Allahabad Court November 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.
Muneshar Tewari and anr. Vs. Ram NaraIn Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All820
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the properties in dispute were the joint and family properties of the parties to the suit and that they were in joint possession of them. There was an alternative relief in the plaint that if the Court found that the plaintiff was not in possession a decree awarding him joint possession should be passed.2. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree for joint possession and also specified his share as being half. The claim with regard to certain lands in certain tenancy in Jalalpur was, however, dismissed. On appeal the learned District Judge has decreed the claim in respect of the entire properties in suit and has declared that the respondent's share is half in those properties.3. Two points have been urged by the learned vakil for the appellants. The first is that the finding of the Court below, with regard to the tenancy in Jalalpur is based on mere assumption and should not be uphel...
L.N. Gadodia and Co. Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.892
1. On the 30th of April 1919, the plaintiff through his agent tendered to the defendant Company 5 bales of cotton tussore to be carried from Sholapore to Cawnpore.2. Over some portions of their railway the defendant Company carry goods at a reduced or 'owner's risk' rate. It appears quite clearly that whilst the Company had an established owner's risk rate from Sholapore to Itarsi, they had published no such rate between Itarsi and Cawnpore and no consignors of goods between these two latter stations could require the Company to carry them at owner's risk. The goods would go via Itarsi to Cawnpore. The consignor signed an Owner's Risk Note by which he agreed to hold the Company free from responsibility in a number of contingencies. The Subordinate Judge has found that in fact the consignor paid a total sum made up of the reduced rate from Sholapore to Itarsi and of the oridinary rate from Itarsi to Cawnpore. The figures are not mathematically exact but are so near as to justify the con...
Emperor Vs. Autar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All315
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal by-Government from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, who clearly had a very difficult case to deal with. Ganesh was undoubtedly murdered. Suspicions arose that he had been murdered at night on the premises, if not actually in the house, of his masters under circumstances which made the murder not very surprising. The investigation was highly unsatisfactory and another appeal is pending in regard to it which makes it undesirable to say anything more about it.2. The present accused named Autar, a chamer and ploughman and quite illiterate, made a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a Deputy Magistrate, which has been treated as a confession. According to that statement his masters murdered this man inside the house by strangling him with a lathi under strong provocation. He himself was called in and was ordered to assist them in removing the corpse. He refused and they ran at him using language, which t...
Hakim Ullah Vs. Karim Bux
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All393
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision in a case in whinh a Court of Small Causes had safe aside an award made in favour of the plaintiffs and after trying the case on the merits has passed a decree dismissing the suit the plaintiff's case is that the Gourd below acted illegally in setting aside the award. A reference to facts appearing on the record will show that this was in fact the case. the ground on which the award was superseded was that the defendant had put in a plea of payment which the arbitrators had not considered. Now even if this was a valid plea it would not be a ground for setting aside the award but for remitting it for reconsideration under Rule 14 of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure the ground on which an award can be set aside is given in Rule 15 and this is not such a ground. But in fact the ground on which the learned Judge has proceeded has no substance in fact. As this ultimate judgment shows there was no dispute between the parties as to th...
Jhabba Lal Vs. Debi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All679; 85Ind.Cas.575
Mukerji, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance. The defendants-respondents held certain lands from the plaintiff under a lease for 7 years, viz., 1323 to 1329. One of the conditions of the lease was that whenever the plaintiff required the lands either for his khudkasht or for the purpose of planting trees, the defendants would vacate the lands without waiting for the expiry of the full term of the lease. The plaintiff came to Court with the allegation that he, having wanted the lands for being used as khudkasht, verbally asked the defendants in September, 1921, (during the currency of the fasli year 1329) to vacate the lands and thereafter sent a written requisition dated 29th October, 1921, asking the defendants to vacate the lands by 16th November, 1921. The defendants not having complied with the notice the suit was instituted. The suit succeeded in the Court of fist instance but was dismissed on appeal by the learned District Judge. That learned offic...
Ram Lal and anr. Vs. Muhammad Amir Mustafa Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All700; 85Ind.Cas.849
Mukerji, J.1. The parties are co-sharers in the village. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was originally instituted by the Respondent No. 1, Muhammad Amir, who happens to be a co-sharer to a large extent in the village and also the lambardar of it. The main defendants in the case were defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The other defendants were impleaded as being co-sharers in the village, who did not join the plaintiff in the institution of the suit. Some of these defendants were later on, it appears, made plaintiffs.2. The suit was launched with the allegation that, on a portion of the village site, stood the house of one Khushla Chamar, a tenant, who died about 20 years ago. Since his death, the house was occupied by two other tenants, viz., Rajna and Zaharya. Rajna and Zaharya left the village about two years before the institution of the suit and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 removed the materials, took possession of the site and started constructing a building of their own. The suit ...
Lachmi and anr. Vs. Ram Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All275a
Daniels, J.1. It appears to me in this case that the learned judge has misunderstood the meaning of the words in Clause (d) of Rule 5 of Order 33, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 'where his allegations do not show a cause of action.' He has rejected the application to sue as a pauper not on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, but on the ground that the defendant had a good defence to the suit, namely that the matter in suit between the parties was merely res judicata. It was not opened to the learned Judge to dismiss the application on this ground and in doing so he has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or has at any rate acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction.2. I accordingly allow this application, set aside the order of the Court below and direct that Court to enquire into the application on the merits. Costs will abide the result....
(Chaudhuri) Dalmir Singh and ors. Vs. Joti Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All698; 85Ind.Cas.550
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must succeed. The plaintiff in the Court of first instance is the respondent No. 1 here. He purchased from the respondent No. 2, Mt. Kartari, and his sister Mt. Jeoni a half-share in what was once their father Kalyan Singh's property. The appellants, who were the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in the Court of first instance are admittedly in possession of this property. The other half was sold by Kalyan Singh himself. There was a litigation relating to that half, between the purchasers and the present-appellants, and in that litigation the present appellants were successful. We have however, nothing to do with that case. The plaintiff said in the plaint that there was an arrangement made between Kalyan Singh and the defendants, who also had shares in the same khewats, that the defendants should manage the property and pay Kalyan Singh a certain amount of profits year by year. He further alleged that this arrangement continued up to 1911. It was clearly the idea to sho...
Baijnath Kedia Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All195
Mears, C.J.1. Some time in the year 1922 the applicant in this case published the second edition of a Hindi Reader for use in schools. The Reader is composed of six separate text books, numbered 1-6 and those volumes are designed for the instruction of boys of 8 to 13 or 14 years of age. On July 15 this 1924, the Local Government issued a notification by which, under Section 99-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, all copies of Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 were declared to be forfeited, inasmuch as they contained, in the opinion of the Local Government, seditious matter of the character described in Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. Baijnath Kedia, the publisher, was aggrieved by this order, and applied first of all that the Local Government should point out the passages to which they took objection. This application failed, and the matter before ifs to-day is one launched by Baijnath Kedia asking this Court to set aside the order of the Local Government, on the ground that the fo...
imtiaz-un-nissa Vs. Chuttan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All236; 84Ind.Cas.746
Daniels, J.1. The facts of this case are undisputed, but it raises a question of law which is nob altogether easy. The object of the judgment-debtor's application is to correct a mistake in an execution sale which took place in the year 1920. Undoubtedly there was a mistake. The judgment-debtor had a 4 biswas share which was converted on a partition into a share described as '20 biswas farzi.' In the execution proceedings the 1 biswa in respect of which the decree holder had got a mortgage-decree was treated as having been converted into 20 biswas farzi, and she entire share of 20 biswas farzi was put up to sale, sold and bought by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor never objected, the sale was duly confirmed, a sale certificate was prepared and the decree-holder was formally put in possession through the Court. All this look place in 1920. In the following year the decree-bolder also obtained mutation of names in the revenue registers. After this the decree-holder sold the propert...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »