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.
Hari Singh Vs. Harbans Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All488; 72Ind.Cas.491
1. These three second appeals arise out of three suits for pre-emption brought in respect of three separate transfers. The first question before the Courts below was, whether or not a custom of preemption existed in the villages in which the property is situate. Both the Courts below have found that no such custom is proved to exist and consequently the suits of the plaintiff have been dismissed.2. It has been argued before its that the decision of the Courts below on the question of the existence of custom is erroneous and we have been referred by the earned Counsel to a Full Bench ruling reported in Returaji Dubain v. Pahalwan Bhagat 7 Ind. Cas. 680 : 7 A.L.J. 1040 : 33 A. 196 (F.B.). The full wajib-ul-arz was before the Court of first instance and the learned Munsif has quoted from the preamble of this wajib-ul-arz the following words:The agreement between us proprietors and Lambardar is that so long as this Settlement lasts the following conditions shall be binding on us.3. It may ...
Musammat Shib Dei Vs. Musammat Kaniz Fatima and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.536
Lindsay, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has held in these three pre-emption suits that the plaintiff pre-emptor was not entitled to succeed on the ground that no custom of pre-emption is proved in the village.2. According to what is set out in the lower Appellate Court's judgment, this village was confiscated by the Government during the Mutiny and a re-grant was made in the year 1859, when practically the whole village was granted to Uday Ram, with the exception of a small share amounting to one biswa odd. The learned Judge was, therefore, right in holding that when the re-grant was made, in the circumstances above mentioned, there could not have been any custom of pre-emption in existence. It seems that at some subsequent settlement made by M. Nasir Ali Khan, a record was made in the wajib-ul-aiz which purports to be a record of custom, but, as the learned Judge of the Court below observes, having regard to the history of the village, this record must be deemed to be a record of cont...
Ram Sahai and anr. Vs. Binode Bihari Ghosh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All151; (1923)ILR45All306
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: Ajudhia Prasad, the father of Ram Sahai and grandfather of Baijnath Prasad, plaintiffs in this suit, took a permanent lease of a compound, in. the city of Allahabad, on the 7th of September, 1913, from Bite, Ram Ghosh and his two brothers. Binode Bihari Ghosh, the defendant respondent here, claimed a share in the coin pound, and it appears that proceedings were taken against him, at the instance of Ajudhia Prasad, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those proceedings ended in an order by the Magistrate maintaining the possession of Binode Bihari Ghosh in one room in the compound and maintaining the possession of Ajudhia Prasad in the rest of the compound. This order was passed on the 9th of March, 1914. Subsequently Ajudhia Prasad died without having instituted airy suit in the civil court to contest the Magistral's order. Afterwards, in 1919, the plaintiffs appellants forcibly ejec...
Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Musammat Hamidan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All271; (1923)ILR45All304; 71Ind.Cas.457
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This is an execution second appeal arising under the following circumstances: It appears that Abdul Aziz Khan, the original respondent, made a. mortgage of some property in favour of Lachmi Narain and another in tire year 1908. In the year 1913 he made a usufructuary mortgage of the same property in favour of Mahadeo Prasad, the appellant, and some money was left with Mahadeo Prasad to pay off the first mortgage in favour of Lachmi Narain and another. He failed to do so, and upon that Abdul Aziz sued to redeem the mortgage of the year 1913 in favour of Mahadeo Prasad. This suit resulted in a compromise under which Mahadeo Prasad was directed to pay off the first mortgage; by certain instalments and it wag further provided that, in case Mahadeo Prasad failed to do so, the mortgagor, Abdul Aziz Khan, would be entitled to recover possession of the property mortgaged to him. This was on the 28th of April, 1917. Abdul Aziz has now applied to recover possession ...
Emperor Vs. Khetal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All300
Walsh, J.1. In this case five men, Daryao Singh, Umrai, Sibba Singh, Khetal and Bhopal Singh, appeal against their convictions for dacoity by the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur. They have all been sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. It is a bad case. Owing to the mistakes of the Sessions Judge, and to what appear to me to be errors of judgment on the part of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, due, in part, to a strange order by the Magistrate in refusing an application for pardon, I have had difficulty in disposing of the case. I am compelled to allow two of the appeals, but, in one case, it seems to me a miscarriage of justice.2. The learned Judge has based his decision almost entirely upon the confessions of Daryao Singh and Sibba Singh. He has worked from this standpoint, and has sought for corroboration of the confessions from independent evidence against each of the accused, except in the case of Daryao Singh where he has fallen back upon the confession of his co-accu...
Ram Sahai and anr. Vs. Binod Behari Ghose
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.402
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: Ajudhia Prasad, the father of Ram Sahai and grandfather of Baijnath Prasad, plaintiffs in this suit, took a permanent lease of a compound in the city of Allahabad on the 7th of September 1913 from Sita Ram Ghose and his two brothers. Binode Behari Ghose, the defendant-respondent here, claimed a share in the compound and it appears that proceedings were taken against him at the instance of Ajudhia Prasad under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those proceedings ended in an order by the Magistrate maintaining the possession of Binode Behari Ghose in one room in the compound and maintaining the possession of Ajudhia Prasad in the rest of the compound. This order was passed on the 9th of March 1914. Subsequently, Ajudhia Prasad died without having instituted any suit in the Civil Court to contest the Magistrate's order. Afterwards in 19T9 the plaintiffs-appellants forcibly ejected Binode Behari Ghose from the room he...
Khetal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.62
Walsh, J.1. In this case five men, Daryao Singh, Umrai, Sibba Singh, Khetal and Bhopal Singh, appeal against their convictions for dacoity by the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur. They have been sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. It is a bad case. Owing to the mistakes of the Sessions Judge, and to what appear to me to be errors of judgment on the part of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, due in part to a strange order by the Magistrate in refusing an application for pardon, I have had difficulty in disposing of the case. I am compelled to allow two of the appeals, but in one case it seems to me a miscarriage of justice.2. The learned Judge has based his decision almost entirely upon the confessions of Daryao Singh and Sibba Singh. He has worked from this stand-point, and has sought for corroboration of the confessions from independent evidence against each of the accused, except in the case of Daryao Singh where he has fallen back upon the confession of his co-accused Sib...
Musammat Akbari Begum and ors. Vs. Shaikh ZamIn Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.402
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment filed in the Revenue Court. The defendants pleaded inter alia their own proprietary rights. This plea was decided in the negative by the first Court but it dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on other grounds. The plaintiffs went up in appeal to the Commissioner and naturally did not raise the question of proprietary title as they could not do so, inasmuch as the point had been decided in their favour by the Court of first instance. The defendants, however, tried to support the decree of the first Court on the ground that they were proprietors and the finding of the first Court on that point was wrong. The Commissioner allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs' claim. The defendants went up in appeal to the Board of Revenue and the Board decided that, as soon as the question of proprietary title was raised before the Commissioner, he ceased to have jurisdiction and remanded the case with a direction that he should return ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›