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.
Ram Dulare and ors. Vs. Sahdeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All189; 83Ind.Cas.188
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for the recovery of possession of a fixed-rate holding, measuring 8 bighas 18 biswas situated in the village Bisora Khurd with mesne profits for the throe years preceding the suit. It appears that Bisheshar and Durga were brothers, who owned 22 bighas 10 biswas of a fixed rate holding in the village Misrapura, and 17 bighas 1 biswas of a fixed rate holding in the village Bisora. Durga died, leaving a widow Mt. Maheaha. Bisheshar died next, leaving a widow Mt. Neola. The plaintiffs are the song of the daughters of Bisheshar by Mt. Neola. Their allegation was that Bisheshar and Durga lived separately; but the Courts below found that they were joint. Anyhow the fixed rate tenancies in question were held after the deaths of Durga and Bisheshar by their widows Mt. Mahesha and Mt. Neola. Mt. Mahesha died in April, 1893. Mt. Neola died in 1912. They had in their lifetime mortgaged 2 bighas 19 biswas of la...
Ram Lal Vs. the Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All251; 84Ind.Cas.439
Boys, J.1. This is a case in which the learned Sessions Judge refers a conviction arrived at by a Magistrate under Section 307(b) of the Municipalities Act on the ground that it was illegal for the Magistrate to sentence the accused to a further daily fine at the same time that has sentenced him to a fine for disobedience of the notice. The learned Sessions Judge has in support of his reference quoted the decision of Mr. Justice Piggott in Amir Hasan Khan v. Emperor (1918) 40 All. 569. It has been urged before me that the words in Clause (b) 'and, in case of a continuing breach, to a further fine' indicate that the sentence of a further fine may be passed along with the fine for the original offence I agree entirely with the view taken by Mr. Justice Piggott and it is therefore unnecessary for me to add much. If it were to be possible for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of fine for the continuing, offence at the same time as his original order of conviction, it is clear that it would...
B. Dwarkadhish Prasad Singh Vs. Maharaja Keshava Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All266; 85Ind.Cas.557
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances.2. An original suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Benares, was transferred to this Court to be tried originally. It was pending before Mr. Justice Piggott. An application was filed in the case purporting to be a compromise between the parties under which the suit was to be withdrawn under certain circumstances. Mr. Justice Piggott ordered that the plaintiff should appear in person and fixed a data for his appearance. On that data ha did not appear but big Counsel, Mr. Sultan Ahmad, appeared and assured the learned Judge that he had bean personally instructed by his client to press the application. Acting on this assurance of the learned Counsel and the affidavit before him, the learned Judge held that the suit had been properly adjusted and ordered it be decreed in the terms of the compromise. A decree was accordingly drawn up.3. Subsequently the plaintiff applied to the learned Judge to set aside that compromise ...
(Sri) NaraIn Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All129; 85Ind.Cas.62
Neave, J.1. This is a reference from the Additional Sessions Judge of Mirzapur asking this Court in revision to set aside the sentence passed under Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is not disputed, that there was no complaint in writing made by the public servant concerned or by any public servant to whom he is subordinate as is required by Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code before cognizance can be taken by a Court of an offence under Section 173. The learned Magistrate's explanation is that he took cognizance of an offence under Section 225(b) of the Indian Penal Code and that having done so he was entitled under Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code to convict the accused under Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code which he regards as a minor offence of the same character as that for which a penalty is provided under Section 235(b) of the Indian Penal Code.3. It is clear that when the Code provides that the Court shall not take cognizance of certain offences wi...
Harihar Prasad Vs. Ram Daur Alias Ram Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All17
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a fixed rate tenancy belonging to one Sumera, who died leaving a widow, Mt. Pratapi. The plaintiff claims to be the nearest heir of Sumera, deceased. Ho denied that Mt. Pratapi was lawfully married to Sumera, but the Courts below found on that point against him. The fixed rate tenancy in question has been sold by Mt. Pratapi to Harihar Prasad for a consideration of Rs. 300 on the 4fch July 1919, out of which only Rs. 50 have been found to have been taken for legal necessity.2. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is the nearest reversionary heir of Sumora, deceased, and as such entitled to impeach the validity of the sale. The Court of first instance found against him, but the lower appellate Court held, relying on the pedigree proved in the case, and on an admission of the contesting defendant himself in a previous suit, that the plaintiff was the nearest bandhu or reversionary heir of the ...
Wajid Ali Khan Vs. Puran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All108; 85Ind.Cas.66
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is connected with the Execution First Appeal No. 281 of 1923. They have arisen under the following circumstance:Four persons Puran Singh, Lekhraj Singh, Amar Singh and Pirthi Singh instituted a suit for pre-emption against Wajid Ali Khan who had purchased a property and who is the appellant in appeal No. 202 of 1923. The suit succeeded in the Court of first instance and a decree was made in favour of the plaintiffs on 20th February, 1921. The consideration money was directed to be paid within one month of the decree becoming final and was actually deposited in Court on 22nd June, 1921. Wajid Ali filed an appeal to this Court on 30th March, 1921. Amar Singh died pending the appeal on 12th January, 1922. The first appeal in this Court was heard in ignorance of the fact that Amar Singh was dead, and a decree was made on 18th January, 1923, reversing the decree of the Court of first instance. Before the appellate decree was made, the pre-emptors on payment of the ...
Sanwal Das and ors. Vs. Saiyid Ali Madhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All174
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises two questions : First, whether having regard to the fact that the appellants were made parties to the suit for redemption after the expiry of sixty years from the date of the mortgage, the suit against them was time-barred, and secondly, whether the statement of the property sought to be sold, dated the 21st June, 1919, signed by Sanwal Das operated as an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, and saved the suit from being time-barred.2. The facts briefly are these : There was an ancient mortgage, dated the 16th July, 1859, for Rs. 1,200. The suit to redeem the mortgage was brought on 29th January, 1918. The mortgagees or some of them made a sub-mortgage of their mortgagee rights with respect to a 7 annas 81/2 pies share on 19th September, 1900, in favour of two persons Sanwal Das and Kampta Prasad. The sub mortgage was a simple one Sanwal Das and Kampta Prasad obtained a decree for sale against their mortgagors land brought the property...
Harihar Prasad Vs. Ram Daur and Musammat Partapi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.1032
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to fixed-rate tenancy belonging to Sumera, who died leaving a widow Musammat Partapi. The plaintiff claims to be the nearest heir of Sumera deceased. He denied that Musammat Partapi was lawfully married to Sumera; but the Courts below found on that point against him. The fixed-rate tenancy in question has been sold by Musammat Partapi to Harihar Prasad, for a consideration of Rs. 300 on the 4th July 1919, out of which only Rs. 50 have been found to have been taken for legal necessity.2. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is the nearest reversionary heir of Sumera deceased, and as such entitled to impeach the validity of the sale. The Court of first instance found against him, but the lower Appellate Court held, relying on the pedigree proved 13 the case and on an admission of the contesting defendant himself in a previous suit, that the plaintiff was the nearest bandhu or reversionary heir of...
Babu Sanwal Das and ors. Vs. Saiyad Ali Mahdi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.330
1. This appeal raises two questions: first, whether having regard to the fact that the appellants were made parties to the suit for redemption after the expiry of sixty years from the date of the mortgage, the suit against them was time-barred and secondly whether the statement of the property sought to be sold, dated the 21st June, 1919, signed by. Sanwal Das operated as an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, and, saved the suit from being time-barred.2. The facts briefly are these: There was an ancient mortgage dated the 16th July. 1859 for Rs. 1,200. The suit' to redeem the mortgage was brought on 29th. January-1918. The mortgagees or some of therii made a sub-mortgage of their mortgagee rights with respect to a 7 annas 81/2 pies share on 19th September 1900 in favour of two persons Sanwal Das and Kampta Prasad. The sub-mortgage was a simple one Sanwal Das and Kampta Prasad got a decree for sale against their mortgagors and brought the property to sale and them se...
Baijnath Das Vs. Balmakund
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All137
Daniels, J.1. The question for decision in this reference is whether au appeal from an order passed on an application for restitution under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code requires to be stamped ad valorem under Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act as an appeal from a decree, or can be filed as an apppeal from an order in execution on a Court-fee of Rs. 2. The suit out of which the reference arises was one claiming a declaration that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of a house which had been sold in execution and bought by the defendant-appellant. The first Court dismissed the suit. In appeal the suit was decreed for a one-third share in the house. The defendant had obtained possession of the entire house under the Trial Court's decree. The order under appeal has granted the plaintiff possession of a one-third in the house by way of restitution. The appellant's case is that the plaintiff could only obtain possession of his one-third share by means of a suit for pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »