Allahabad Court July 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.
Mohan and ors. Vs. Bishambhar Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All450; (1924)ILR46All68
Pramada Charan Banerji, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by Article 32, Schedule I, of the Limitation Act. The facts are these. Between the houses of the parties lies a wall which in previous litigation between them was declared to be the property of the plaintiffs. The defendants have placed some beams on that wall and a masonry roof. The plaintiffs' suit was instituted for the removal of the beams in so far as they rested on the plaintiffs' wall. The defendants claimed a right of support for the beams of their roof. The lower appellate court, without finding whether the defendants had a thatched roof resting on the plaintiffs' wall, held that as the defendants had placed a much heavier burden on the wall than had existed before, the plaintiffs were entitled to have that burden removed, and decreed the claim. An appeal was preferred to this Court and for the first time in this Court it was contended t...
Emperor Vs. Umed Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All64
Walsh, J.1. This is an exceptionally difficult matter to Know what to do with, but I have come' to a sort of rough conclusion which I think will conform to the procedure laid down by this Court in other cases, and, possibly in the end, be more satisfactory to both parties than the present state of things. One Uchhab Singh complained before a Special Magistrate, at Naini Tal, that he bad been slandered by the accused Umed Singh by reason of a statement made by Umed Singh to the effect that Uchhab Singh had suffered the penalty of being outcasted by reason of his social relations with one Lachhi, who himself was an outcaste. The matter had already assumed considerable proportions before it reached the Magistrate. Nothing else could account for the extremely elaborate judgment in which he has dealt with the matter, and although he describes it as a trifling matter (he is an Indian and ought to know better than I do, but I think that these caste questions in Tillage communities are very fa...
Dharinee Hajjam Vs. Musammat Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All836; 78Ind.Cas.190
Daniells, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit for restitution of conjugal lights. The plaintiff-appellant has been given a decree, but the Court below has added to it a condition that it shall not be enforced by the imprisonment of the wife and it is against this condition that he appeals. Order XXI, Rule 33 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code expressly permits of such a condition being inserted in the decree, and this Court would, ordinarily, be very slow to interfere with the discretion of the Court below in a matter of this kind. It is quite true that this is not a strong case in favour of the wife. The allegations of oruelty which she made have been disbelieved. The finding of the learned Munsif, which the Court below adopts, is that the woman left her husband's house originally in the company of her brothers, but when the time came for her to return she was unwilling to do so. The learned Munsif says that the plaintiff has given no reason for her refusal but that the probabilities are th...
Mohan and ors. Vs. Bishambhab Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.193
1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by Article 32, Schedule I of the Limitation Act. The facts are these. Between the houses of the parties lies a wall which in previous litigation between them was declared to be the property of the plaintiffs. The defendants have placed some beams on that wall and masonry roof. The plaintiffs' suit was instituted for the removal of the beams in so far as they rested on the plaintiffs' wall. The defendants claimed a right of support for the beams of their roof. The lower Appellate Court, without finding whether the defendants had a thatched roof resting on the plaintiffs' wall, held that, as the defendants had placed a much heavier burden on the wall than had existed before, the plaintiffs were entitled to have that burden removed and decreed the claim. An appeal was preferred to this Court and for the first time in this Court it was contended that the claim was barred by Article 32. This plea pr...
Umed Singh Vs. Emperor Through Uchhab Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.183
Walsh, J.1. This is an exceptionally difficult matter to know what to do without I have come to a sort of rough conclusion which I think will conform to the procedure laid down by this Court in other cases, and possibly in the end be more satisfactory to both parties than the present state of things. One Uchhab Singh complained before' a Special Magistrate at Naini Tal that he had been slandeied by the accused Umed Singh by reason of a statement, made by Umed Singh to the effect that Uchhab Singh had suffered the penalty of being out casted by reason of his social relations with one I achhi who himself was an outcaste The matter had already assumed considerable proportions before it reached the Magistrate. Nothing else could account for the extremely elaborate judgment in which he has dealt with the matter, and although he describes it as a trifling matter (he is an Indian and ought to know better than I do, but I think that these caste questions in village communities are very far fro...
Kishori Mohan Vs. Chhanga Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All187
1. This application in revision came before one of the learned Judges of this Court and he referred the case to a Bench of two Judges, being of opinion that there was somewhat of a conflict between two cases decided by this Court, viz. Balgovind Rai v. Sheoraj Rai (1918) 16 A.L.J. 451, Sahadeo Gir v. Deo Dutt Misir (1915) 37 All. 323. We shall consider whether there is really any conflict between the two cases or not in the course of this judgment. But it will be necessary to state the facts of the case.2. It appears that the applicant before us was a defendant in a suit for sale, he having been treated as a subsequent purchaser. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree for sale on the 10th of December, 1920. The decree that was framed was incorrect in so far as it ordered the payment of a larger sum than was really due on a proper calculation of the amount payable according to the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. The applicant submitted to the decree although it ordered him to pay a su...
Ramjas and anr. Vs. Sartaji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All59
Pramada Charan Banerji, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.1. The property to which this litigation relates originally belonged to one Guptar, who died leaving his widow Musammat Raj Rani and his daughter Musammat Jaipali. Raj Rani inherited the property as next heir to her husband. On the occasion of the marriage of Jaipali she executed a document by which she transferred her rights in the husband's property, which consisted of a share of zamindari and a house, to her daughter Musammat Jaipali. This she did in the year 1881. Jaipali was in possession for some years when she died. Raj Rani survived her. Jaipali left a daughter Sartaji, who is the defendant in this case. Sartaji has been found to have obtained possession upon the death of Jaipali and to have remained in possession for more than twelve-years.2. The plaintiff Ramjas is the son of Balraj, who was the nephew of Guptar, and is the next reversioner to the estate of Guptar. Musammat Raj Rani died in 1918 and upon her death the present s...
Lallu Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All194; 77Ind.Cas.188
Walsh, J.1. This case has been referred to the High Court really for Provision of the question whether is necessary, in order to establish a charge of committing a nuisance in a public place to the annoyance of residents or passengers in the locality, to prove that somebody was annoyed. The Act certainly says so, and I do not see how anybody can seriously doubt it. But annoyance to one person is sufficient and even annoyance itself is a question of degree, and if a public servant, like a Municipal employee whose duty it is to look after the cleanliness of the streets sees anybody easing himself in a public place or street he is not unlikely to be annoyed. When you come to think of it, it is his business to be annoyed. He ought to be annoyed. A person trying to keep the streets clean who sees anybody easing himself, would be very wrong if he was not annoyed. In f a ct his employers would have every right to be annoyed with him, if he was not and, therefore, if he reports it in his offic...
Parbhu Lal and ors. Vs. Sher Muhammad Khan and Chotan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All47
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The dole question for decision in this appeal is whether the existence of a custom of pre-emption which was pleaded by the plaintiffs in the court below was established on the evidence submitted to the Subordinate Judge.2. The property sought to be pre-empted is situated in a village in the Saharanpur district, known as Lakhnoti Kalan.3. The evidence in support of the custom consisted of a wajib-ul-arz prepared at the settlement of 1867 A.D. Another wajib-ul-arz was prepared in 1296F corresponding with 1889 In addition to these two wajib-ul-arzes the plaintiffs produced a decree showing that a claim for pre-emption had been decreed in the court of the Munsif of Saharanpur in the year 1907. The judgment of the Munsif was based upon the provision of the wajib-ul-arz bf 1867 which is in evidence in this case.4. There was no rebutting evidence put forward on the part of the defendants.5. The full text of the wajib-ul-arz of 1867 is before us and it has been ...
Rati Ram Vs. Barhmajit and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All302; (1924)ILR46All45
Sulaiman, J.This is revision under Section 25 of the Provisional Small Causes Courts Act from a decree of the Judge of Small Cause Court, Mainpuri, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's case in the plaint was that the defendants had executed a sale-deed of certain crops on the 9th of February, 1921 in his favour, that one Kirat Singh attached these crops and an objection being preferred to the attachment by the plaintiff, the execution court dismissed his objection in the 13th of May, 1921; that after that the defendants took away the crops and also refused to return the sale-consideration; hence the suit.3. In their written statement the defendants pleaded that the whole of the sale-consideration had not been paid. They also said that it was the plaintiff himself who had appropriated the crops and that no part of the crops came into the possession of the defendants; it was further pleaded that the attachment in favour of Kirat Singh had fallen to the ground for want of paym...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »