Allahabad Court March 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.
Gobind Singh Vs. Sobhaddi Lal and Khannu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All616
Daniels and Dalal, JJ.1. The plaintiff's suit for the possession of a house against certain trespassers was decreed by the court of first instance, the Additional Munsif of Farrukhabad, and the defendant's appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal. The plaintiff's case was that the house was originally owned by two persons Pitam Singh and Parmoda Singh, and, on their death, the plaintiff's brother Gopal Das succeeded to the property. Gopal Das died about eight months prior to the institution of the suit and the plaintiff claimed to succeed his brother by right of survivorship. It was argued in this Court that Gopal Das was an ascetic and had renounced the world, so neither could he succeed to the property nor could the plaintiff succeed to any property left by him. It was, therefore, submitted that the plaintiff had no cause of action and could not dispossess the defendants who were actually in possession. In reply the plaintiff respondent's learned Counsel, Dr...
Lala Kundan Lal Vs. Parshadi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All744; 79Ind.Cas.960
1. The plaintiffs in this case had been ejected by the defendant by a suit under the Agra Tenancy Act from a certain plot of land as being non-occupancy tenants. The suit against them was decided ex parte. They alleged that notice was not served on them and made an attempt in the Revenue Court to get the ex parte decree set aside, but the finding was against them and their application was dismissed. They filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Civil Court alleging that the whole proceedings in the Revenue Court were tainted by fraud of the present defendant, who in collusion with the peon pretended to get notices served on them, whereas in fact no notices were served and the plaintiffs knew this. On this allegation he asked for a declaration that the Revenue Court decree should be cancelled and that it should be declared that the land in dispute was a grove and possessed by the plaintiffs as grove-holders. The Revenue court decree was described as having been fraudulently...
Madho Singh Vs. Mangal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All536; 79Ind.Cas.1023
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is entirely concluded by the findings of the Appellate court. The findings are as clear as any Judge sitting in second appeals would desire.2. The suit was brought on account of an alleged malicious prosecution. The lower court found that the plaintiffs-respondents purchased some lands, and got possession over the Sir lands which belonged to their vendors, after obtaining mutation of names in their favour and that, when they went to till the lands the defendant resisted and caused hurt. It further found that the appellant made a false report to the police and took steps to bring about the conviction of the plaintiffs. It came to the conclusion that the charge brought by the defendant appellant was utterly false and was, therefore, malicious.3. It was urged that, the fact that, the plaintiffs had been convicted by the court of first instance of criminal jurisdiction, although they were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, was a clear and conclusive evidence to show...
Sanket NaraIn Pande Vs. Ram Bharos and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.1010
Mukerji, J.1. The question before this Court is one of pure law.2. The suit out of which this appeal arose was brought by an after born son to set aside his father's alienation. The alienation took place on the 22nd of April 1901. At that date the plaintiff was not alive. He had, however, a brother living, who was a minor then. The suit was brought on the 23rd of August 1922.3. The Court below dismissed the suit on the ground that as Article 126 of the Limitation Act applied to the suit, on the expiry of 12 years from the date on which the alienee took possession of the property, the right of suit became extinguished. This is the view which I myself took though not in this Court. Article 126 is specially applicable to a suit like this. The plaintiff is a Hindu governed by the law of Mitakshara and his suit is to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property. The period within which such a suit must be brought is 12 years and the time from which the period begins to run is the...
Baijnath and anr. Vs. Ram Bilas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All738; 80Ind.Cas.12
1. In the Court of first instance a suit was brought for the possession of a house by three brothers, Munna Lal major and Baijnath and Rang Lal minors, under the guardianship of Munna Lal. There were three sets of defendants, Rambilas, Gulab Rai and others and Ramjidas. The plaint allegations were that by collusion between Rambilas and the plaintiffs' cousin Ramjidas, Rambilas was placed in possession of the house, and that subsequently Gulab Rai and others took possession and refused to vacate on notice being issued to them. In 1909 Rambilas sued Ramjidas and the then minors Munna Lal Baijnath and Rang Lal under the guardainship of the Nazir of the Court of suit, for recovery of money due on bahi khata accounts. The defence of Ramjidas was that he had transferred a house worth Rs. 800 and odd to the plaintiff of that suit on condition of the price being set off against the money due. This defence was accepted and the Court passed a decree giving to the defendants credit for that sum i...
Sobhaddilal Vs. Gobindsingh and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.579
1. The plaintiff's suit for the possession of a house against certain trespassers was dismissed by the Court of first instance, the Additional Munsif of Farrukhabad, and the defendants' appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal. The plaintiff's case was that the house was originally owned by two persons Fitam Singh and Parmoda Singh and on their death the plaintiff's brother Gopal Das succeeded to the property. Gopal Das died about eight months prior to the institution of the suit and the plaintiff claimed to succeed his brother by right of survivorship. It was argued in this Court that Gopal Das was an ascetic and had renounced the world; so neither could he succeed to the property nor could the plaintiff succeed to any property left by him. It was, therefore, submitted that the plaintiff had no cause of action and could not dispossess the defendants who were actually in possession. In reply the plaintiff-respondent's learned Counsel Dr. Sen quoted rulings whe...
Ram Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All684; (1924)ILR46All611
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an application in revision under circumstances which we trust are exceptional, and which the order made in the present case by the learned Commissioner will render less frequent in future. In the course of an election petition--there are in fact three cases but it is only necessary to mention one, because the matter has been argued as one, each case being typical of the rest--the Commissioner, in a judgment which is not before us, came to the conclusion that the election was void, and that the candidate had been guilty of such misfeasance that it was necessary to disfranchise him from elections for a period of five years. In addition to that he found that the person who is now the applicant before us had falsely personated a voter on the electoral roll, who may of course have been dead, or ill and unable to vote, or unwilling to take part in the election, and that the candidate had aided and abetted. That in itself, as Dr. Katju has rightly argued, is mad...
Musa Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.719
Dalal, J.1. After a trial had commenced on a complaint under Section 323 the complainant died. It is argued here that the prosecution ought to have abated in consequence. The learned District Magistrate has quoted a ruling of the Madras High Court [Muhammad Ibrahim Sahib v. Shaik Davood 65 Ind. Cas. 519 : 44 M. 417 : 40 M.L.J. 351 : 13 L.W. 379; (1921) M.W.N. 227 : 23 Cr. L.J. J17 : 30 M.L.T. 349], in which this point has been fully considered, and the Punjab rulings quoted by the learned Counsel for the applicant were dissented from.2. I agree with the reasoning of the Madras High Court and hold that a criminal prosecution under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code cloes not abate by reason of the death of the person injured. One of the learned Judges of the Madras High Court has exposed the absurdity of applying to criminal proceedings the provisions of Section 89 of the Probate and Administration Act. This application is dismissed....
Rekha Chamar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.736
Dalal, J.1. On the 27th September the District Magistrate of Azamgarh ordered the prosecution of one Rekha Chamar under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and of Rambali for abetment of that offence. A complaint was lodged in his Court by Rekha Chamar against the Tahsildar of Mohammadabad and three other persons for committing an offence of simple hurt under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The District Magistrate did not record the complainant's statement as he was bound to do under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but immediately directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to make an enquiry in the matter. This order was illegal. The proviso to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically lays down that no-such direction for an enquiry shall be made unless the complainant has been examined on oath under the provisions of Section 200, On receiving the report of the Deputy Superintendent the District Magistrate passed the order already referred to The...
Chiranji Lal Vs. NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All568
Daniels and Dalal, JJ.1. This is. an appeal by the defendant against a decree for the amount of a bond executed by him in favour of the plaintiff, on the 22nd of November, 1919. The bond was executed in lieu of a promissory note previously executed by him on the 14th of December, 1916. One of the defences to the suit was that the defendant was a minor on the date of the execution of the promissory note. The court below has held that this defence fails as the defendant has not established the fact of his being a minor on that date.2. The appellant contends that the burden of proving that the defendant was not a minor lay on the plaintiff and has cited two cases of this Court of the years 1909 and 1912 respectively in which that view was taken, vide Gaya Din v. Musammat Dulari (1918) I.L.R. 45 Calc. 909 and Kanhaya Lal v. Girdhari Lal (1909) 6 A.L.J. 693. The matter appears to us to be concluded against the appellant by the judgment of the Privy Council in Raja of Deo v. Abdullah (1918) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »