Allahabad Court November 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.
Ghanram Rai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All453; 83Ind.Cas.498
1. A certain Jado Rai was tried by the Sessions Judge of the Ghazipur District of an offence under sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted. He appealed to the High Court. He had called in his defence four witnesses whom the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved. When the appeal was heard in the High Court the learned Judge who decided it agreed with the Sessions Judge that the defence evidence was untrustworthy. He went further and considered it deliberately false. He took a grave view of the action of the witnesses and finally passed the order:I direct that the record be returned to the Sessions Judge with a direction to him to take action under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to send these men to the nearest Magistrate to be charged with perjury.2. Under the provisions of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code the learned Judge of this Court could have taken action himself and directed the prosecution of these four persons and then sent the cas...
Joshi Shib Prakash and ors. Vs. Jhinguria and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All144; 78Ind.Cas.416
Stuart, J.1. Jhinguria and others were appellants in a civil appeal which was transferred to the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Agra for disposal. On the date fixed for hearing, as they were absent and unrepresented, the appeal was dismissed for default. It was dismissed on the 25th of April, 1922, under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 17. There is a specific remedy in the Code of Civil Procedure to cover the case where an appellant has been prevented by sufficient cause from appearing and his appeal has been dismissed under this rule. That remedy is given in Order XLI, Rule 19. Under that rule the applicants could have applied force restoration of their appeal. It appears that they have never, so far, adopted that remedy. On the 6th of July, 1922, when an application under Order XLI, Rule 19, would ordinarily have been beyond time, they applied for a restoration under Order IX, Rule 8, a rule which had no application. Their application was dismissed. They then applied ...
Ram Charan Lal Vs. Dharam Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All173; 79Ind.Cas.626
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. These two appeals are connected and are plaintiff's appeals arising out of two suits for pre-emption based on two separate sale-deeds.2. On the 1st of December, 1919, two sale-deeds of two separate properties were executed in favour of the same vendee, and on the same date two agreements were executed by the vendee in favour of the vendor promising to re-transfer the properties conveyed for the amounts of the purchase-money if they were paid between the years 1340 and 1345 Fasli. The plaintiffs treated both these transactions as separate transactions and brought the suits for pre-emption of the ground that the property had been sold away.3. On behalf of the defendants the existence of the alleged custom was denied and it was further pleaded that the custom, even if it existed in the village, would not apply to such a transaction. Both the courts below have held that the custom of pre-emption exists in the village, but that, the transactions in question being...
Emperor Vs. Sheo Baran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All438; 81Ind.Cas.705
1. We are of opinion that this appeal must succeed. With great respect to the Magistrate, it is hardly worth wh tie to follow him in Ms discussion of the law. His findings of fact are these: Sheo Baran Singh was negligent from the very beginning. He did not check signals and points on coming to duty. He did not keep a diary (though it may be observed that hardly contributed to the accident) and did mot check the setting of the points. The Magistrate comes to the conclusion that these omissions did not in themselves endanger the safety of tiny person. We should have thought that omitting to set the points, which would prevent a train, after you had given the signal that the line was clear, from running into another train, was an act which endangered the safety of the persons on either of the two trains.2. We do not propose, because it is well known to both parties in this case, to ventyre upon a discussion of the machanical arrangements of the signals and points. They are devised to pre...
Rukka and ors. Vs. Chhiddu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.522
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. There is no force in this appeal. Musammat Kausilya was a Malin by caste. She was first married to Behari in one of the approved forms. That fact was admitted. On the death of Behari she was married to Bidhi. On her death there were two sets of claimants to her stridhan. One set comprised Chhiddu and Bidhi who are brothers of Behari. The other set comprised the sister of Musammat Kausilya and the husband of that sister and the husbands of certain other deceased sisters. The latter have clearly no title Chhiddu and Bidhi were entitled, to the stridkan of Musammat Kausilya by reason of her marriage to Behari in one of the, approved forms. The second marriage does not affect the right to which the plaintiffs became entitled by virtue of the first marriage. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale....
Nandan Singh Vs. Guptar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All424; 79Ind.Cas.630
1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the custom of pre-emption alleged by the plaintiff was established.2. The two pieces of evidence which were relied upon for the purpose of establishing custom were the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 and the zamima khewat of 1885. The case is from the Gorakhpur District. We may also notice that the kafiat serishta nizamat was also in evidence for the purpose of showing the history of the village.3. It is important to notice in connection with the zamima khewat of 1885 that the document is of peculiar weight having regard to the circumstances in which this record was framed at the time of the Settlement of Gorakhpur in or about the year 1885. We have it stated at page 210 of Mr. Agarwala's Commentary on the Land Revenue Act, 5th Edition, (page 210), that in the month of August 1886 certain directions were issued to the Settlement Officer of Gorakhpur with regard to the preparation o...
Dhanraj Misir Vs. Rameshwar Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All227; 78Ind.Cas.904
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The first Court decreed the claim but on appeal the suit has been dismissed.2. Both the Courts below agree that there is a custom of pre-emption in this village. The Court of first instance was further of opinion that under that custom a nearer co-sharer was entitled to a preferential right as against a distant co-sharer. The lower Appellate Court has come to a contrary conclusion.3. Two wajib-ul-arzes were produced by the plaintiff in support of the alleged custom.4. The first one was of 1860 which provided that every co-sharer has a right to transfer his share but at the time of transferring it it is incumbent on him to inform the near co-sharer (hissedar qaribi) and in case of his refusal the other co-sharers of the village, and in case both these sets of co-sharers refuse, then he is entitled to sell it to whomsoever he likes.5. Reading this clause, there can be no doubt whatsoever that under the custom it was t...
Rajrangisingh Vs. Sheo Barat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.531
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to an occupancy holding which belonged to Bhukal, who died leaving a widow Mt. Lachminia In 1314 F. Mt. Laohminia mortgaged the said holding with possession in favour of the defendant-respondent, Sheo Barat-aYnr, lot Rs. 49 on an agreement to redeem the same in Baisakh 1316 F. she did not, however, pay the mortgage money. In March 1913 Mt. Lachminia died. The plaintiffs and another person named Nath Baksh, who are the co-sharers of the village in which the occupancy holding in question was situated, then sued for the ejectment of the mortgagee in the Eevemie Court, alleging that the mortgage was invalid and that the vandnortgagee held the land as a non-occupandy tenant. The trial Court found that the mortgage in question was executed to pay arrears of rent due to the co-sharers by Mt. Lachminia, and that the mortgagee had paid the rent for three years as nasrana to Nath Baksh in order to obtain his consent to the mortgage. It was al...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Musammat Azmatunnisa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All840; 78Ind.Cas.877
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is, whether a party who -iias filed an appeal from one part of the decree can file a cross-objection in regard to another part of the decree in connection with the cross-appeal filed by the other party. The lower Appellate Court has found that he cannot do so. It has relied in support of that view on the decision in Ramji Das v. Ajudhia Prasad 26 A. 628; A.W.N. (1908) 160. In that case the cross-objection was filed after the appeal was dismissed and the subject-matter of the appeal and the cross-objection was the same. That was clearly a case in which the decision of the appeal operated as a bar to the entertainment of the oross-objeotion. The same matter oan not obviously be agitated both in an appeal and in a oross-objeotion. Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that any respondent oan not only support the decree on any of the grounds deoided against him in the Court below but oan take any cross-ob...
Wazir HusaIn Vs. Karamat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All140
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff relied mainly on an entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1272 Fasli. The defendants denied the existence of any such custom.2. The court of first instance came to the conclusion that, although the wajib-ul-arz raised a prima facie presumption of the existence of custom, nevertheless there was internal evidence in the clause relating to pre-emption which negatived it. It held that no custom had been established and accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge came to a different conclusion. He held that the custom was established and remanded the case for trial of the other issues raised.3. The entry relied on by the plaintiff, first of all, contains a recital setting forth the right of pre-emption and the way in which the price is to be settled in case of dispute. The clause winds up by saying that if a stranger has inherited property from an issueless co-sharer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »