Allahabad Court April 1921 Judgments
Bhabuti and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All32; 63Ind.Cas.455
1. These appeals have arisen out of a case in which 28 persons were committed for trial to the Court of the, Second Additional Sessions Judge of Agra on charges under Section 400 of the Indian Penal Code. The 24 appellants whose cases are now before us were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the four remaining accused being acquitted. The period severed by the charges was one of three years extending from the month of September 1916 to June 1919, and the case for the prosecution was that during the period in question or portions of the period in question the accused belonged to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity. The principal statement incriminating the accused is that of the approver Bansi, who made two confessions, one on the 15th of July 1919 and the second on the 29th of August 1919. In the first of these confessions he stated that he and his gang had taken part in four dacoities. In his second confession he added f...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Ghazanfar Ullah Vs. Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All477; 64Ind.Cas.93
1. This is an application in revision from a decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, The plaintiffs are the lessees of a certain Mandi in Allahabad Town, The defendant is a person who took a contract from the Municipal Board of Allahabad to build or repair a very small drain in this Mandi and also to repair certain roads outside the Mandi. He stacked upon the land of the Mandi not only materials for the building of the drain but also materials for the repairing of the road outside. These materials were stacked for at least two months. The plaintiff sued him for damages for his unlawful act in that he stacked all these materials, that is, chiefly the materials for the repairing of the roads, on his land, and thereby prevented him from using it. The Court below has decreed the claim.2. The point raised in this Court was that the suit would not lie because Section 42 of the Sewerage and Drainage Act of 1894 applied and compensation could only be obtained in the manner laid do...
Tag this Judgment!Jalesar Shau Vs. Raj Mangal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All606
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. This case has been referred to us by a single Judge of this Court because of the difficulty of reconciling certain decisions to which we will refer hereafter in detail, particularly the cases of Muhammad Yasin v. Ilahi Bakhsh (1915) 13 I.L.R. 34 All. 545 and Mohammad Ismail Khan v. Mithu Lal (1912) 11 A.L.J. 649, on the one hand, and the case of Daya Kisken v. Mohammad Wasir Ahmad (1915) 13 A.L.J. 833 on the other hand. We have come to the conclusion that these cases are not, as they appear to be, irreconcileable, and that if the facts underlying each decision are clearly ascertained and stated, they present a complete and satisfactory code upon this somewhat controversial question. We have also come to a clear view as to which side of the line the present case lies when its facts are understood, and we propose to lay down certain propositions which we think are established by the existing authorities in this Court on this troublesome question, with the hope th...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Mashkur Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Roshan Lal and Muhammad TahsIn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All612
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. The simple facts of this case are as follows:The appellant obtained a decree against a certain judgment-debtor and on the 6th of January, 1916, attached the property now in dispute. The decree obtained was one of a Civil Court. The plaintiff's respondents obtained a decree against the same defendant in the Revenue Court for arrears of profits. While the Civil Court attachment was subsisting, the Revenue Court also attached the property in execution of the plaintiffs' decree, put the property to sale and it was purchased by the plaintiffs. The Civil Court decree has not yet been put into execution. The plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration that the property is their own and can therefore no longer be sold in execution of the Civil Court decree. The court below relying on the case of Raghubar Dayal v. Banke Lal (1900) I.L.R. 22 All. 182 has decreed the suit. The defendant appeals. The point taken before us is that si...
Tag this Judgment!Jalesar Sahu Vs. Raj Mangal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All168(1); 63Ind.Cas.437
1. This case has been referred to as by a single Judge of this Court because of the difficulty of reconciling certain decisions to which we will refer hereafter in detail, particularly the cases of Muhammad Yasin v. Ilahi Bakhsh 16 Ind. Cas. 455 : 34 A. 545 : 10 A.L.J. 73, and Muhammad Ismail Khan v. mithu Lal 17 Ind. Cas. 656 : 11 A.L.J. 649, on the one hand, and the case of Daya hishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad 30 Ind. Cas. 565 : 13 A.L.J. 833, on the other hand. We have some to the conclusion that these cases are not, as they appear to be, irreconcilable, and that if the facts underlying each decision are clearly ascertained and stated, they present a complete and satisfactory Code upon this somewhat controversial question. We have also come to a clear view as to which side of the line the present case lies when its facts are understood, and we propose to lay down certain propositions which, we think, are established by the existing authorities in this Court on this troublesome questi...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Roshan Lal Vs. Muhammad Mashkur Ali Khan and anr. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All142(1); 63Ind.Cas.909
1. The simple facts or this case are as follows:The appellant obtained a decree against a certain judgment debtor and on the 6th of January 1916 attached the property now in dispute. The decree obtained was one of a Civil Court. The plaintiffs-respondents obtained a decree against the same defendant In the Revenue Court for arrears of profits. While the Civil Court attachment was subsisting, the Revenue Court also attached the property in execution of the plaintiffs' decree, put the property to sale and it was purchased by the plaintiffs. The Civil Court decree has not yet been put into execution. The plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration that the property is their oven and sag, therefore, no longer be sold in execution of the Civil Court decree. The Court below, relying on the case of Raghubar Dayal v. Banke Lal 22 A. 182 : A.W.N. (1900) 37 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1152, has decreed the suit. The defendant appeals. The point taken before us is t...
Tag this Judgment!Natha and ors. Vs. Gobind Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All28; 64Ind.Cas.153
1. The plaintiff is the Zemindar of the village Tehra in the Mnttra Distriat. The defendants are desaribed as the former biswadars' (biswadaran sabiq) of the village. The plaintiff stated that they were liable to pay Rs. 160 per year for the land in their possession and he sued them for the recovery of the amount due for the years 1321, 1322 and 132a Fasli. The defendants pleaded that the revenue for Kharif 1321 Fasli had been remitted by the Government and the revenue payable for Rabi 1321 and Rabi 1323 Fasli had been suspended and that they were entitled to the benefit of the remission and suspension above mentioned. They deposited Rs. 200 on account of the rent for the period for which no suspension or remission had been granted.2. The Court of first instance deareed the claim for 1322 and Kharif 1323 Fasli, but the lower Appellate Court extended the decree to Kharif 1321 Fasli. The ground on which the lower Appellate Court proaeeded was that inasmuch as the rent payable for Rabi 13...
Tag this Judgment!Doorvas J. Subbayyar and anr. Vs. the Firm of K.M. Subbarayalua Iyer a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.759
Spencer, J.1. The appellants, who belong to a trading family, contraeted to purchase from the respondents, a similar firm, 50 bales of yarn manufactured by the Madura Mills and actually took delivery of 6 bales. Owing to a fall in prices in the market the appellants were unwilling to reseive the remaining 44 bales on the terms agreed upon. The contract was thereupon cancelled on the condition that appellants paid Rs. 5,000 to the respondents to make good their losses upon their contract with the Mills. These Rs. 5,000 were included in a larger sum of Rs, 10,800 which represented the aggregate amount found to be owing by the appellants to the respondents on a settlement of accounts made on February 2nd, 1919, and an unconditional promise to pay Rs. 10,800 to respondants' order on demand was written in the appellant's ledger, (Exhibit A), kept by the respondents and was signed by the appellants.2. At the trial in the Sub-Court the appellants sought to prove by oral evidence that there wa...
Tag this Judgment!ishri Rai Vs. Raghupat NaraIn Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All119; 63Ind.Cas.907
1. The question for Consideration in this appeal is whether an application for the execution of a certain degree was barred by time. A previous application for execution was made for the sale of certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor on the 17th May 1915. To that application an objection was filed by the judgment-debtor to the effect that he had already paid the entire decretal money to one of the decree holders and that that payment operated as a complete discharge of his liability. On the 11th of March 1916 the decree-holders respondents filed an application stating that the person to whom the alleged payment was said to have been made was not the head of the family to which the decree-holders-respondents belonged and that the alleged payment was not, therefore, binding on them and could not operate as a discharge of the degree. This objection was allowed in part on the 8th of July 1917 the order of the Court being that the payment held good so far as the share of the co-d...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Singh and anr. Vs. Inder Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.97
Lindsay, J.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether tin suit out of which it has arisen was cognizable by a Civil Court.2. It appears that just before the recent revision of settlement in the Bulandshahr District, the plaintiff Inder Singh was recorded as the sole tenant of certain occupancy holdings.3. The defendants applied to the Record Officer for correction of the papers, alleging that they were joint tenants of these holdings whose names should be recorded along with that of the plaintiff. Eventually by order of the Commissioner passed in appeal, the defendant were declared to be holding jointly with the plaintiff and an entry was made accordingly.4. The plaintiff has now brought this suit in a Civil Court to obtain a declaration that he is the sole tenant of the holdings in dispute and that the defendants have no concern with them. Both Courts below have held that the suit is cognizable by a Civil Court. The first Court on the merits decided against the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »