Allahabad Court May 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.
Hasan Raza and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.728
Stuart, J.1. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be supported. The facts are these: The applicants are alleged to have attacked the house of Lachman, to have assaulted several persons there and to have stolen grain. On the facts this was a case of dacoity triable by a Court of Session. The Police erroneously sent it us as a case under Sections 452 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate convicted on those charges. The Sessions Judge rightly found the case to be a case of dacoity but took a course which cannot he supported. He changed the charges into a charge under session 395 of the Indian Penal Code and made certain alterations in the sentences. His proper course was to have directed the appellants to be committed for a trial on a charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. This must be done now. I set aside the convictions and sentences and direct that the appellants shall remain in custody and be committed to the Court of Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur (t...
Fateh Chand and anr. Vs. Nihal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All702
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This case has been argued at considerable length before us but we have come to the conclusion that the decree of the lower court ought to stand.2. The suit was a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,034-6 alleged to be due from the first two defendants, Kunwar Nihal Singh and Kunwar Dwarka Singh. The plaintiffs in the suit were Fateh Chand and Hira Lal, who admittedly are the brothers and survivors of one Sewa Ram.3. It is necessary to set out in some detail the earlier story of this case. Sewa Ram had obtained in the year 1908 a simple money decree against a judgment-debtor, named Kunwar Bhawani Singh, who is impleaded in the present suit as defendant No. 3.4. In execution of that decree Sewa Ram attached certain immovable property on the allegation that it belonged to his judgment-debtor.5. This attachment produced an objection on the part of Bhawani Singh's wife, Musammat Durga Kunwar, who put forward the plea that the property had been transferred...
Bithal Das and anr. Vs. Raghunath Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All430; 70Ind.Cas.601
1. The defendants in this suit had sold a certain 8-annas share to the plaintiffs. Before the document even came to be registered the parties had begun to quarrel. The plaintiffs-vendees did not pay up the sum of Rs. 5,804-1-0 in cash, which they should have paid at the registration of the deed, and the defendants on their side refused to give the plaintiffs any sort or kind of possession over the property sold. The plaintiffs were reduced to bringing this suit and they have obtained a decree for possession, subject to certain conditions. One of those conditions is their payment into Court of the sum of Rs. 5,804-1 already mentioned; we understand that this condition has been complied with and that the plaintiffs have now obtained possession. At any rate, this part of the decree is no longer in dispute. The appeal, which is by the plaintiffs, raises three minor points and one very substantial point. About this last there is also a question raised in the petition of cross-objections fil...
Pohap Singh and ors. Vs. Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All424; 70Ind.Cas.578
Stuart, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these: Behari Singh was the occupancy tenant of a certain plot. He was succeeded as occupancy tenant by Jodha Singh. Jodha Singh alone was occupancy tenant of that plot. No one shared in his cultivation. He introduced Parbat Singh and Mohan Singh as his sub-tenants. Afterwards he left the village. A considerable number of years after he had left the: village, Parbat Singh, Khub Singh and Tikam Singh obtained the entry of their names as occupancy tenants, and in a suit under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act, secured a decree as against the Zemindar to the effect that they were occupancy tenants of the plots. Parbat Singh and Mohan Singh continued to cultivate the plot and paid the rent, according to their allegation, to the Zemindar. In, the suit out of which this appeal arises, Khub Singh, and Tikam Singh have sued to eject Parbat Singh and Mohan. Singh in the Revenue Court. Khub Singh and Tikam Singh asserted that they were the o...
Jagannath and ors. Vs. Balwant Singh anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.247
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows:--- Lalji was an occupancy tenant of a holding in the village of Khajuri, of which the plaintiffs-respondents are the Zamindars.2. Lalji died recently, and on his death the defendants appellants applied for mutation of their names in the place of Lalji, as being entitled to succeed to his occupancy holding. While there proceedings were pending, this suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif for a declaration that the defendants were not the grandsons of Lalji. The pleadings will be examined in detail later on. One defence to the unit was that it was not cognizable by the Civil Court.3. The Munsif held Hat he had jurisdiction, as the prayer was for a declaration only, and on the merits, decreed the suit.4. The defendants appealed and again objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. The District Judge up held this contention, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed to this Court, and...
Mazhar Ali Khan Vs. Mahfuz Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.854
1. As we are in agreement with the findings of fast and the proposition of law enunciated by Mr. Justice Walsh*, we can dismiss this appeal with very few words. The decree holder wished to attach and sell a pension. It was his duty, if his case was that the pension belonged to that class which are referred to in Section 7 of Act XXIII of 1871 to set out the facts and to prove his case. He did not do so. No body, even to day, knows whether the pension was granted prior to the Act of 1871 or subsequent to it. Nevertheless, it has been argued here very strenuously that the executions-creditor did all that Was necessary and that he is entitled to attach and sell the pension. He has not proved any right to attach and sell the pension. There is no reason to infer that it was granted before 1871 nor is there any reason to infer that it was granted after 1871, The matter is entirely open. A pension ordinarily is not attachable for sale. If the decree-holder wanted to bring this within the exce...
Nehal Singh and anr. Vs. Fateh Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.778
1. This case has been argued at considerable length before us bat we have some to the conclusion that the decree of the lower Court ought to stand.2. The suit was a unit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,034-6 alleged to be due from the first two defendants, Kunwar Nehal Singh and Kan war Dwarka Singh. The plaintiffs in the suit were Lala Fateh Chand and Lala Hira Lal who admittedly are the brothers and survivors ofone Lala Sewa Ram.3. It is necessary to set cut in some detail the earlier history of this case. Sewa Ram had obtained in the year 1908 a simple money-decree against a judgment-debtor, named Kunwar Bhawani Singh, who is impleaded in the present suit as defendant No. 3.4. In execution of that decree Sewa Ram attached certain immoveable property on the allegation that it belonged to his judgment-debtor.5. This attachment produced an objection on the part of Bhawani Singh's wife, Musammat Durga Kunwar, who put forward the plea that the property had been transferred to her.6. T...
Ram Chandar Vs. Jai Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.199
1. The plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree for sells on a mortgage on the 22nd of January, 1917, According to that decree the mortgagors were given time up to the 22nd of March 1917 to pay in the decretal amount. On the 22nd of February, 1917, the plaintiff applied to the Court stating that by a mistake in the office Rs. 2,350.9 0 had been entered in the decree, whereas, according to the judge. man, Rs. 2,456-9-0 should have bean the figure. This application was allowed and the figure Rs. 2,350-9-0 was struck out and Rs. 2,486-9-0 substituted in its plate. This was on the 28th of April 1917., On the 28th of April 1920 the plaintiff applied for preparation of the final decree. On objections by the defendants the application was dismissed as being time-barred. It is admitted that Article 181 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act applies, that is to say, that an application such as this, for the preparation of a final decree, must be made within three years from the time 'when ...
Ram Samujh and anr. Vs. Sheoraj Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1922
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.56
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem two mortgages executed in 1883 and 1888 respectively. The mortgages were for a term of sixty years. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that it is premature. In appeal the only point strongly urged before us is that the term of sixty years was excessive having regard to the value of the property and the necessities of the family. This suit has not brought by the mortgagers but by the vendees and we do not think it is open to them, to raise this plea. In our opinion the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Sanwal Das Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All438; 77Ind.Cas.112
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 258 of 1919 which we have just decided. It is an appeal by Sanwal Das, the owner of part of the land and he claims that he was entitled to the whole of the compensation for 1 bigha 2 biswas of land and the price of the trees and buildings standing thereon. His claim is directed against Debi Din who has been awarded compensation for the major portion of this land. The learned Judge did come to the conclusion that the claim of Sanwal Das was allowable against Gaga Prasad and Debi Din (zemimdars) but owing to a mistake has allowed him compensation for 13 biswas 15 biswansis only and has further omitted to give him. Rs. 99 odd on account of the trees and buildings. He has allowed the balance to Debi Din which is against the finding he has arrived at. Sanwal Das in this appeal has made' the Secretary of State for India in Council the only respondent and has not impleaded Debi Din against whom his main relief is directed. So far as the Secret...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »