Allahabad Court January 1923 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.
Badri Upadhia and ors. Vs. Dwarka Upadhia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All416; 71Ind.Cas.559
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of title and recovery of joint possession by the plaintiffs as to two plots of land on the ground that the defendants co-sharers had wrongfully cultivated these plots of parti land and got them entered in their names. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title. The findings of both the Courts are that the plots of land in dispute were parti and that the defendants brought them first into cultivation in the year 1919. They accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' claim for declaration of title and joint possession. The defendants come here in second appeal and their sole ground of appeal is that a decree for joint possession should not have been given to the plaintiffs as it would lead to disputes in future. Reliance was placed before me on the cases of Jagar Nath Singh v. Jai Nath Singh 27 A. 88 : A.W.N. (1904) 194 : 1 A.L.J. 488 and Phani Singh v. Nawab Singh 28 A. 161 : A.W.N. (1905) 233. The latest p...
Abdul Wahid Vs. the Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All267; 71Ind.Cas.1032
1. In the early part of the year 1918 the Municipal Board of Allahabad wanted certain huts of a temporary nature built in order to afford temporary accommodation for the persons who would, in the ordinary course of events, attend the Magh mela of that year. The Board entered into contracts with one Abdul Wahid and he carried out certain work. When the time came to examine his bills, the Engineer to the Municipal Board was of opinion that Abdul Wahid was claiming for work which in fact had never been ordered, and that, on other grounds as well, there were certain items open to objection, and that the claim of Abdul Wahid, which was for some Rs. 827, should be reduced by Rs. 350. A notification to that effect was sent to Abdul Wahid on the 14th of August 1918, the Board supporting the Engineer with regard to the striking out of the Rs. 350. In 1920 Abdul Wahid having commenced no action went away on military service. On the 12th of January 1922 he commenced an action in the Small Cause C...
Mata Palat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.715
Daniels, J.1. These applications arise out of the same riot in Connection with which Appeal No. 819 has just been decided. A cross-complaint was filed by the party who were accused in that case. It was dismissed under Section 203. In his judgment in the riot case the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the cross-complaint should not have been dealt with so summarily and asked the District Magistrate to set aside the order of dismissal. The Magistrate upon this did set aside the order of dismissal, and it is against this order and that portion of the Sessions Judge's order which refers to this matter that the present applications are filed.2. The applicants' complaint is two-fold. Firstly, they say that if the Sessions Judge wished to take action he should have set aside the complaint himself instead of asking the Magistrate to do so. In the second place, they say that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside without notice to them.3. As regards the first poi...
Ram Charitra Vs. Mohan Dei and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All210; (1923)ILR45All309
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. This appeal raises an unusual point of law and has, therefore, been referred to a Division Bench for disposal.2. Musammat Mohan Dei, one of the proprietors of a mahal, applied for a perfect partition, under the Land Revenue Act, some time in 1911. Ram Charitra, the plaintiff appellant here, filed an objection claiming that he was a proprietor of an eight pies share in the mahal of which partition was sought. The revenue authorities proceeded under Section 111(1)(b) of the Land Revenue Act and directed him-to establish his claim in the civil court. Ram Charitra accordingly brought a suit, but that suit was dismissed on the 29th of November, 1911. lie appealed and the appellate court reversed the trial court and leave him a decree declaring him entitled to the declaration which he sought. This was on the 9th of April, 1912. After the decision of the first court and before the decision of the appellate court, it appears that partition proceedings were completed. I...
Lachman Das and anr. Vs. Mulchand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All411; 71Ind.Cas.441
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent brought against them by the plaintiff. The pleas taken in defence were that the plaintiff was not the owner of the house, he having sold it to his own father-in-law in 1895. It was further pleaded that the defendants had become owners thereof by virtue of adverse possession for more than 12 years. It also came out that during the trial of the suit in the First Court the plaintiff had sold the house to one Khub Chand. The Trial Court found, (1) that the plaintiff was the owner, (2) that the tenancy had not been proved, and (3) that the defendants did not acquire title by prescription. It decreed the claim for ejectment and dismissed that for rent. The defendants went up in appeal and the plaintiff filed cross-objections. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the First Court and dismissed the appeal. He also found that the sale of 1895 by the plaintif...
Ram Charitra Vs. Musammat Mohan Dei and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.488
1. This appeal raises an unusual point of law and has, therefore, been referred to a Divisional Bench for disposal Musammat Mohan Dei, one of the proprietors of a mahal, applied for a perfect partition under the Land Revenue Act sometime in 1911. Ram Charitra, the plaintiff-appellant here, filed an objection claiming that lie was a proprietor of an eight-pies share in the mahal of which partition was sought. The Revenue Authorities proceeded under section in (b) of the Land Revenue Act and directed him to establish his claim in the Civil Court. Rant Charitra accordingly brought a suit but that suit was dismissed on the 29th November 1911. He appealed and the Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision and gave him a decree declaring him entitled to the declaration which he sought. This was on the 9th April 1912. After the decision of the First Court and before the decision of the Appellate Court it appears that partition proceedings were completed. It must be the case that Ram ...
Abul Nasar RashiduddIn Ahmad Khan Vs. Lalta Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All315; 71Ind.Cas.1018
1. This is an application in revision which arises out of a somewhat complicated state of facts. If our order is not to be misinterpreted and misapplied hereafter as deciding something which we have no intention of deciding, it seems advisable that we should state the essential facts in some detail. In the year 1920 two decrees were obtained in two different suits in the Court of the Munsif of Moradabad. One decree, passed on the 15th of April 1920, was in Suit No. 175 of 1920, and was in favour of Ram Prakash against Rashiduddin. The other decree passed on the 4th of August 1920 was in Suit No. 298 of 1920, in favour of Babu Bam against Muhammad Shafi and Rashiduddin. Execution was first taken out in the latter of these two decrees, but apparently the attempts of Babu Ram as decree-holder were directed in the first instance against the property of Muhammad Shafi and were unsuccessful. At any rate, on the 26th of October 1920. Ram Prakash, having taken out execution of his decree in Su...
Sahu Bisheshar Nath and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All382; 75Ind.Cas.672
1. This was a suit for possession of a house situated in the town of Bijnor of which the plaintiff is zemindar. The plaintiff's' case was that the house was occupied by the defendant's father as tenant.2. The defendant's case was that his father occupied it adversely.3. The lower Appellate Court finds that the defendant's father occupied the house adversely more than twelve years before the suit. This finding is fatal to the appeal. The ruling; in Jai Chand v. Girwar Singh 52 Ind. Cas. 366, 41 A. 669 : 17 A.L.J. 814 which has been referred to, does not apply to the facts of this case. The appeal fails and we accordingly dismiss it. We make no order as to costs as the respondent is not represented....
Tika Ram Vs. Dubo Shib Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All401; 71Ind.Cas.992
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The point raised in this appeal is a very short one. This was a suit for profits for 1323 to 1325 Fasli and the plaintiff claimed profits on a share of 13 1/3 biswansis in an eleven biswa mahal. The defendant's contention with which I am concerned was, that the recorded share of the plaintiff was only one-fourth of 6 biswansis 1-7/33 kachwansis out of 20 biswas in the years 1323 and 1324 Fasli. The First Court, after discussing the whole of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the extent of the share claimed by him and decreed the claim for Rs. 227-4-3. The defendant went up in appeal, and in discussing the question of the amount of share on which the plaintiff was entitled to his profits the learned Judge has omitted to consider an order passed by the Magistrate and Collector of Pilibhit, dated the 17th of September 1915, that is to say, in the year 1322 Fasli, holding that the plaintiff's separated share was 13 J biswansis in the ...
Nur Muhammad Khan Vs. Empror
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All276; 71Ind.Cas.525
Ryves, J.1. Nur Muhammad Khan was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code by a Magistrate of the First Class and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1,000. He appealed unsuccessfully and now comes up in revision before this Court. The charge against him is that of being in dishonest possession of stolen property, namely, 20 bales of khaki cloth belonging to Government. Most of the grounds taken refer to the findings of fact which I am not disposed to consider at this stage. The trial in the Trial Court was very careful and lasted nearly a year, and the Judge has given a detailed judgment in which he has reviewed the evidence. The main ground raised in revision is that the trial was rendered absolutely void owing to the circumstance that the Magistrate did not pronounce judgment in open Court. It appears that Mr. Wijahat Husain who tried the case was so severely hurt in a motor accident after he had done everything in the case except deliverin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »