Allahabad Court January 1924 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.
Pandit Pitambar Lal Vs. Dodee Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All503; 78Ind.Cas.358
1. This revision has been referred to a Bench of two Judges by Mr. Justice Mukerji. The reasons for his referring it are contained in the revision order of the 9th of January 1924, and are as follows:2. The question raised in this revision is whether an application for restoration, which was dismissed for default, that application itself being one for the restoration of a suit which was decided ex parte, can lie.3. On this point there seems to be no authority of this Court. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Bepin Bihari Saha v. Abdul Bank, 85 Ind. Cas. 613 ;141 C. 950 : 24 C.L.J. 416 : 210. W.N. 30 and the Patna High Court, in the case of Bamghulam v. Sheo Deonarain Singh 51 Ind. Cas. 152 : 4 P.L.J. 287 have taken contrary views.In view of the' importance of the question, I refer it to a larger Bench. The second question involved in this application is much easier to decide. But as the more important question is to be decided by a larger Bench both the questions may be put up bef...
Jhagru Rai Vs. Basdeo Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All333
Lindsay, J.1. The material facts are set ont in the order of my learned colleague.2. On the evidence furnished by the 'zamima khewat' which was drawn up in the year 1886, it has already been decided that there was a contract entered into in that year providing for a right of pre-emption. The period of the contract was the period of the settlement and that, as my learned brother has pointed out, was to come to an end on the 30th of June, 1919. It was, therefore, a contract for a definite period, and admittedly the sale now sought to be pre-empted was made on the 10th of May, 1919, that is, within the period of the contract.3. It is this sale which according to the plaintiff gives him his cause of action, and the question is whether he is entitled to enforce his right of pre-emption, arising out of the contract, against the vendor and the purchaser.4. It is found that the father of the plaintiff and the grandfather of the vendor signed the wajib-ul-arz and were, therefore, parties to the...
Musaddi Lal Vs. Chhotu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All198; 78Ind.Cas.349
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the ease are briefly these. One Attar Singh was the proprietor of certain lands, sir and non-sir. He made a mortgage in favour of the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The appellant asked for rent being assessed over the sir lands which became, by the fact of mortgage, the expropriator tenancy of Attar Singh. It appears that Attar Singh and the appellant agreed as to the amount of rent to be paid by the former. An order was passed by the Court under Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act. It examined the patwari, heard the sulahnama and ordered that for 10 bighas 6 biswas land, for which the rent is now claimed, a sum of Rs. 101-7-0 be fixed as the rent. It fixed another sum with respect to certain other lands in which Attar Singh had no interest as an ex' proprietary tenant. Attar Singh is dead. The appellant instituted the suit against his two brothers who are the recorded tenants, on the death of Attar Singh and ...
Auseri Lal Vs. Mullhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All557; (1924)ILR46All369
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a lease of some grass land, situated in the Cawnpore cantonment, from the cantonment committee. He sub-let that land for grazing purposes to another person at a fixed rate per cattle. The present suit was filed by him for the recovery of the rent payable by the latter. The suit was clearly one for the rent of the grazing area let to the defendant; and it was excluded from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court by Clause (8) of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (No. IX of 1887). It was not a suit for the recovery of the price of grass sold to be cut, and the decision in B. and N.-W. Railway v. Bandhu Singh (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 342 does not, therefore, apply, nor was it a suit for the recovery of the rent of land situated in a mahal and let for grazing purposes, and the decision in Manohar Lal v. Gauri (1913) 12 A.L.J. 36 is equally inapplicable. The defendant was entitled to use the land and the grass growing on it for grazi...
Emperor Vs. Atma Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All447
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J., Lindsay and Ryves, JJ.1. Atma Ram was convicted by the District Magistrate of Dehra Dun under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act (Act No. III of 1867) as amended by Act No. I of 1917 of the Local Legislature and sentenced to pay a fine. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. He then filed a revision in this Court on the ground that the conviction was untenable having regard to two recent decisions of this Court which will be referred to hereafter. The case has been referred to a Full Bench. The order of reference is as follows: 'Having regard to the very singular form in which 'common gaming house' has been defined and to the decisions in Lachhi Ram v. King-Emperor (1922) 20 A.L.J. 218 and Emperor v. Durga Prasad (1923) I.L.R. 45 All. 258, I think it desirable to appoint a Full Bench to consider whether on a-fair construction of the words 'used for the profit or gain of the person owning', the acts done by Atma Ram are suffici...
Sobha Ram and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.373
Mukerji, J.1. This is a simple matter. But it clearly appears that the lower Court has gone astray. Certain tenants borrowed money from the Government as takavi. This was sought to be realised by attachment of the rent said to have been payable to the borrowers by their sub-tenants, the present appeallants. The appellants protested that they had paid up nothing was due by them. Their application containing this protest was dismissed for default. Then the debt, namely, the rent suposed to be payable, was put to auction-sale and was purchased by the respondednt Ram Prasad. Ram Prasad then brought this suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, in the Revenue Court for recovery of a sum of a Rs. 200, rent and interest. The appellants who are the principal defendants in the case (the sub-tenants) contended inter alia that they had really paid up and the auction-purchaser purchashed nothing.2. The Court of first instance disbeliveved this story and decreed the suit. There was an appeal lodg...
Pandit Auseri Lal Vs. Mullhan and Anrs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.345
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a lease of some grass land situated in the Cawnpore Cantonment from the Cantonment Committee. He sub-let that land for grazing purposes to another person at a fixed rate per cattle The present suit was filed by him for the recovery of the rent payable by the latter. The suit was clearly one for the rent of the grazing area let to the defendant; and it was excluded from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court by Clause 8 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (No. IX of 1887).It was not a suit for the recovery of the price of grass sold to be cut and the decision in B. and N.W. Railway v. Bandhu Singh 2 Ind. Cas. 223 : 31 A. 342 : 6 A.L.J. 400 does not, therefore, apply; nor' was it a suit for the recovery of the rent of land situated in a mahal and let for grazing purposes; and the decision in Manohar Lal v. Gauri 22 Ind. Cas. 16 : 12 A.L.J. 36 is equally inapplicable.The defendant was entitled to use the land and the grass gro...
Mohan Lal Vs. Emperor Through Ismail Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.318
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an application under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the commitment of the accused on a charge of attempting to commit murder. The accused was originally tried under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the Trying Magistrate recorded his plea and proceeded to hear the evidence for the defence. The charge aforesaid was framed on the 16th of November 1923. The evidence for the defence was concluded on the 12th of December 1923. On the 15th of December 1923 the Trying Magistrate altered the charge into one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and without giving the accused an opportunity to re-examine the witnesses for the prosecution in regard to the altered charge or to produce such further defence evidence as he may have in his defence on that charge, committed him to the Court of Session for trial on the charge so altered. Section 231, Criminal Procedure Code, however, requires that when a charge is altered by the Court a...
Ashraf Khan and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and Mahmud Jan Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All230
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a house which was mortgaged along with another house by Najabat Khan in favour of the defendant appellant and his brother Madho Prasad in 1892. On the death of Madho Prasad his interest devolved on the defendant appellant. The defendant appellant brought a suit to enforce his mortgage and got a decree for sale against the present defendants Nos. 2 to 6 as the heirs of Najabat Khan, and in execution thereof he got the two houses aforesaid nut up to sale.2. A suit was then brought by the present plaintiffs respondents other than Musammat Umda Bibi for a declaration that the house now in dispute was used as an Imambara and was waqf property, that the other house was his exclusive property by inheritance from Fateh Khan and that neither of those houses was liable to sale in execution of the above decree. That suit was dismissed in regard to the house now in dispute on a finding that it was not proved to be waqf property, but decreed ...
Nathu and ors. Vs. Tulsi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All434; 78Ind.Cas.316
Stuart, J.1. The defendants-appellants are residents of a village called Chibli in the Farrukhabad District.2. It appears, as far as I can ascertain, that the Zemindars of this village were a certain Nawab Shams-ul-nissa Begam, Baba Piyare Das, Rangi Lal and some others. In 1914 Nawab Shams-ul-nissa Begam brought a suit against the defendants-appellants in which she asked for their ejectment from a compound in the village on the ground that they had no right there. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif on the ground that the land was part of the abadi and that the defendants had been in possession of the compound for a very long time more than 12 years before the suit. The Distriot Judge on appeal decreed the suit, but the High Court in second appeal dismissed it. The judgment of the High Court is in second appeal No. 797 of 1916 and is dated 12th July 1917. Piyare Das and Rangi Lal were proforma defendants in that suit. Now, it appears that on the 22nd August 1913 Pyare Das and Rangi L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »