14th of January 1920, that is to say, just two days less t...
Musammat Champi and anr. Vs. Lala Tara Chand and Tirloki Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All892; 82Ind.Cas.516
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff, Tara Chand, who has since become a major, instituted a suit for cancellation of certain decrees of Court through his next friend Musammat Persauni, his certificated guardian. He is the son of Jainti Prasad, and was born on 13th November 1899. A guardian was appointed by Court of his person and property on 5th October 1907. He attained the age of majority on 13th November 1920. After the guardian was appointed, his uncle Banarsi Das adopted him. In 1916 one Musammat Champi sued Banarsi Das and others for partition of a house, and all proceedings were completed in the First Court on 20th March 1917. Judgment was reserved on that day and 30th March was fixed for delivery. Banarsi Das died between those two dates, and on 28th March Musammat Champi applied to bring Tara Chand on the record in' place of his adoptive father, Banarsi Das. He appointed a Pleader and contested the suit. On 14th April 1917, a preliminary decree for partition was passed, and a final decr...
H. Hunter Vs. Damodar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All772; 81Ind.Cas.508
Walsh, A.C.J.1. This is an application, dated the 22nd April, 1924, by Mr. Hunter, the liquidator of the Bank of Upper India, Ltd., to restrain certain respondents named Damodar Das and P.N. 8. Aiyar from acting as liquidators of the Bank of Upper India, Ltd. and to restrain the two said persons and four others, namely, Piare Lal, F.W. Roberts, N.N. Das and Khan Bahadur Wahid-ud-din Saheb from pretending to be a committee of share-holders or contributories.2. The matter came before a member of this Bench on the 22nd of April. Being obviously, a matter of urgency and importance an interim injunction was then granted, and notice was given to the respondents to appear on the 9th of May, to show cause why the injunction should not be continued. Appear they did in person, with one exception, by showing themselves in Court, but they remained concealed behind their Counsel Dr. Sen, who showed cause by advancing certain legal arguments. The matter, although urgent and important is a simple one...
Lala Tara Chand Vs. Musammat Champa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.75
1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor Lala Tara Chand from the dismissal of his application for restitution under Section 144 of the Civ. P.C. He was made a party defendant to a partition suit while he was a minor. He was then over 18 years of age, but under 21; and was, therefore, not a major, being a ward of the Civil Court. On his being brought on the record, he entered into contest after appointing a Pleader, and decrees (preliminary and final) were passed against him. He filed two appeals to this Court and his appeals were dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff of the suit recovered her costs of the First Court and this Court. The present application was for refund of the costs. The preliminary and final decrees in the partition suit have been declared by this Court to day to be null and void.2. The learned Judge of the First Court refused to order restitution and hence Tara Chand has appealed. It is argued here that the principle of Section 144 applies though the decrees them...
Kallu and ors. Vs. Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All825; 84Ind.Cas.669
Neave, J.1. The facts in this case may be briefly Stated. Daya Ram had two brothers, Ram Kishen and Net Ram. The plaintiffs are the Sons of Ram Kishen and the defendants the sons of Net Ram at has been found as a fact by the Court below that Daya Ram and his nephews were occupancy tenants his possession of a joint holding, though for convenience they cultivated different portions of it separately. Daya Ram is dead. He made a Will under which he bequeathed his share of the holding to the defendants. The plaintiffs brought this suit if or a declaration that the Will of Daya Ram was invalid so far as his occupancy holding was concerned. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit, the lower Appellate Court holding that the Will operates as a transfer of the holding as was made in favour of a person who was a co-sharer in the holding at the time of its execution.2. Two points have been argued in this appeal the first; that an occupancy tenant cannot regulate the: succession to his tenanc...
Gulab Rai Vs. Sundar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All243
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a kothari and sidhari which formed a part of a larger house, which has been the subject of litigation between the parties more than once. The original owner of the house was one Sil Chand who had two sons Gulab Rai and Parshadi Lal. He sold half the house to Gulab Rai. Subsequently a suit was brought by Sil Chand and Gulab Rai in 1909 for the ejectment of Parshadi Lal from the said house on the allegation that he was occupying it with the consent of the plaintiffs That suit was decreed on the 29th January 1910, and the plaintiffs claim to have possession through Court in pursuance of that decree on the 8th July, 1910.2. Sil Chand died in 1913. Parshadi Lal and his sons thereafter brought a suit against Gulab Rai for the partition of a one-fourth share of the said house along with some other property. But that suit was dismissed on the ground that Parshadi Lal had separated from his father in his life-time, and that though Gulab Rai had also sepa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »