Allahabad Court July 1921 Judgments
Girdhari Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All71(1); 64Ind.Cas.136
Wallach, J.1. The decision of the Court below cannot stand. The applicant, as surety for his brother's appearance in a criminal case, deposited a certain sum of money.2. The applicant's brother was fined in that case and to levy the fine the money which the applicant had deposited as security for his brother's appearance has been attached. The applicant thereupon applied that his property should not be attached and that his brother's fine should not be levied from his property and that the money be returned to him.3. The Magistrate says that he got the Sub Inspector to investigate the matter and that the applicant had been informed at the time of the attachment. Ha gives no other reason for dismissing the application. The learned Sessions Judge says that ' it appears that the surety and Banwari were brothers, that being the case, Banwari and others were as much owners of the money as Girdhari, so I think the Court was right in deducting the fine from the amount of security.' There is n...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Chhajju Mal-munna Lal Vs. Firm Pyare Lal-jumna Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.858
1. In this case it is absolutely imperative to interfere in the interests of justice. We think that technically there is no appeal because the order was certainly not under Order XLI, Rule 13, indeed it was an order which could not reasonably be made under any provision of any Code, but it did not purport to be under Order XLI, Rule 23. It was in fast a general order of remand on the ground of the mishandling of the trial in 'the first Court. From that order no appeal lien to this Court. On the other hand, where the Judge has so entirely misunderstood his own duties, misread the issue in the case and in substance declined jurisdiction, we are justified in interfering on the lines of the decision in Raghunandan Singh v. Jadunandan Singh 43 Ind. Cas. 959 : 3 P.L.J. 253 : 4 P.L.W. 450.2. The case must go bask to the lower Appellate Court to hear and determine and appeal. If for no other reason, we should be compelled to interfere in order to remove the impression sought to be treated by t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhup Singh Vs. Jhamman Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.630
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 124 of 1919, as the mortgage which is the subject matter of this suit is also the. subject matter of the other suit. The facts may be briefly stated:One Bhagirath Singh died in the year 1880 leaving a widow Musammat Pran Kunwar. He had property, a 5-biswas share in Mauza Mabmudpur-Jamalpur, Mahal Bhagirath Singh and a 3 biswas 2-biswansis odd share in Mahal Ghair Khastgaran of the same village. The present revenues of these two properties are Rs. 530 and Rs. 593-7. What the revenues wore in the year 1880 is not stated. The widow Pran Kunwar remained in possession of the estate until the year 1886, when she died. She was succeeded by her daughter Musammat Durga Kunwar, who was the wife of one Balwant Singh and the mother of the defendant-appellant before us Bhup Singh, Musammat Durga Kunwar had two sons and two daughters. The elder son Ram Singh died in January 1917. The present suit was instituted on the 19th day of August 1918. It is a...
Tag this Judgment!Bankey Lal and ors. Vs. Meghraj and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All177; 63Ind.Cas.951
1. In our opinion no appeal lies from this order, which is an order of the District Judge returning a memorandum of appeal on the revenue side for the purpose of its being presented to the Appellate Court on the revenue side. In other words, the District Judge formed the opinion that it was for the Collector or the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue to hear the appeal. We cannot interfere with this order. No appeal lies from it to this Court, and the appellant must present his memorandum of appeal on the revenue side in accordance with the order. But to avoid any possible miscarriage of justice, we would suggest to the Appellate Court on the revenue side that if it differs fundamentally with the District Judge and for that reason is unwilling to dispose of the appeal, it should submit the record with a statement of reasons of its doubts to the High Court under Section 195 of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act, so that the real Question of the proper Appellate Court may be finally decided. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Hijaban and ors. Vs. Ali Sher Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All15; 64Ind.Cas.117
1. This judgment in quite right. The question is covered by authority, not merely by authority, but by a large Bench of this Court whose mind was no doubt instrusted and led by a great Mahammadan lawyer. That is the case referred to by the learned Judge of the Court below reported as Abdul Kadir v. Salima 8 A. 149 : A.W.N. (1886) 53 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1119. That case has been followed with almost enthusiastic unanimity in Hamidunnessa Bibi v. Zohiruddin Sheikh 17 C. 670 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 986. Kunhi v. Moidin 11 M. 327 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 228 and Bai Hansa v. Abdulla 30 B. 122 : 7 Bom. L.R. 684. The only dissonant note if a Single Judge decision in the Court, which unfortunately the first Court in this case was induced to follow, namely, the case reported as Abdul Karim Khan v. Musammat Chheti 3 A.L.J. 432 : A.W.N. (1906) 136. The lower Appellate Court was quite right in thinking that it was impossible to treat that decision as having any authority in the face of the Full Bench de...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. Deo Raj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All173; (1922)ILR44All91
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. We have no doubt as to what our answers to these questions should be.2. To question (a) our answer is, to adopt a technical form, 'No, it did not re-open it so as to confer jurisdiction to refer the matter to arbitration, but it did not, affect it and the Ajmer Court had original jurisdiction to refer the matter to arbitration up till the final disposal of the suit.'3. We will state our reasons to remove any possible misunderstanding. The position presents itself in this way. The courts at Ajmer having pro tanto disposed of the litigation, there still remained the right of the parties to obtain a reference to the High Court. As appears by the referring order of 1916, the parties were within their rights in asking for reference. The decision of the suit hinged, as is and in the referring order, upon the questions referred, and the Ajmer District Court expressed its own opinion as to what the answers of the questions should be. The Ajmer Act provides that the fin...
Tag this Judgment!Chandar Lal Sah and anr. Vs. Collector of Bareilly
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All203; (1922)ILR44All86
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. F.A. No. 160 of 1919 and Revision No. 61 of 1919 have arisen, out of certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act which wore taken in the court of the District Judge of Bareilly. Both the revision and the appeal have been filed as a matter of precaution, as the appellants were in doubt as to which was the proper course to take in the circumstance of the ease. The facts are as follows: Certain land was notified under the Land Acquisition Act; notices were issued; some of the land had standing upon it certain trees; a valuation was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in which a sum of Rs. 184 was entered as the value of the timber of the trees. Before the Collector made any award, permission was given to the owner of the land to cut and remove these trees. He did cut [and remove the trees. After this had been done the Collector made an award. The appellants before us, or rather their predecessor in title, was not satisfied with the award and asked for a...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi NaraIn Alias Lalman Vs. Nannha Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.471
Stuart, J.1. A certain house in the Town of Kaimganj belonged to Sita Ram Seraogi. On his death it descended to his sons Kirpa Ram and Chhote Lal. Kirpa Ram was succeeded by his sons Girdhari and Radha Kishan. Chhote Lal was succeeded by his song Shitab Rai, Biddeh Chand and Thakur Das. The interests of Girdhari and Radha Kishan, which amounted to a half interest in the house, were sold to Sewa Ram and the interests of Shitab Rai and Biddeh Chand, which amounted to a 2/3 interest in 1/2 of the house, that is to say, to 1/3 in the whole house, descended to Biddeh Chand's son Chhidammi Lal, who sold them to Khushali, who sold them to Sewa Ram. Sewa Ram thus acquired 1/2 plus 1/3--5/6ths in the whole house. The remaining l/6th interest of Thakur Das was sold to Sadloo, who sold it to Shib Dayal. Shib Dayal's widow mortgaged it to Nannhu Mal. Lachhmi Narain, the son of Sewa Ram, instituted a suit in 1919 for possession of d/6ths of the house against Nannhu Mal who, he alleged, had taken po...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. Deoraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.601
1. We have no doubt as to what our answers to these questions should be.2. To question (a) our answer it, to adopt a technical form, No, it did not re-open it go as to confer jurisdiction to refer the matter to arbitration, but it did not affect it and the Ajmer Court had original jurisdiction to refer the matter to arbitration up till the final disposal of the suit.'3. We will state our reasons to remove any possible misunderstanding. The position presents itself in this way. The Courts at Ajmer having pro tanto disposed of the litigation, there still remained the right of the parties to obtain a reference to the High Court. As appears by the referring order of 1916, the parties were within their rights in asking for a reference. The decision of the suit hinged, as is said in the referring order, upon the questions referred, and the Ajmer District Court expressed its own opinion as to what the answers of the questions should be. The Ajmer Act provides that the final decision shall be ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandu Lal Shah and anr. Vs. the Collector of Bareilly
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.624
1. First Appeal No. 160 of 1919 and Revision No. 61 of 1919 have arisen oat of certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act which were taken in the Court of the District Judge of Bareilly. Both the revision and the appeal have been filed as a matter of precaution, as the appellants were in doubt as to which was the proper course to take in the circumstances of the case. The facts are as follows:--Certain land was notified under the Land Acquisition Act; notices were issued; some of the land had standing upon it certain trees; a valuation was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in Which a sum of Rs. 184 was entered as the value of the timber of the trees. Before the Collector made any award, permission was given to the owner of the land to cut and remove these trees. He did out and remove the trees. After this had been done the Collector made an award. The appellants before us or rather their predecessor-in-title was not satisfied with the award and asked for a reference to the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »