Allahabad Court April 1922 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.
Musammat Sukhia and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All266; 73Ind.Cas.497
1. In this case two women, Musammat Sukhia and Musammat Halki related to one another in this way, that Sukhia is the own sister of Halki's husband, Brahmins by caste, residents of a village, in the Mahoba sub-division of the Hamirpur District, were tried before the Court of Session on the charge of having murdered two little girls, the daughters of their own neighbour and caste-fellow, Madho. They have been found guilty and the case has been referred to us for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Court. The women have submitted to us petitions of appeal, in which they vehemently protest their innocence and we have had the advantage of hearing the case argued by Counsel on their behalf. We may say at once that we have come to the conclusion that the conviction cannot be sustained. The learned Sessions Judge has written a well-considered judgment, in many respects admirably thought out ; but having said this , we feel it incumbent upon us to comment at the very ou...
Bikarama Prasad Tewari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1922
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.435
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur taking action under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that a certain suit was tried by a Bench of Honorary Munsifs, The decree passed by them was appealed from. The appeal was transferred to the Court commitHold due to tiff problem ...
Ram Prasad Kalwar and anr. Vs. Musammat Ajanasia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All280; (1922)ILR44All577; 68Ind.Cas.861
Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. We do not agree with the office report. In our opinion no ad valorem court fee was payable in regard to the cross objections filed by the respondent. The decree of the court of first instance was in favour of the respondents, as it totally dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The respondents could support that decree on any ground, even on a ground other than that taken by the court of first instance. If for that purpose they filed a petition stating the reasons on which they supported the decree, that did not amount to cross objections for which an ad valorem court fee was payable. The result of the office report would be that the appellant had to pay court fee on the full amount claimed and the respondents, who held the decree of the court of first instance, had to pay another court fee for the same claim, that is to say, two sums of court fees would be realized in respect of the same claim from both the parties. This surely could not be the intention of the Legis...
Ram Sahai Chhidda Lal Vs. the East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All645
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The plaintiff applicant dispatched two consignments of brassware from Delhi to Aligarh, on the 20th of April, 1920. These consignments did not arrive at their destination, and the plaintiff, after correspondence with the Divisional Traffic Manager, Cawnpore, served a notice on the Agent of the East Indian Railway Company on the 6th of December, 1920 admittedly more than six months after the delivery of goods. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the present suit for recovery of damages for loss of goods. He was met with an objection by the defendant East Indian Railway to the effect that the suit did not lie, as the notice contemplated by Section 77 of the Railways Act, No. IX of 1890, had not been given.2. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has come to the conclusion that the notice which had to be given in the present case under Section 77 of the Railways Act was a notice to the Agent of the Company and that any correspondence with or notice to the Divisi...
Firm Ram Sahai Chhidda Lal Vs. the East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.578
1. The plaintiff-applicant despatched two consignments of brass ware from Delhi to Aligarh on the 20th of April 1920. These consignments did Dot arrive at their destination and the plaintiff, after correspondence with the Divisional Traffic Manager, Cawnpore, served a notice on the Agent of the East Indian Railway Company on the 6th of December 1920, admittedly more than six months after the delivery of goods. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the present suit for recovery of damages for loss of goods. He was met with an objection by the defendant East Indian Railway to the effect that the suit did not lie as the notice contemplated by Section 77 of the Railways Ant, IX of 1890, had not been given.2. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has come to the conclusion that the notice which had to be given in the present case under Section 77 of the Railways Act was a notice to the Agent of the Company and that any correspondence with, or notice to, the Divisional Traffic Manager ...
Janki and ors. Vs. Debi Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All274; 69Ind.Cas.799
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs' allegations were that they were occupancy tenants of five plots; and that in a suit for rent in the Revenue Courts the defendants had set up a title in themselves as occupancy tenants and had thus forfeited the tenancy. This was in 1913 and related to plot No. 1350. The Revenue Court dismissed the suit. When the plaintiffs again sued the defendants in 1916 for arrears of rent of three plots, that suit was also dismissed on the same ground. The present suit was then brought in the Civil Court to eject the defendants as trespassers.2. One of the pleas raised in defense was that such a suit did not lie in the Civil Courts. The parties are descended from a common ancestor,3. The plaintiff's case was that one of the co-sharere, Durga, had transferred his share in the holding to them. The defendants also claimed title under Durga. The Revenue Court had held that Durga was not a co-sharer of t...
ismail and ors. Vs. BundA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.944
1. This matter under Section 133 of the Cr. P. C. has been dragging on since June of 1920, and its handling by the Court has not been creditable.2. I have been taken through all the history of the case, but I do not think it is necessary to repeat it in this order. The proceedings were instituted on the application of one Bunda, who complained to the Court that the present applicants had built a wall and had thereby obstructed a public road.2. This was on 23rd June, 1920. Bunda's statement was recorded on the back of the application and, so far as I can gather, that was the last occasion on which he appeared in the Court. Thereafter, reports were called for and submitted by the Qanungo, the Naib-Tahsildar and the Tahsildar. The last report was submitted by the Tahsildar on 3rd January, 1922, and two days later, the Court passed the following order:The Tahsildar has inspected the spot and reports that the wall built by Chhoten is the cause of the trouble. Notice to issue under Section 1...
Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. Mahmud HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All347; (1922)ILR44All580
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a second appeal on the part of two plaintiffs whose claim for possession of certain house property in the town of Bareilly has been dismissed by both the courts below.2. The plaintiffs claim the property under a deed of sale of the year 1916 executed by two persons, Abdul Latif and Abdul Hafiz. Their case is that the said vendors obtained the property by inheritance from their mother Zohra Bibi, who, again, obtained the property by gift from her mother, Musammat Sakina Bibi. The deed of gift in question is dated the 2nd of June, 1900, and was executed, not by Sakina Bibi herself, but by one Saiyid Ali Husain acting as her special attorney. The plaintiffs having been put to proof of their title, a number of issues were framed, and, as a matter of fact, both parties pressed upon the courts below alternative and inconsistent pleadings to an extent which has served to cloud the plain issues in the case and to introduce elements of confusion which have led t...
Ramji Das and anr. Vs. Lala Chhagan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All282; 69Ind.Cas.745
Stuart, J.1. Bankey Lal held a simple money-decree against Ramji Das and Janki Das, dated the 20th of May 1912. In execution of this decree he attached an enclosure. The 11th of January 1919 was fixed for the sale of the enclosure. In the meantime certain third parties brought a regular suit against Bankey Lal for a declaration that the enclosure was their property, In the course of this regular suit a temporary injunction was issued in favour of those third parties restraining Bankey Lal from bringing the enclosure in question to sale. That injunction was waned on the 6th of January 1919, bat notice of the injunction was not served on Bankey Lal and no notice was given to the officer conducting the sale. Bankey Lal having received no notice and the officer having received no notice, the sale took place on the 11th of January 1919 and the enclosure was purchased by Chhagan Lal. On the 29th of January 1919 Bankey Lal informed the Executing Court that his decree had been satisfied in ful...
Bishambar Sahai and anr. Vs. Janki Dad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.819
Stuart, J.1. The fasts in this appeal are these: The appellants have a right by way of easement to support a thatch against a wall belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. In 1916 they substituted for this thatch a masonry or gemimasonry building and supported the beams necessary for its construction upon the wall in question, Thereby they undoubtedly increased considerably the burden upon the wall, The only point taken in appeal is that the plaintiff's claim for relief is time barred. In the 7th paragraph of his plaint he states that the conversion from, a thatch into a masonry building took place in 1916 impliedly to his knowledge. His suit was not filed till August 1919. The learned Council for the appellants argues that this is a clear case of perversion of a right, and as the perversion first became known to the plaintiff more than two years before the date of the said, the suit must fail under the provisions of Article 32, Schedule I, Act IX of 1908. This contention must prevail. U...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »