Allahabad Court July 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.
Sheo Partab Singh and anr. Vs. Tajammul HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All114
King, J.1. This was a suit to recover money due on two mortgages. The first mortgage was dated the 21st July 1892. The mortgage money became due on 21st of July 1897 and the period of limitation for the suit, under Article 132, expired on the 21st of July 1909. The second mortgage was dated the 12th of September 1892. The mortgage money became due on 12th September 1896, and the period of limitation, under Article 132, expired on the 12th September 1908. The plaintiff's case is that the suit could have been instituted under Section 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, up to the 6th of August 1910, and before the expiration of that special period of limitation, namely, on the 18th July 1910, he obtained a written acknowledgment of the mortgagor's liability under the deeds in suit so that his period of limitation was extended under Section 19 of the Act up to the 18th July 1922. The suit was in fact instituted on the 27th of February 1922.2. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on ...
Chunni Lal Vs. Manik Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All745; 97Ind.Cas.319
1. The plaintiff Chunni Lal obtained a simple money decree in 1921 against Debi Singh, Defendant No. 2 and in execution of that decree attached certain crops growing on the occupancy holding of Debi Singh. The attachment was made on the 5th October 1921. One Manik Chand raised an objection in the execution Court in respect of this attachment, alleging that the crops which had been attached belonged to him and not to Debi Singh. His case was that Debi Singh, the occupancy tenant, had sublet the land to Ram Saroop, and that Ram Saroop in his turn had sub-let the land to Manik Chand who in fact had cultivated it and had sown the crops. This objection was accepted by the execution Court and the attachment was accordingly set aside.2. In the meantime Ram Saroop, on the allegation that a sum of Rs. 150 was due to him as rent from Manik Chand, his sub-tenant made a distraint of the very some crops. The 21st of November 1921 was fixed by the revenue Court for the sale of these crops.3. The pla...
Lachhman Prasad and ors. Vs. Salu Salik Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All188
Daniels, J.1. This was a suit by the son and grandson of one Kishen Lal who died in 1907 to recover joint family property which on Kishen Lal's death wrongly passed into the hands of one Mt. Gobindi and was subsequently transferred by her. The sole question for decision is one of limitation. The suit is brought more than twelve years after Kishen Lal's death, but the plaintiff's are still minors. It was urged for the defendants that the suit was nevertheless barred because Ram Satan Das, the elder brother of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, attained majority more than three years before the suit. This argument has found favour with the Court below on the basis of certain decisions to be found in unauthorized reports. The learned Judge declined to follow the decision of this Court in Ganga Dayal v. Mani Ram [1909] 31 All. 156 on the ground that it was not clear. The decision in Ganga Dayal v. Mani Ram [1909] 31 All. 156 has recently been approved by their Lord...
Mahmud Hasan and ors. Vs. Lauti Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All453
1. On the 28th of May 1897, five properties were usufructuarily mortgaged in favour of two ladies, Aminat-un-nissa and Ghafur-un-nissa. The money agreed to be advanced by the first-named lady was Rs. 27,500, and by the second Rs. 1,500. The way in which the detail of the consideration money was made up was that one sum of Rs. 13,000 was left for payment in respect of two mortgages dated the 21st July 1893, a sum of Rs. 4,200 under a mortgage of the 19th September, 1892; another sum of Rs. 4,000 under a subsequent mortgage, and a, final payment of Rs. 6,300 by the promissory-note of the mortgagees. In fact none of the three first named sums of Rs. 13,000, Rs. 4,200 and Rs. 4,000 were ever paid by the mortgagees, but there is a definite finding that Rs. 6,800 were paid to the mortgagors by the mortgagees in May 1897. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the property Ibrahimpur was not subject to any charge created under the mortgage-deeds and there was an alternative prayer that if...
Hakim Mahmud Hasan and ors. Vs. Lala Lauti Ram and Habib-ur-rahman and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.65
1. On the 28th of May, 1897, live properties were usufructuarily mortgaged in favour of two ladies, Aminat-un-nissa and Gafur-un-nissa. The money agreed to be advanced by the first-named lady was Rs. 27,500, and by the second Rs. 1,500. The way in which the detail of the consideration money was made up was that one sum of Rs. 13,000 was left for payment in respect of two mortgages dated the 21st July, 1893; a sum of Rs. 4,200 under a mortgage of the 19th September, 1892; another sum of Rs. 4,000 under a subsequent mortgage, and a final payment of Rs. 6,300 by the promissory-note of the mortgagees. In fact, none of the three, first-named sums of Rs. 13,000, Rs. 4,200 and Rs. 4,000 were ever paid by the mortgagees, but there is a definite finding that Rs. 6,800 were paid to the mortgagors by the mortgagees in May. 1897.2. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the property Ibrahimpur was not subject to any charge created under the mortgage-deeds and there was an alternative prayer th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›