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.
Baldeo and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All241; 78Ind.Cas.595
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to set aside a sale-deed executed by his father in 1917 and to recover possession of the property on the ground that the sale was not for legal necessity. The case as put in the plaint was that the consideration never passed at all and that if paid it was paid for illegal purposes. However, the substantial issue in the Courts below was that of legal necessity. The sale consideration was Rs. 119. Rs. 41-4-0 has been found to be binding on the plaintiff and the plaintiff has submitted to this part of the decree. The remaining amount of Rs. 77-12-0 was paid in cash at the time of registration and as to this the Court below finds that there was no legal necessity. Against this portion of the decree the defendants appeal.2. Only two pleas have bean urged before me. The first is that the amount of Rs. 77-12-0 was taken for legal necessity. The arguments advanced in support of this plea are purely questions of fact. ...
Emperor Vs. Puttu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All54
Daniels, J.1. This application in revision is based on a misjoinder of charges which constitutes an illegality invalidating the entire trial, under the Privy Council ruling in Subrahmania Ayyar v, King-Emperor (1901) I.L.R. 25 Mad. 61. The six accused were tried at one trial for offences under Sections 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed on the 24th of January, and at the same time for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed on the 25th of January. This joint trial cannot be justified under Sections 234 or 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The offences are not offences of the same kind, since the offence under Section 342 at any rate is an offence quite different from that under Section 325. Neither were the offences committed in the same transaction. It has been held in several cases that Sections 234 and 239 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be combined; e.g., Emperor v. Jiban Kristo Bagchi (1912...
Puttoo Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All316; 77Ind.Cas.818
Daniels, J.1. Of the eight appellants, Raja, Bahadur and Dadu, have been convicts under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and the remaining five, Mahla, Shilni, Ahaman, Khawaja and Ratishan, have been convicted under sections 325 and 324, Indian Penal Code. In all eight cases Section 149, Indian Penal Code, has been applied.These convictions are the resuit of an occurrence which took place on the 15th April and resulted in the death of one Allah Did. According to the findings of the Magistrate soma cattle belonging to Raja, appellant, trespassed in the field of Gahua and Gahua on the 13th April and were beaten and driven out by Gahua. On the 15th April Raja arrived with a body of supporters and attacked the people who were cutting wheat in the field. Allah Dadu was on of these persons and five of the assailants beat him and caused his death. These were Raja, Bahadur and Dadu appellants and two men who have absconded the remaining five injured Lehna and Budha who attempted to rescue Allah...
Tulshi Singh Vs. Raghunandan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All38
Lindsay and Sulaaiman, JJ.1. We think that on the main question decided in the court below the judgment of the Subordinate Judge is correct. The suit was a suit brought by two persons, Jesri Singh and Tulshi Singh, who alleged themselves to be the presumptive reversioners of one Gaya Din Singh who died some time ago and was succeeded by his widow Musammat Sonkali.2. On the 7th of February, 1914, Musammat Sonkali, the widow of Gaya Din, executed a gift by which she purported to transfer the entire estate left by her husband in favour of Jagannath Singh who is also one of the presumptive reversioners.3. Jagannath Singh was impleaded in this litigation as defendant No. 1. He has since died and is now represented by his descendants.4. The case for the plaintiffs was that this deed of gift was an invalid document and they prayed for a declaration of its invalidity as against them after the death of the executant Musammat Sonkali.5. Jagannath Singh and certain other reversioners who were imp...
Raghunandan Singh and ors. Vs. Tulshi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All315; 75Ind.Cas.244
1. We think that on the main question decided in the Court below the judgment of the Subordinate Judge is correct. The suit was a suit brought by two persons Jesri Singh and Tulshi Singh who alleged themselves to be the presumptive reversioners of one Gaya Din Singh who died some time ago and was succeeded by his widow, Musammat Sonkali.2. On the 7th of February 1914 Musammat Sonkali, the widow of Gaya Din, executed a gilt by which she purported to transfer the entire estate left by her husband in favour of Jagannath Singh who is also one of the presumptive reversioners.3. Jagannath Singh was impleaded in this litigation as defendant No. 1. He has since died and is now represented by his descendants.4. The case for the plaintiffs was that this deed of gift was an invalid document and they prayed for a declaration of its invalidity as against them after the death of the executant Musammat Sonkali.5. Jagannath Singh and certain other reversioners who were impleaded as defendants put up t...
Balwant Singh Vs. Musammat Laiqa Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All273; 75Ind.Cas.238
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. Premsukh Das held a decree for money against Anwa(sic)ul Hasan. In execution of which he attached certain property. Before that attachment Anwarul Hasan had died and is daughter-in-law, the present plaintiff-respondent, had been impleaded as his legal representative. The plaintiff respondent objected to the attachment of the said property, c ntending that it did not belong to Anwarul Hasan, the deceased juagment debtor. Her objection was disallowed by the Court executing the decree out appeal that objection was upheld and the order of the Appellate Court was finally confirmed by this Court.2. Meanwhile the property attached had been sold by auction in execution of that decree and purchased by the defendant-appellant Balwant Singh. The present suit was tiled by the plaintiff respondent for the recovery of possession of that properly or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs 500 the value of the said property. Both the auction-purchaser and the decree holder were ma...
Musammat Altafan Vs. Ibrahim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All116; 75Ind.Cas.502
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This and the connected appeal arise out of a suit brought by the husband for the restitution of conjugal rights and another brought by his wife for the annullment of her marriage with him. They were married on the 15th May 1914 when the woman was 13 years old and the husband about three or four years older. The woman lived in the. house of her husband for about six years; but owing to subsequent differences she came away from his house and has been living with her parents since. Her allegation is, that her husband was impotent and that she came to know of that fact after her marriage, A certain amount of medical evidence was examined on either side. On a consideration of that evidence the Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the husband was impotent and that that fact was not known to the wife when she was married. The lower Appellate Court; however, thought that the medical evidence produced by the husband was entitled to a greater weight and it decre...
Sahu Parshottam Saran Vs. Brahma Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All297; 83Ind.Cas.832
1. The appellant, Sahu Parshotam Saran, has purchased at auction, in execution of a simple money-decree, the interests of one Khalilur Rahman in village Karam Alipur. Khalilur Rahman mortgaged to the respondent Brahma Nand his rights in village Karam Alipur, along with a number of other properties, and Brahma Nand has obtained a decree upon the said mortgage which is now in process of execution. The share purchased by the. appellant in village Karam Alipur having been put up to sale in execution of the mortgage-decree, the said appellant filed an objection. The main point on which he apparently insisted in his petition of objection to the Execution Court was that the decree-holder was bound to proceed against the various items of property involved in the mortgage-decree in the order in which they were specified in the decree itself, that order being, of course, identical with the order followed in the specification given at the foot of the mortgage. There was no force whatever in this ...
Musammat Mahtab Kuer Vs. Musammat Birhmo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All176; 75Ind.Cas.254
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for admission, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, of an appeal which was filed on the 6th July, three days beyond time. As the reasons given by the defendant appeared to me, on the face of them, insufficient, I have heard appellant's Counsel in support of the application. He has failed to satisfy me that the application should be allowed.2. The appeal was decided on the Court below on the 28th March. About six weeks later, according to the facts stated in the affidavit, the. appellant's agent went to a Pleader's clerk and deposited Rs. 6 with him to obtain copies. He does not say that he gave any instructions to the Pleader himself. A week later, the Subordinate Court dosed for thirty days for the vacation. The copies were not applied for till 27th June, a week after the Courts re-opened, and were obtained on July 3. Even then the copy of the judgment of the Trial Court was not applied for and this was obtained between July 3 and July 5.3. This ...
In Re: Lalla Mal-hardeo Das Cotton Spinning Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All137; 75Ind.Cas.329
1. This is a Reference by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, XI of 1922. The assessees, at whose instance the Reference has been made, are a firm carrying on business at Hathras, in the Aligarh District, under the style of the 'Lalla Mal Hardeo Das Cotton Spinning Company' they may be conveniently referred to hereafter as 'the objectors.'2. In the petition which led to the Reference, they sought to raise sundry questions of detail in respect of which no reference had been made. The Commissioner's action in this respect has been perfectly correct. The Commissioner is required to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of any order made by him under Section 32 of the Act. The objectors are seeking to raise questions not referred to in their petition of appeal to the Commissioner; obviously no reference can be made to the High Court on any such question.3. There remain two points set forth in the Reference. One of these is of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »