Allahabad Court April 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.
Kedar Nath and anr. Vs. Jagannath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All879; 80Ind.Cas.380
Neave, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:2. In 1913 the plaintiffs were recorded as co-sharers of 1 biswa, 3 biswansis odd. Jagan Nath and others, the pro forma defendants, were recorded as co-sharers of 18 biswansis odd. Partition proceedings were instituted in 1913 at the instance of another co-sharer, but the plaintiffs and Jagan Nath both applied to have their shares made into separate pattis. It is not now disputed that in drawing up the partition proceeding a mistake was made and that the share of the plaintiff was wrongly diminished by six biswansis which were added to the share of Jagan Nath. The partition was confirmed in 1914, and a new Khewat prepared in accordance with it. The pro froma defendants have since sold their share to the defendants appellants, including the six biswansis wrongly added to it. The present suit was brought by the plaintiffs in 1921, after the defendants appellants had obtained mutation, on the allegation that owing to a f...
Dayaram and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All623
Neave, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection is taken by the respondents. The suit was brought by three persons, (1) Ram Narain Pande (2), Nepal Misra and (3) Sheo Prasad Misra. They obtained a joint decree for possession of certain property and damages. After the appeal was filed Ram Narain Pande died. Steps for substitution of the names of his legal representatives were not taken for more than three months after his death, when the appellant's application was rejected and it was ordered that the appeal should abate at least as against Ram Narain Pande. An application to have this order set aside was also rejected. The preliminary objection is that, as the decree for joint possession is in favour of three persons, who are not members of a joint Hindu family, this appeal cannot lie against two of them only. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on a ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Arjam Mirdha v. Kali Kumar Chakherbutty A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 294. In the judgment in th...
Ram Karan Singh and anr. Vs. Raja Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All877; 84Ind.Cas.26
Daniels, J.1. In the year 1898 Sheo Dutt Lonia the husband of the defendant Musammat Munia executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs ancestor of two plots Nos. 219 and 221 in Mauza Kalyanpur in the Jaunpur District. The mortgagor was occupancy tenant of No. 219 and fixed-rate tenant of No. 221. After her husband's death Miisammat Munia relinquished No. 219 to the zemindar and the mortgagee lost possession of it. The rent of No. 221 fell into arrears. The zemindar got it put up for sale in execution of a decree for those arrears and it has been purchased by the defendants-appellants Ram Karan Singh and Har Karan Singh. The plaintiff-mortgagee brought the present suit, on the basis of Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act and of a covenant contained in the mortgage for recovery of his mortgage-money by sale of plot No. 221. His suit has been decreed by the Court below and the auction-purchasers appeal.2. Three pleas have been urged before me:1. That the arrears of...
Daya Ram Ojha and anr. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.563
Neave, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection is taken by the respondents. The suit was brought by three parsons (1) Ram Narain Pande (2) Nepal Misra and (3) Sheo Prasad Misra. They obtained a joint decree for possession of certain property and damages. After the appeal was filed, Ram Narain Pande died, Steps for substitution of the names, of his legal representative were not taken for more than three months after his death, when the appellants application was rejects ed and it was ordered that the appeal should abate at least as against Ram Narain Pande. An application to have this order set aside was also rejected. The preliminary objection is that, as the decree for joint possession is in favour of three persons, who are not members of a joint Hindu family, this appeal cannot lie against two of them only. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on a ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Arjan Mirdha v. Kali Kumar Chakerbutty 68 Ind. Cas. 194. In the judgment in that ca...
Baij Nath and anr. Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All706; (1924)ILR46All635
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. This appeal has been referred to a Bench for a decision of the question whether a statement in an execution application of money having been paid by the judgment-debtor is such a certificate of payment as is contemplated by Order XXI, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure and has the effect of saving limitation. The authorities of this Court are against the contention. The authority of other High Courts is the other way and the learned Judge who referred the base doubted the correctness of this Court's rulings.2. The facts are these. The decree was passed on the 25th of March, 1914. It was a compromise decree and provided for payment by annual instalments on the 15th of March each year, commencing with 1915. There was also a provision that on two instalments falling into arrears, the whole decretal amount should become payable. The instalments for the first three years, 1915 to 1917, were paid on due date and were duly certified to the court. No further paymen...
Emperor Vs. Bihari Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All663
Boys, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Meerut recommending that the convictions and sentences passed on four men, under Sections 166 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, should be set aside on the ground that the arrest in respect of which they have been convicted was not an illegal arrest but was justifiable in law.2. It appears that the complainant, Gropi Nath, had come from Allahabad to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut in order to give evidence in some proceedings before the Subordinate Judge under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the time when he went to the court of the Subordinate Judge to give evidence, he went, as found by the Judge, to all intents and purposes, as a witness summoned, though, in fact, no summons had been served on him. At this time there was a warrant out against him for his arrest in certain execution proceedings. On his arrival at the court of the Subordinate Judge, he asked for protection from arrest until he should...
Sheo Kumar Pandey Vs. Babu Nandan Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.262
Dalal, J.1. Plaintiff now appeals here to obtain a decree for sale. He holds a usufructuary mortgage in his favour executed by the defendant Babu Nandan. The First Court refused to give him a decree on the ground that the property belonged, to three brothers. Babu Nandan, Janardan and Ram Bharose and the two latter were not party defendants to the suit. Its opinion appears to be that under Order XXXIV, Rule 1, if necessary parties are not brought on the record a suit for sale must fail. The lower Appellate Court paid no heed to this argument and held that the suit for sale failed because the plaintiff acquired that remedy only in case of dispossession. The argument of the lower Appellate Court is certainly untenable. The words of the document are 'kuchh fatur waqe howe' in obtaining possession. They do not convey the idea that the mortgagee must first take possession and only on his dispossession he was entitled to sue for sale. He would be equally entitled in case there was difficulty...
Behari Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor Through Gopi Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All676; 84Ind.Cas.64
Boys, J.1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Meerut recommending that the convictions and sentances passed on four men under Sections 166 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code should be set aside on the ground that the arrest in respect of which they have been convicted was not an illegal arrest but was justifiable in law.2. It appears that the complainant Gopi Nath had come from Allahabad to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut in order to give evidence in some proceedings before the Subordinate Judge under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. At the time when he went to the Court of the Subordinate Judge to give evidence, he went, as found by the Judge, to all intents and purposes as a witness summoned, though, in fact, no summons had been served on him. At this time there was a warrant out against him for his arrest in certain execution proceedings. On his arrival at the Court of the Subordinate Judge he asked for protection from arrest until he should be able to return to Allah...
Hapoo Mal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.695
Daniels, J.1. The applicant Hapoo has been convicted along with a number of other persons of committing public nuisance under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court. It appears, that there was a very large crowd of persons engaged in satta gambling in front of the shops of the accused and other persons and that this crowd was so great as to stop the traffic in the street for the space of half an hour. This was not the first time that such a crowd bad collected, On a previous occasion a similar crowd had collected for the same purpose and a man had been killed owing to a stampede taking place in the crowd on the approach of the Police. The Trial Court acquitted the owners of the satta shops except the accused but convicted him on the ground that he was outside among the crowd. The lower Appellate Court held that the accused in fact was outside but disagreed with the reasoning of the Trial Court. If a crowd collects and obstru...
Lala Baij Nath and anr. Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.737
1. This appeal has been referred to a Bench for a decision of the question whether a statement, in an execution application, of money having been paid by the judgment-debtor, is such a certificate of payment as is contemplated by Order XXI, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and has the effect of saving limitation. The authorities of this Court are against the contention. The authority of other High Courts is the Other way and the learned Judge who referred the case doubted the correctness of this Court's rulings.2. The facts are these. The decree was passed on 25th March 1914. It was a compromise decree and provided for pay-ment by annual instalments on the 15th of March each year commencing with 1915. There was also a provision that on two instalments felling into arrears the whole decretal amount should be-; come payable. The instalments for the first three years, 1915 to 1917 were paid on due date and were duly certified to. the Court. No further payment was certified, On 7th Septe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »