Allahabad Court January 1925 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.
East Indian Railway Company Vs. Jit Mal Kallo Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All280
Mukerji, J.1. This revision arises under the following circumstances. The respondent sued the applicant, the E.I. Railway Company, for recovery of certain damages, 28th of February, 1924, was fixed for the hearing of the case. Then the case was adjourned to the 7th May, 1924. In adjourning the case the Court said:Defendant wants time. Case postponed to 7th of May on payment of Rs. 1 costs. If costs are not paid, defence will be struck off.2. The ease came up for hearing on the 7th of May and was again adjourned, the Court passing the following order:I cannot issue commission now. I give 15 days time to produce the witnesses. Defendant to pay Rs. 2 as damages for postponement. If damages be not paid, no evidence of the defendant will be taken.3. On the 27th of May, 1924 the costs of adjournment not having been paid, the plaintiff's vakil pressed upon the Court the view that the defendant had made a default and his defence was liable to be struck off. The Court, before acceding to this r...
Kandhai Lal Vs. Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All399; 87Ind.Cas.778
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to revise a judgment of the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore. The plaintiff of the Court below is the applicant here. He brought the suit for recovery of money on foot of two promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the respondent. The suit was contested on several points, one of these being that at the date of execution of the promissory notes the defendant was a minor. The learned Judge found on all points in favour of the plaintiff. But on the question of defendant's minority ha laying the burden of proof on the plaintiff, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant was a major at the date of execution of the promissory notes. It appears that no satisfactory evidence was adduced on either side and the Court had to rely on the question of onus of proof. The learned Judge was of opinion that it was for the plaintiff to establish that the contract wag a valid one and was entered into by people who w...
Bhimmi Vs. Pershadi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All392; 87Ind.Cas.419
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Bench Magistrates of Aonla dated the 3rd October, 1924.2. The facts of the case are as follows : On the 31st June, 1924, Bhimmi, the applicant in this case, filed a complaint against Pershadi, under Section 352 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was instituted in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Aonla. The Magistrate recorded the evidence of some witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He then transferred the case to the Court of the Banch Magistrates of Aonla for disposal. The Bench. Magistrates examined the accused and then asked the parties to adduce all their evidence. The complainant examined a certain number of witnesses and the accused also examined a certain number of witnesses. The hearing of the case was concluded on the 24th September, 1924. On that date they passed an order that judgment would be delivered on the 30th September, 1924. They directe...
Dip NaraIn Rai Vs. Lachhman Upadhiya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All479
Stuart, J.1. It is necessary to state the following facts: In November, 1851 Ghumraj Kai executed a mortgage by conditional sale of certain property in the village of Pipra Kalan, in the Ballia district, in favour of Sheo Saran Upadhiya. In 1915 the mortgagor was represented by Sukhdao Rai and the mortgagee was represented by a certain Lachhman. Lachhman instituted a suit for foreclosure against Sukhdeo Rai. A preliminary decree was passed on the 15th of July, 1.915 by consent of parties under the terms of which Sukhdeo Rai was given six months within which to pay Rs. 1,104-15, find, in default of such payment, the land mortgaged was to pass to Lachhman. No application was made for a final decree and in 1918 Sukhdeo Rai died. It is suggested that the reason why no application was made for a final decree was because Lachhman had already obtained possession of the property by a private arrangement with Sukhdeo Rai. After the death of Sukhdeo Rai, certain people claimed to be his heirs in...
Parsiddhan Rai and anr. Vs. Dhaneshar Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All818
1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings for the partition of a mahal. The applicant for partition was Dhaneshar Rai. There were two other co-sharers, Parsidhan Rai and a certain lady, who held jointly. The two parties were in a sense proprietors of the mahal in equal shares. When the formal notice of the application for partition was issued no objection was taken by the opposite party; but when the Assistant Collector sat down to prepare the partition proceeding under Section 114 of the Land Revenue Act a very definite and specific petition of objection was presented to him. Parsidhan Rai on behalf of himself and his co-sharer took this point. He said that there had been by mutual consent an informal partition a great many years ago, of a considerable portion of the lands of the mahal. He added that this partition had since been recognized in the revenue records, where the lands of the mahal were now recorded as falling into three distinct pattis: of one patti Dhaneshar Rai wa...
Fazal HusaIn Vs. Fazaluddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1924All291
Mukerji, J.1. Nobody has appeared to oppose this application in revision. The suit out of which this application has arisen was a pre-emption suit and the decree was made by a Munsif on the 7th of May 1924 in favour of the plaintiff. The order was that the purchase-money, a sum of Rs. 50 was to be paid within two months of the decision of the Court becoming final. The purchase-money was not paid till the 26th of July 1924. The plaintiff apprehended that he had come after the expiry of the period fixed and he made an application for extension of the time of payment. The learned Munsif held that the decree became final at the earliest on the 7th of June 1924, when one month's time allowed for appeal expired and that, therefore, (reckoning two months from the 7th of June 1924) the deposit was in time. On behalf of the vendee the present petition has been made and it is urged that as there was no appeal whatsoever, the decree became final at the date it was passed and that the two months' ...
Muhammad Abdul Majid Vs. Ala Bux Alias Allan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All376
1. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal. Mr. Narain Prasad who appears for the plaintiff-respondent, argues that the appeal does not lie to this Court but to the Court of the District Judge. The suit out of which the appeal has arisen was a suit for accounts and in paragraph 8 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and payment of Court-fee was Rs. 2,500. The suit was accordingly laid in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra. The learned Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 5,796-9-3. We have now this appeal by the defendant and the appeal is valued in this Court at the amount which has been awarded in the decree of the Subordinate Judge.2. Mr. Narain Prasad argues, and we think correctly, that the appeal must lie to the Court of the District Judge. If the valuation as set out in the plaint is to determine the forum of appeal then Mr. Narain Prasad's ...
Jagmohan Agrahri and anr. Vs. Prag Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All618; 87Ind.Cas.27
1. The plaintiffs are the sons of Narain, and seek to set aside a sale of certain ancestral property situated in the village Buzurgwar, which was effected by the latter in favour of Madho and others, now represented by the defendants-respondents, on the 2nd of April, 1910. The sale was effected for a consideration of Rs. 3,200, the whole of which was paid in cash to the vendor at the time of registration. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they were not bound by the sale inasmuch as it was effected for no legal necessity. The defendants-vendees, however, contended that the property sold was situated at a considerable distance from the place where Narain was residing, that it yielded a very small profit to the family, and that the sale in question was effected in order to benefit the family, by applying the proceeds to business which was likely to yield greater profit. The plaintiffs also asserted that the sale was effected without consideration and that the property sold was of ...
Wazir Vs. Sarju Bhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1928All417; 113Ind.Cas.828
1. This application is not of a usual character. The circumstances in which it has arisen are these:2. In March 1924, during the Holi festival, a party of men were coming in the morning from the village Sajai in the Azamgarh District to the village of Khairuddinpur. They were on their way to celebrate the Holi in the latter village. The two villages are close together.3. On their way they met a Mahomedan called Wazir who was sitting near a well. Wazir had lost in the previous night a certain amount of grass and thatching grass which the celebrators of the Holi had taken away with which to feed the Holi fire. Wazir was naturally not in the best temper over his loss and the party from Sajai made matters worse by taunting him with his incapacity to look after his own property. Wazir answered sharply and thereupon the party from Sajai attacked him. They chased him to his house and proceeded to pull out of the thatch the supports with which to attack him still further. He came out with a st...
Rajrup Kunwar Vs. Gopi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All261
1. This is an appeal from a decision of a single Judge of this Court, who made an order that possession of a certain property could be recovered by plaintiff, provided that the plaintiff made a payment of a thousand rupees on account of improvements made by the defendants during the subsistence of a certain lease. The position was this. The lessees had taken what was described as permanent lease from Mt. Asmedh Kunwar. She was a Hindu widow, and the lessees may have believed that she, having acquired the property from her father, had a right to grant a permanent lease. The matter, when enquired into the lower Court, showed that, if investigation had been made by the lessees, they would have ascertained that the interest of Mt, Asmedh Kunwar, was a life-interest only. On the death of Mb. Asmedh Kunwar, this suit was brought for possession by the plaintiff (reversioner). The question now arises whether the lessees are entitled to receive from the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 1,000 which has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »