Allahabad Court December 1920 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.
M. Ajodhia Prasad Vs. Choubey Ram NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All127; 62Ind.Cas.447
Ryves, J.1. This application in civil revision arises out of the following circumstances. Ajodhia Prasad brought a suit against Choubey Ram Narain and others in the Court of the Munsif of Allahabad. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. Choubey Ram Narain and the other defendants appealed to the learned District Judge, who name to the conclusion that he could not decide the appeal without a definite finding being arrived at by the learned Munsif on three, particular issue. He framed these issues and sent them down to the learned Munsif with the following directions:'I remit the following issues to the lower Court and direct it to decide them after taking such further evidence as may be produced by the parties, either documentary or oral.' The learned Munsif, on receipt of this order, fixed the 10th of March 1920 for the parties to produce their evidence on the remanded issues. On that data the plaintiff appeared but the defendants were absent. The Court recorded the evidence produced on...
Ghansham Dass and anr. Vs. Lala Kalyan Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.82
1. This was a suit brought by two plaintiffs against three defendants and was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. The pleadings were very lengthy and led to the framing of no less than seven issues. Of these, however, only one issue was decided, namely, the 7th, which was framed in these words: 'Is the suit triable by this Court.' On this issue the learned Subordinate Judge found that he was debarred from entertaining the suit by reason of the provisions of Section 167 of the Local Tenancy Act, II of 1901. Upon this he passed an order that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The appeal before us is against this order. The fasts alleged in the plaint are somewhat complicated and those put forward in the written statement of the defendants are still more so. Essentially, however, the point in issue may be stated thus. The plaintiffs allege that in virtue of a contrast come to between themselves On the one hand, and defen...
Babu Ishri Pershad Vs. Syed Muhammad Sami and After His Death Elvina S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All133; 60Ind.Cas.829
1. This appeal and Second Appeal No. 356 of 1918 arise out of two cross-suits brought by the same parties. Two persons Shah Muhammad Fasi-uz Zaman and Shah Abdur Razzaq, ancestors the plaintiffs-respondents, executed a usu fructuary mortgage of their share in Mauza Kol together with a grove in favour Baldeo Prasad, the present defendant appellant's predecessor-in-title, in lieu of sum of Rs. 1,000 and out of it they left Rs. 530 in the hands of the mortgage for payment to a prior mortgagee name Tapeshwar Rai. This sum was due on foot of a deed, dated the 20th of February I860. The prior mortgage covered not only the property in Mauza Kol but other property belonging Jo the mortgagor, In the mortgage-deed it was clearly and distinctly set down that the money was to regain with the mortgagee and that an: interest which might accrue on this suit in the future would be entirely upon his shoulders and that he would have to pay it when he paid Rs. 530. It is quit clear from the deed that the...
Harkhoo and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1920
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.575
1. In this case Harku and Sheoraj, two young men, Kahars by caste, and distantly related, have been convicted; the first on a charge under Section 302, and the second on a charge under Section 302 109 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the murder of a boy named Brij Kishor. The record is before us for confirmation of the capital sentence passed by the Sessions Court. Both the convicts have submitted petitions of appeal through the Superintendent of the Jail in which they are confined, and the case on their behalf has been fully argued before as by Counsel. The record is a somewhat voluminous one, but the whole of the evidence is carefully summarised in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, and we do not propose to recapitulate more of it than is necessary in order to make clear the reasons for the decision we have come to.2. The question of motive bulks somewhat largely in the evidence, but may be briefly disposed of so far as these appellants are concerned. There i no ...
Sheo Shankar Vs. Mohan Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All12; 60Ind.Cas.996
1. This is an application in revision at the instance of Sheo Shankar, His casa is that he has been brought before the Magistrate of Miizapur District, who has commended to try a criminal charge against him, without having any jurisdiction so to do. Sheo Shankar says that the jurisdiction should be Allahabad and not Miizapur.2. Now, the question of jurisdiction mast be decided at the out sat by a perusal of the complaint. It is on the terms of the complaint that the Magistrate first has to inform himself as to the nature of the case, and see whether, from the allegations made in the complaint, it would appear that he had jurisdiction (o entertain it. For sometime we have had our attention drawn to the authorities on one or the other side of the line and there is no doubt that, during part of the hearing, we were under the impression that this case raised in a convenient form all the fasts necessary for a definite decision on Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Our inclinatio...
Muhammad Sher Ali Khan Vs. Ghasi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All300; 59Ind.Cas.863
Ryves, J.1. On the 8th of March 1920 nine persons put in a petition before the District Magistrate of Bulandshahr, in which they asserted that Sher Ali Khan, the mukhia of the village of Mangalpur, had been guilty of various acts of oppression and was of a character generally defamatory of him. That application was enquired into by a Tahsildar under the orders of the District Magistrate and in the course of enquiry certain persons were called a witnesses and gave their evidence on oath. The result of that enquiry was on the whole favourable to Sher Ali Khan with the result that he was not removed from the mukhiaship as obviously was desired by the petitioners. Sher Ali Khan asked for sanction to prosecute two of the witnesses for statements made by them which he said were deliberately false. That application was dismissed by both the Courts below and I have refused to interfere in it to-day. This case, however, is on a different matter. In this case Sher Ali Khan filed a complaint unde...
Sarju Misra and anr. Vs. Shaikh Ghulam HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.87
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal arose under the following circumstances. On the 1st of March 1900 the plaintiffs executed a usufructuary mortgage of a 3-pie share in the village Barhni to Sheikh Minnat Ullah, predecessor-in-title of the defendants, for Rs. 3,000. Out of the mortgage consideration they left with the mortgagee (1) Rs. 345 due by the plaintiffs to Harphul and Durbali Misir, simple mortgageee under a deed of 9th of June 1896 for Rs. 199, (2) Rs. 574 due from the plaintiffs to Minnat Ullah aforesaid under a mortgage-deed of the 19th of April 1898 which was pre-empted by Harphul, so that the amount due under this mortgage also was payable to Harphul and Durbali The mortgagees of the moitgage of the 19th of April 1898 brought a suit and obtained a decree on the 3rd of November 1911 for Rs. 1,884-2-0 with future interest on Rs. 399, the principal amount of mortgage money, at 6 per cent, per annum. The mortgagee, Minnat Ullah, was made a party to this decree. He...
Lala Jhanku Lal Vs. Rewati Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.892
1. In this case the appellant bc0ught a suit in the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, asking that be might reserve from the defendants Rs. 1,939-39-90, being the amount of money which he had paid to a decree-holder, under circumstances which, he eon-tended, brought him within Section 69 of the Contract Act.2. It appears that there was a Cotton Press established at Hathras. Salig Ram and two others owned shares in that, The plaintiff in the Court below, and the appellant here to-day, took a mortgage of the share of Salig Ram and others, and that mortgage was for no less a earn than Rs. 50,000. The enterprise was in difficulties and they owed Lala Maina Lal a sum of money for rent. On the 21st of November 1913 Maina Lal got a decree against them, which, as far as is material to this case, may be summarised in the following way. The defendants were to pay Rs. 1,215-10-9 on account of rent, a small sum of Rs. 17 for damages for illegal possession; and the plaintif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›