Allahabad Court May 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.
Beti Mahalakshmi Bai and anr. Vs. Chaudhari Badan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.927
1. This is an appeal from an older refusing to enforce a security bond, filed under Order XU, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code by an execution proceedings. In the course of an appeal pending in this Court an order for the stay of execution of a decree for costs was obtained by the judgment-debtor pending the decision of that appeal and a security bond executed by him and his surety Chatudhr Badan Singh was filed where by the latter agreed to stand security for Rs. 15,000 and hypothecated certain property for the payment of the same in case the money which may be found due under the decree was not realised from the judgment debtor. The security bond stated: 'We the executants willingly give security for Rs. 15,000 and after hypothecating the property specified before agree that if the Appellate Court affirm the decree of the Court of first instance, then I Rao Narsing Rao will duly carry out the decree of the Appellate Court and whatever costs may be allowed under the said decree on account...
Bishambhar Nath Vs. Muhammad Said
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All644
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. We are concerned in this appeal with a sale-deed, dated the 20th of September, 1916, whereby the plaintiff Bishambhar Nath purported to convey to the defendant Muhammad Said a four annas share in certain zamindari property in the village of Kurian, near Cawnpore. There are two issues for determination:(i) Was Bishambhar Nath a minor on the 20th of September, 1916?(ii) If the first issue be found in the affirmative, should the decree in favour of the plaintiff be made subject to repayment of any consideration actually received by him from the defendant on account of the sale-deed in question?[Their Lordships then examined the evidence bearing on the first issue in detail and held that Bishambhar Nath was a minor on the 20th of September, 1916.]2. We now turn to the second question. Should the decree in favour of the plaintiff be made subject to any and what conditions of repayment3. Notwithstanding that the effect of our first finding is to declare...
Muhammad Said Vs. Bishambhar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All156; 85Ind.Cas.79
1. We now turn to the second question. Should the decree in favour of the plaintiff be made subject to any and what conditions of re-payment2. Notwithstanding that the effect of our first finding is to declare the contract between the parties destitute of legal effect, we are of opinion that we have an equitable power, wholly distinct from the existence of a contractual or non-contractual relation of the parties, which entitles us in a case of this kind to make a decree conditional upon re-payment. In each case the test must be the conduct of the parties. On the one hand, the father of the plaintiff contends that the defendant and his father have brought about the moral and financial ruin of his two sons. He maintains that Abdul Aziz secured influence over Sheo Narain, influenced him adversely to his own interests and those of his father, acquired the whole of his share of the family property, and by putting him in funds enabled him to commence a course of dissipation. Similarly when B...
Emperor Vs. Jwala Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All642
Walsh, J.1. I do not agree with the District Magistrate. Mens rea has nothing to do with it. It is quite true that the section requires a wilful breach of the condition. A man may accidentally commit a breach. For example, if a man's watch was five minutes slow and he sold liquor at two minutes to eight by his own time, and it turned out to be two minutes past eight by the right time, that would not be a wilful breach. But a sale is a sale, and I have not the slightest doubt that the servant intended to sell the liquor and to take the money for it, and if he pocketed the money and refused to hand it over to his master and said that it was an accidental sale and not a wilful sale, and therefore the money did not belong Jo the master but to the servant, the master would have been very angry. The real test, so far as agency is concerned, is not the nature of the act but the nature of the business. The nature of the act is the test which decides the criminality. If the sale is wilful or th...
Abdul Wahid Khan Vs. Abdullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All325; (1923)ILR45All656
Lindsay, J.1. The facts which have led up to this reference are set out in the order of my learned colleague and I need not repeat them.2. The recommendation of the Sessions Judge is based upon two grounds:--(1) that the Magistrate should have stayed his hand and should have referred the parties to the civil court when he found that a bond fide and substantial dispute as to title had been raised between the parties; and (2) that on the merits the order of the Magistrate was not a proper order inasmuch as it had not been proved that the way in question was a public way. As to the first of these grounds, we are both agreed that the Magistrate's order cannot be discharged because he failed to send the parties to the civil court. The ruling in Emperor v. Dost Muhammad (1905) I.L.R. 28 All. 98 cannot be accepted as a correct exposition of the law.3. On the merits, however, I am of opinion that the Magistrate's order is not proper, and I would, therefore, accept the recommendation of the lea...
Radhika Natha Saha Vs. Jotish Chandra Sadhu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All71; 73Ind.Cas.523
Walsh, J.1. This is, in my opinion, in substance an application for transfer. It is apparently proposed to do it by indirect means; first, getting a letter of request from Allahabad to Calcutta, then an order of stay or postponement out of the Magistrate at Calcutta, and then a declaration out of Allahabad that the case is exclusively triable in Benares. Nobody can doubt that all that complicated machinery is really an application for transfer. As an application for transfer it is bound to fail. This Court has no jurisdiction to transfer criminal cases which are in the course of hearing in another Province. Apparently Calcutta thought otherwise in the case of Charu Chandra Majumdar v. Emperor 37 Ind. Cas. 145 : 44 C. 595 : 21 C.W.N. 320 : 25 C.L.J. 165 : 8 Cr. L.J. 81 (P.B.). But the Madras High Court did not agree and I prefer the Madras view. All that will be wiped out and irrelevant, by the new Section 185 as amended by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1923 when it becomes law. Mr. Sa...
Hanuman Pande and anr. Vs. Kesho Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All640
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. This was a suit under Section 158 of the Tenancy Act for a declaration that the plaintiffs had acquired under-proprietary rights under that section on the ground that the lands in suit had been held rent-free for over 50 years and by two successors of the original grantee. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below. The land is admittedly covered by a grove and the contention of the appellant is that Chapter X of the Agra Tenancy Act, in which Section 158 occurs, does not apply to groves.2. The land in suit is said to have been granted to the predecessor of the plaintiffs under a written 'danpatra' about 100 years ago. Both the courts have found that the grant is genuine. The terms of the grant are reproduced in paragraph 1 of the plaint. They give the grantee the right either to use the land for cultivation or to plant it with a grove. The grantee did in fact plant a grove on it. Both in the plaint and the written statement the land is described as gro...
Babu Kesho Dass Vs. Hanuman Panday and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All53; 74Ind.Cas.924
1. This was a suit under Section 158 of the Tenancy Act for a declaration that the plaintiffs had acquired under-proprietary rights under that section on the ground that the land in suit had been held rent-free for over 50 years and by two successors of the original grantee. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The land is admittedly covered by a grove and the contention of the appellant is that Chapter X of the Agra Tenancy Act in which Section 158 occurs does not apply to groves.2. The land in suit is said to have been granted to the predecessor of the plaintiffs under a written danpatra about 100 years ago. Both the Courts have found that the grant is genuine. The terms on the grant are re-produced in paragraph 1 of the plaint. They give the grantee the right either to use the land for cultivation or to plant it with a grove. The grantee did in fact plant a grove on it. Both in the plaint and the written statement the land is described as grove, and the finding of the...
Chunni Lal and anr. Vs. Baldeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All84; 75Ind.Cas.730
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The learned District Magistrate finds that the applicants, Chunni Lal and Indra, were convicted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Petal Code by reason of their having continued to cultivate certain fields in spite of their ejectment and that there was nothing to indicate that the offence of criminal trespass was attended by the use of the criminal force. Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot, on these facts, apply and the order of the learned Honorary Magistrate directing the delivery of possession of the fields in question with the crops standing thereon to the complainant cannot be sustained. The Reference is, therefore, accepted and the order of the Honorary Magistrate parsed under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is set aside. It is open to the complainant to seek any other remedy open to him in the manner provided by law. Let the record be returned....
Sheo Dan Singh Vs. Habib Ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.872
Daniels, J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff-appellant to recover possession of property alienated by his father Jeoraj Singh under two sale-deeds in the years 1913 and 1916, respectively, on the ground that these were transfers without legal necessity. The suit has been decreed as regards the property covered by the first sale-deed and this property is not now in dispute. It has been dismissed as regards the property covered by the second sale-deed and as to this the plaintiff appeals. The dispute relates to one single item but this item is by far the largest item out of the sale consideration. The sale-deed in question was for a sum of Rs. 9,565. Out of this Rs. 1,562-14-0 was set off against the amount of a previous bond executed by Jeoraj Singh on 29th July 1913. The principal amount in this bond had been Rs. 930 and with interest it had amounted up to Rs. 1,562-14-0 at the time of sale. The main item in this bond of Rs. 930 was a sum of Rs. 800 which Jeoraj Singh had to pay in s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »