Allahabad Court March 1926 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.
Saklu Chaudhari and anr. Vs. Harbansdeo Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All660; 95Ind.Cas.26
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of execution proceedings, The Kayesth Banking and Trading Corporation obtained a simple money decree on 14th August 1911 against Harbans. The Corporation has transferred the decree to the present appellants.2. It is not disputed that the execution of this decree was kept alive till 14th August, 1923 when the present appellants made an application in the Court that passed the decree for transfer of that decree to another Munsif. This application however was made on the last day of the expiry of 12 years from the date of the decree. There was naturally some delay in making the order which was made subsequently. The decree was transferred to Dearia and in this latter Court the appellants put in the present application on 5th May 1924 for execution of that decree. Both the Courts below have held that the application is barred by time.3. Although the application for transfer of the decree dated 14th August 1923 was itself not an ap...
Sahu Nand Kishore Vs. Lala Shadi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.137
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor from an order refusing to set aside a sale, held in execution of a decree, and the questions for consideration are, whether the sale officer had any jurisdiction to proceed with the sale after an order for stay had been passed by this Court in an appeal pending from the decree, then under execution, and, whether there had been any material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale and had any material injury resulted therefrom.2. In execution of a certain decree, from which an appeal is pending in this Court, the villages of Miranpur and Shekhupur Chuhar were directed to be sold; and the sale officer had fixed the 20th June 1923 for their sale by auction at Bijnor. On the 18th June 1923 an order for stay was passed by this Court; and a copy of it was sent by post to the Subordinate Judge of Bijnor, sitting at Moradabad. The Subordinate Judge or his office is stated to have received that order on the 20th June 1923 at 1...
Shah Mohammad Habibul Rahman Vs. Syed Abdul Hai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.208
1. The appellant before this Court was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance. His father used to get an allowance from the Government Treasury of Rs. 370 and odd. He mortgaged his allowance with the respondent No, 1 Abdul Hai and the latter obtained a decree on foot of the mortgage and brought the allowance to sale. The sale was, However, not completed on account of the institution of the present suit. The son said in the plaint that he had an interest in the allowance and that the allowance was granted in the interest of the family and was inalienable being a political pension. He asked far a declaration to that effect. As to how the allowance came to be made, he gave a history of it in the plaint. He said that there was originally a muafi grant of the landed property by the Moghal Emperors in favour of an ancestor of his. Later on, the grant of land was resumed and a cash sub-stitution was made for it. It was this cash allowance which was the subject-matter of the suit.2. The ...
Pirthiraj Singh Vs. RukmIn Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All415; 95Ind.Cas.343
Mukerji, J.1. The facts involved are rather complicated, but the actual point for decision is really one of law and is whether the predecessors-in-title of the appellant, viz., the defendants second party, entered into an agreement with the predecessor-in-title of the defendants first party so as to exclude a right of contribution.2. It appears that one Chiranji Lal was the proprietor of a title over 3 3/4 biswa share of a zamindari property in a certain village Surjawali and two shops. He made a simple mortgage of the same on the 7th March 1907 in favour of one Ram Kishun Das. Raja Moti Chand and others purchased Ram Kishun Das's title later on. Chiranji Lal sold, on the 6th January 1913, the zamindari property to the defendants second party for a sum of Rs. 22,000 and left a sum of Rs. 19,000, out of the sale consideration, with the vendees for payment to the mortgage under the mortgage of the 7th March 1907. It was agreed by this sale-deed and a deed of agreement which was executed ...
Abdul Rahman Khan and anr. Vs. Mufassal Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All497; 95Ind.Cas.743
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of money due on a mortgage effected by Mt. Ulfat Bibi and Abdul Rahman Khan in favour of the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation Limited, Gorakhpur, on the 6th of March 1908. The Managing Director of the Corporation was one B. Ram Gharib Lal who on the 14th of March 1919, transferred the mortgagee rights held by the Corporation for consideration to Mazhar Husain Khan. Mazhar Husain Khan subsequently transferred the same for consideration to the plaintiff.2. The main question for consideration in the case was whether B. Ram Gharib. Lal, the Managing Director of the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation Limited, had a right to transfer the said mortgage bond to Mazhar Husain,, and was the plaintiff, as a transferee from Mazhar Husain, entitled to sue for the recovery of the mortgage money, It appears that at or about the time when, the transfer was effected by the said Managin...
Durga Das and ors. Vs. Muhammad Nawab Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All522; 95Ind.Cas.19
1. The order of the subordinate Judge in this case dismissing, the suit of the plaintiff's is erroneous and must be set aside. The suit was a suit for partition, the plaintiffs being the assignees of the interests of a lady named Mt. Kaniz Sughra in the estate of her deceased husband Mr. Hamid Ali Khan. Mr. Hamid Ali Khan died in the year 1918. He belonged to the Shia persuasion and the law which regulates the course of inheritance in this case is the Shia Law. The heirs left by Mr. Hamid Ali Khan were his brother Nawab Ali Khan, his sister Mt. Salim-un-nissa and his widow Mt. Kaniz Sughra. Admittedly the share of the widow in the inheritance is a one-fourth share according to the Shia Law where the widow is childless as Kaniz Sughra is. On the 22nd of December 1920 this lady assigned the whole of her interest in this inheritance to the plaintiffs in consideration of a sum of Rs. 15,000. The deed of transfer is printed at page 43 of the record. It appears that out of this Rs. 15,000 th...
Baldeo Misir Vs. Bharos Kunbi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All537; 95Ind.Cas.261
Sulaiman, J.1. The only point in this case is as to the rejection of a document purporting to be a mortgage-deed of 1873.2. The plaintiff produced the original in Court hoping that as the document purported to be more than 30 years old, the Court below would presume it to be genuine. Before the plaintiff closed his evidence he did not ask the Court of first instance to decide whether the document was going to be presumed to be genuine or not. The Court of first instance however presumed it to be genuine apparently without carefully examining it. On appeal the learned Judge examined the document very carefully and marked passages in it with red pencil which he says have been erased and re-written with fresh ink. The records were sent for and I have examined the document myself and I fully agree with the lower appellate Court that the document has been tampered with.3. Under these circumstances, the lower appellate Court was perfectly justified in differing from the first Court and in re...
Ramapat Saran and anr. Vs. Habib Ullah Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All553
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur, dismissing the appellants' suit under Order 11, Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts briefly are these: The appellants sued to obtain a declaration that a mortgage made by their father, the Defendant No. 2 in the suit, in favour of the Defendant No. 1 and the mortgage decree, obtained by the Defendant No. 1 against the father were 'not binding on the appellants and their property. The Defendant No. 1 alone defended the suit. Before he filed a written statement he obtained permission of the Court to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiffs to answer certain questions. There interrogatories were served by a peon of the Court on the 28th of April 1920. The report is that the guardian of the minor plaintiffs was a pardanashin lady, that one of the plaintiffs came out of the house and reported that his mother knew nothing about the case. The peon thereupon affixed the notice on the outer door ...
Dhiraji Vs. Akasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All429; 95Ind.Cas.385
Daniels, J.1. These applications arises out of a case under Sections 147, 366 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code which was tried by a jury in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Allahabad. The prosecution case was that the accused broke into the house of the complainant, Mt. Dhiraji, and forcibly carried away her daughter, Mt. Sartaji, in order that she might be married to the accused Basdeo. The defence was that the girl was lawfully married to Basdeo on the night in question and was taken away peacefully along with the bridal party.2. The jury unanimously found the accused not guilty on the charge under Section 457, but convicted them by a majority of 4 to 1 oh the charges under Sections 366 and 147. The Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the majority and passed sentence on eight of the accused accordingly. The remaining accused, Mt. Akasi, was released on probation of good conduct under Sections 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge on appeal...
Bishambhar Nath Vs. Firm R.G. Bansal and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All578
Boys, J.1. One Riazuddin, on January 30th, 1920, executed a usufructuary mortgage deed of his house in favour of Bishambhar Nath and on the same day Bisambhar Nath executed a lease of the house in favour of Riazuddin. A rate of interest was specified in the mortgage-deed and a sum exactly equivalent to this interest was named as the rent provided for by the lease. The periods of the mortgage and lease were identical and mutual references were made in the deed and in the lease inter se to each other.2. On August 9th, 1922, Riazuddin executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour R.G. Bansal & Co., for Rs. 12,000 by the terms of which Rs. 11,000 were to be paid to Bishambhar Nath in discharge of his mortgage. This condition was ho waver never carried out.3. On November 29th, 1922, Rizauddin executed a third usufructuary mortgage in favour of Bishambhar Nath for Rs. 13,000. This mortgage also, like the first, was accompanied on the same day by a lease from Bishambar Nath to Riazuddin.4. On Ja...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »