Allahabad Court December 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.
Ratni Bai Vs. Ghasi Ram Nathu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All344
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an execution first appeal from an order dated the 14th of May, 1923 directing that the respondent surety be discharged.2. In execution of a decree of Musammat Ammi Bai against Nathu Ram, the judgment-debtor, the latter was arrested but on the 26th of February, 1923 on the respondent Sham Behari Lal executing a security bond, the judgment-debtor was discharged. Under the bond Sham Behari Lal undertook that Nathu Bam would apply to the insolvency Court for being adjudicated an insolvent within a month from that date and in case he failed to do so he would be produced in Court, and, further, if he failed to appear in Court then the surety would produce him, when ordered, both in the Court executing the decree and the insolvency Court, and in case he failed to do so, then the surety would be liable to the extent of Rs. 17,000, the decretal amount.3. Within one month of that date an application for being adjudicated an insolvent was presented by Nathu Ram to the insol...
NaraIn Das and ors. Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All364
Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a litigation; the whole facts and circumstances of which we have been considering on a regular First Appeal from the decree itself. 'We think it unnecessary to recapitulate any facts beyond those necessary to make it clear what the precise point now before us is. There was a decree passed between the parties on the 3rd of January, 1922, That decree was in an alternative form. The plaintiffs were to have a right to recover Rs. 15,000 with costs from the defendants, provided they fulfilled a certain antecedent condition. That condition was that 63 bales of cotton, and by this was meant 63 specified bales, which had been subject matter of litigation in the suit, should be delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants at the latters' shop at Meerut on or before the 3rd March, 1922. If the plaintiffs failed to comply with this condition, then they were to have a decree only for Rs. 7,125 with proportionate costs. On the 3rd of March, 1922 the plaintif...
Fateh Chand and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All606
1. In this case we have come to the conclusion that to some extent, in fact to a large extent, the appeal must be allowed, although it is impossible not to feel that this result leads to an apparent miscarriage of justice, due partly to mishandling by the police, and partly to a fundamental error made by a very experienced and able Judge, who in his ruling on one point has made our task exceptionally difficult. The case, as it came before Sessions, was a difficult and complicated one, and it has been dealt with in a painstaking judgment, which as an analysis of the facts, is an admirable piece of work, although perhaps somewhat too elaborate, and would have been open to little or no exception, if the Judge had not made a fundamental error by admitting in evidence and acting upon a confession in breach of an elementary rule of law with which everybody ought to be familiar. Section 24 provides that a confession by an accused person is irrelevant in a Criminal proceeding if the making of ...
Daulat Vs. Sankatha Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All324a
Daniels, J.1. This appeal is brought on a single point only. The suit was one to set aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow, namely the mother of the plaintiff, as having been made without legal necessity and to recover the property sold. The sale was effected for a sum of Rs. 2,142-12-6. The Court below has found that the whole of this sale consideration was obtained for purposes which constituted a valid necessity under the Hindu law with the exception of a small sum of Rs. 105. On these findings the Court below has upheld the sale transaction but has directed the defendants to repay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 105 which is found not to be covered by legal necessity. Against this decree the plaintiff appeals and contends that if any part of the sale consideration, however small, was found not to be for legal necessity the whole sale must necessarily be set aside. This is not the view which has prevailed in this Court or indeed in other High Courts. There are two recent cases o...
Kuber Upadhia Vs. Ramakar Dat Upadhia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All351
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Kuber Upadhia, a minor, for a declaration that the decree in suit No. 308 of 1912 was not binding on him because he was not properly represented in that suit. That suit was brought on a mortgage bond executed by Muasi, the father of the plaintiff-appellant and Hanuman, Muasi's brother. The plaintiff in that suit joined the two minor sons of Muasi, one of them being the plaintiff, as defendants and proposed that Muasi should be appointed their guardian ad litem, As a matter of fact, Mt. Sonbarsa Kunwar, the mother of the plaintiff, was appointed guardian by the Court, in spite of the fact that when notice was served on her inviting her to become guardian she refused to accept the notice. At the hearing the father filed a written statement contesting the suit on his own behalf and on behalf of his sons and he defended the suit. The suit was decreed and the father did not appeal.2. In this suit as brought the allegation in the plai...
Hafiz Nehal Ahmad Vs. Ramji Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All620; 87Ind.Cas.608
Mukerji, J.1. These appeals Nos. 906-920 are appeals under Section 476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by one Nehal Ahmad who has since died.2. It appears that several people were prosecuted on a charge of dacoity at Saharanpur, the case being one of the now notorious Saharanpur riot cases. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted some of the accused persons and convicted others, Nehal Ahmad was one of the persons who was prosecuted and acquitted. On his acquittal Nehal Ahmad presented sixteen petitions before the learned Sessions Judge asking the Court to take action under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to file a complaint for the prosecution of the witnesses for the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge took action against only one viz., Badri Das, who has filed an appeal No. 695 of 1924. He dismissed the application against the rest. Nehal Ahmad came up to this Court in appeal.3. Nehal Ahmad is dead and with his death the power which he gave to Mr. A. Aziz, Vaki...
Thakur Anrudh Singh Vs. Mt. Rupa Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All601; 87Ind.Cas.118
Walsh, J.1. In this case we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to another chance. It is the business of the Courts to decide the rights of the parties and not to deprive them of their rights by the mere exercise of discipline but to use their discipline for the purpose of visiting neglect upon them and removing the results of such neglect. The learned Judge rightly says that at times parties will stay away when they are not ready and then come back with a cock and bull story to apply for restoration, in other words that they are acting mala fides. He has not been able to find that was so. In this case he only finds that the plaintiff was negligent in starting for the last train and missing it. Negligence of that kind is human and not irreparable. It can be repaired by paying the costs of the other side and restoring the parties to their original position. We are satisfied in this case by really overwhelming evidence, namely, that the claim was Rs. 20,000, that the plaintiff d...
Murlidhar Vs. Mahboob Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All644; 85Ind.Cas.848
1. One Mahboob Khan waa tried by a Magistrate of the Second Class on a charge under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence alleged against him being that he rode a bicycle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life. It appears from the evidence that he actually did collide with and injure a little boy; and the peculiar negligence of his conduct at the time lay in the fact that he was riding a bicycle which had no effective brake. The Magistrate who tried the case, after finding the accused guilty, has recorded his reasons for dealing with him under the provisions of Section 562(1-A) of the Gr. P.C. He released the accused after due admonition. The matter was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate by a petition presented by the father of the little boy who had been injured. The District Magistrate has referred the matter to the High Court on two distinct grounds. The first is that the Trying Magistrate being a Magistrate of the Second Class, had no j...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Niranjan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All367
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The decision of the Court below in this case cannot be sustained. The plaintiff seeks to recover the money due on a mortgagee effected by Gobind Ram, the father of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the grandfather of the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, in favour of Dwarka Das on the 31st May, 1909. The Plaintiff is the son of Dwarka Das. The mortgage was effected for the sum of Rs. 7,000, the whole of which was left with the mortgagee for the satisfaction of a prior mortgage of the 10th February, 1902 held by the defendant Zamir-ul-Hasan Khan.2. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 met the claim with the plea that the document in question, if executed by Gobind Ram, was executed without consideration, and that there was no legal necessity to justify the mortgage. The defendant, Abdul Hamid Khan, is said to have purchased a portion of the mortgaged property at auction in execution of a decree on a prior mortgage, to which Gobind Ram was a party. Abdul Hamid Khan sold his rights to Zamir-...
Peyare Lal and ors. Vs. Banke Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1926All650; 95Ind.Cas.406
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal, which involves only a point of law, are as follows:There was a plot of land measuring 20 bighas 'and odd within the zamindari of the plaintiffs. One Ratan Lal who was a lambardar of the mahal and under whom the plaintiffs of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen claim, instituted a suit against the predecessor in title of the present defendants for ejectment. It was alleged that the defendant was Ratan Lal's tenant, that he had put the land to a use which was inconsistent with the letting of it for agricultural purposes and that therefore, he had laid himself open to ejectment. The suit was instituted under Section 57(b) of the Tenancy Act. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but it succeeded on appeal. The judgment of the District Judge was upheld on a second appeal filed by the defendant. In the execution department it was found that although the holding had related to 20 bighas and odd the claim ...