Allahabad Court July 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.
Dannu Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All227; 85Ind.Cas.643
Daniels, J.1. In this case seven persons, Dannu Singh, Tulshi, Gajja, Keso Daryao Singh, Girdhari Singh and Dilsukh, appeal from the conviction under Section 395, Indian Penal Code in connexion with a dacoity which occurred on the night of 7th October 1923 at the house of Umrao Singh at Natakpur in the Bareilly district. The police had been aware for a long time that a gang of dacoits under the leadership of a man named Dhani was carrying on a series of dacoities in the Bareiily district and were endeavouring to surprise and arrest them. They had received information that a dacoity was in contemplation at the house of Umrao on this particular night and the Circle Inspector Khan Bahadur Muhammad Sayid, with a number of police proceeded to the village secretly after dark and hid in a chaupal and other places adjacent to Umrao Singh's house. About 11 p.m. fifteen or sixteen dacoits came to the house, broke in, lit fires of straw at various places and commenced to loot the house. One of th...
(Firm) Ganeshi Lal HarnaraIn Vs. Debi Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All267; 85Ind.Cas.470
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision from an order of the District Judge of Agra. It arises under the following circumstances:On the 7th of July, 1923, a suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Agra for recovery of a certain sum of money. On the 24th of July, 1923, a written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant and issues were framed. The 21st of September, 1923, was fixed for final hearing in the case, but on an application made by the plaintiffs the date was subsequently altered to the 17th of August, 1923. On that date the defendants were absent owing to an alleged illness and produced a medical certificate. The Court was prepared to adjourn the case on payment of a certain amount of costs. Readiness was expressed on behalf of the defendants to pay the amount and the Court then directed that it would proceed to hear the plaintiff's evidence and postpone the case for the defendants' evidence. Defendants' vakil objected to this procedure and ul...
The East Indian Railway Company Vs. Fazal Elahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All273; 85Ind.Cas.474
Boys, J.1. This is a Civil Revision from the decree of the Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff sued the Railway for damages on account of the 'non-delivery' of one of four cases of matches. The Court of Small Causes found as a fact that 'the box I think was thrown out by any thieves or thief who got into the wagon when the train stopped near the signal.' He did not find whether or not this temporary stopping of the train in his opinion made it a case of theft from a running train. He went on further to hold that inasmuch as the guard saw the box thrown out of the train and made no attempt to recover it beyond reporting the loss at the next station, there was 'wilful neglect on the part of the Railway and on this ground he held that the Railway were not protected by the owner's risk-note form B. The Railway further raised the defence that six months notice had not been given to the Agent of the Railway. But this defence wag rejected, the Judge of the Small Cause Court relying on East I...
Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. Musammat Altafan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.27
Sulaiman, J.1. Letters Patent Appeals.. No. 149 and No. 150 are connected and arose out of two suits, one brought by Mohammad Ibrahim, the husband, for restitution of conjugal rights and the other brought by his wife, Musammat Altafan, for the annulment of their marriage on the ground that the husband was impotent.2. The parties were married in 1914 when the girl was about 13 years old and the husband some 3 or 4 years older. It is not disputed that for some six years after the marriage the husband and wife lived together and had access to each other. Owing to some subsequent differences the wife came away from the house and has since been living separately with her own parents.3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit for the restitution of conjugal rights and decreed the claim for the annulment of the marriage in toto.4. On appeal the learned District Judge came to a different conclusion. His finding amounted to holding that the husband was not proved to be impotent and he ac...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Mt. Gaura and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All19; 83Ind.Cas.147
Sulaiman, J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether a grandmother gets a share in the family property on a partition between her grandsons only. One Nainsukh Das was the owner of the property in question. On his death ho left a widow Mt. Gaura, defendant, and a son Chunni Lal. Chunni Lal has since died leaving a widow. Mt. Har Kuar, and two sons, Kanhaiya Lal and Makhan Lal. The point for consideration is whether in a partition between Kanhaiya Lai and Makhan Lal, Mt. Gaura gets any share in the property which originally belonged to her deceased husband Nainsukh Das.2. The trial Court, as well as the lower appellate Court, came to the conclusion that she was entitled to a share under the Mitakshara law. That view has been affirmed by a learned Judge of this Court, who himself is well acquainted with the provisions of the Hindu Law.3. The question raised in this appeal is however not a very easy one to decide, and it is therefore) necessary to consider the authoritie...
Ghuriya and ors. Vs. Baneswar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All30; 83Ind.Cas.202
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought for ejectment against the defendants on the allegation that the defendants were his subtenants.2. Baneshwar, one of the defendants, pleaded that he was not a sub-tenant at all and that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and him. He asserted that he held possession of this land as his khudkasht, being himself a proprietor.3. The first Court framed two issues:(1) Does the relation of landlord and tenant exist between the parties?(2) Is the Defendant No. 3 himself a zamindar and the plots in dispute his khudkasht?It came to the conclusion that the Defendant No. 3 was not a sub-tenant but was in possession as proprietor, and that the claim having been brought more than six months after dispossession, was barred by time.4. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the District Judge who held that the possession of the zamindar was in collusion with the ostensible lessee, his karinda, who w...
Bishnath Singh and ors. Vs. Basdeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All171; 82Ind.Cas.1037
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. In a suit filed on foot of a mortgage effected by the appellants on the 13th May 1909, a preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 17th January, 1918, which was made absolute on the 20th December, 1919. The parties are members of an agricultural tribe.2. When the decree was put under execution, an objection was filed by the judgment-debtors under Section 16 of the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act (U.P. Act II of 1903), saying that the mortgaged property could not be sold in execution of a decree. The Court upheld that objection. The decree-holder then asked the Court to take proceedings under Section 9 of the said Act. That prayer was acceded to by the Court of first instance and the order of that Court was upheld by the lower Appellate Court.3. The contention here is that no reference can be made under Section 9, Sub-section (3) of that Act after a decree has been made absolute. But that section contains no such limitation. All that it lays down is, that if a sui...
Nathji and anr. Vs. Languria and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All272; 85Ind.Cas.548
Boys, J.1. The facts here are practically admitted and certainly they cannot be denied. The plaintiffs asked to bet allowed to withdraw their suit in terms of order 23, Rule 1(2), C.P.C. The learned Munsif refused to allow them to withdraw the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit and apparently was quite justified in that refusal. But then instead of merely refusing the plaintiff's request or giving them any further option in the matter the learned Munsif treated the application as if it were alternatively under Rule 1, Sub-section 1 and granting the application as if it had been an unconditional or unqualified application to withdraw, ordered that the suit be allowed to be withdrawn, coupled with refusal of permission to file a fresh suit. It is clear that there is no justification for this. If the learned Munsif saw no reason for allowing the withdrawal in terms of Order 23, Rule 1 Sub-section 2, he should simply have refused the application and proceeded with the suit; or give...
Bengal North-western Railway Vs. Firm Manorath Bhagat-dhian Ram and B. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All172
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision from the decree of a learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes. 93 bags were despatched in one wagon from Turtipur to Agra in a goods train. When the train arrived at Magarwara Station, it was reported to the Station Master that a door of the wagon was open. He re sealed the door. When the train arrived at Cawnpore, the contents of the wagon were checked and it was discovered that five bags were missing. When the goods were despatched they were placed in the wagon which had been fastened with a piece of twine and seals were put on the doors, but admittedly the floors were not looked. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court had before him evidence that thefts were constant so much so that about ten wagons with broken seals were discovered every month, and that in spite of this circumstance no precautions were taken to lock the wagons or to keep anj extra watch on the trains or the stations. The learned Judge was not bound to bring on record th...
Gajadhar Pande and ors. Vs. Jadubir Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All180; 85Ind.Cas.31
Sulaiman, J.1. The facts of the case are that a portion of plot No. 44 belonged to a joint Hindu family consisting of Salik Pande and his sons Bam Jag and Gajadhar. The father was the manager and Gajadhar was a minor. On the 2nd of July, 1890, the father and his son Ram Jag made a simple mortgage of the property in favour of Jagannath. Subsequently on the 31st of January, 1900, the father and some other co-sharers mortgaged the entire plot with possession to one Mangru. In 1903 Jagannath filed a suit for sale on the basis of his mortgage-deed, and obtained a decree for sale against the mortgagors alone. To that suit Gajadhar was not made a party. The property was sold in execution of the decree and was purchased by the decree-holder himself. The decree-holder subsequently sold the share purchased by him to Jadubir Pande, who got mutation of names effected in his favour.2. It is however a fact that inasmuch as the plot in question was in the possession of the subsequent mortgagee, Jadub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »