Allahabad Court October 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.
Kallu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.808
Walsh, J.1. I agree with the Sessions Judge, set aside the conviction and. direct the fine to be refunded....
B. Kishen Prasad and anr. Vs. Kunj Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All278
Mukerji, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. On the 29th of May 1924 the suit out of which the present execution proceedings have arisen was compromised. The appellants here had claimed Rs. 15,000 odd and the claim had been denied in toto, bat on the date aforesaid the parties came to terms, the language of which will be material, for there is a good deal, of controversy over its interpretation. Briefly the terms were to the effect that if the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 within a month and a half of the date of the compromise, and the balance of the sum that would make up one half of the amount of the claim, namely Rs. 1,832.-8-0 together with the costs in the course of three months, the plaintiffs would remit the balance of their claim. In the cage of default on the part of the defendants the plaintiffs would recover the entire amount of their claim. According to the terms of the compromise, therefore, the sum of Rupees 6,000 was payable on the 13th of July 1924 and the bala...
Abdullah Vs. Badr-ul-islam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All127
1. What we have to deal with in this appeal is the true construction of a Wajib-ul-arz and in particular the clauses in it which relate to the right of residents in the town of Jahangirpur to transfer their houses.2. According to the Wajib-ul-arz the inhabitants of this town are divided into two classes-the first consisting of persons who are described as 'sharif qaum' or respectable classes and the Clause 2 consisting of agriculturists and others.3. The Wajibularz sets out that persons in Clause 1, that is to say those who are 'sharif' have a right to transfer 'pukhta houses which they have built at their own expenses.' The right of transfer is expressed to be a right to transfer the houses as they stand. In this connexion it is also to be noted that the Wajibularz expressly declares that the zamindars of the village have no light whatever to interfere with this privilege of people who belong to the 'sharif qaum.' In the case of the ordinary ''riava' and lower classes inhabiting the t...
Dariyai Singh and ors. Vs. Chob Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All248; 91Ind.Cas.863
1. These two appeals are connected and have been heard together and may be disposed of by a single judgment.2. The appellants before us were the defendants in two suits brought by different plaintiffs in a revenue Court for ejectment.3. In both these cases in the revenue Court it was alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs that they (the plaintiffs) were the zamindars of the lands in suit, that the defendants were lessees (thekadars) of the lands in dispute, paying a yearly rent to the plaintiffs. In para. 3 of both plaints it was alleged that the plaintiffs desire to eject the defendants as the defendants had no right to remain in possession. It was stated that the defendants had been asked to vacate the lands, and refused to do so, and hence suits for ejectment lay under the provisions of Section 63 and Section 58 of the Agra Tenancy Act. In both cases the cause of action for the suit was described as having arisen on the 1st of July 1918, that is to say after the expiry of the agricultu...
Nanak Chand Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All250; 92Ind.Cas.316
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for partition of a 1/4th share in a house and a shop. In 1899 there was partition suit brought by Salig Ram, a cousin of the contesting defendant's fathers for separation of his share. That suit was decreed and separate lots were allotted to Salig Ram and his brothers. According to the judgment of the Court of first instance the lots marked yellow and red were given to Lalman and Jagannath, the fathers of the three contesting defendants. Subsequently Jagannath made a mortgage of the 1/4th share allotted to him and Lalman in favour of one Shib Narain. A suit was brought on the basis of this mortgage deed against Jagannath and his sons, two of the contesting defendants who were impleaded as minors under the guardianship of Jagannath himself. To this suit neither Lalman nor his son Ram Prasad, the other defendant, was impleaded. The suit was decreed. The decree was sold to the present plaintiff who put it in execution, and ...
Mt. Ram Kuer Vs. Govind Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All62
1. After hearing the arguments in this case we have come to the conclusion that the appeal must be allowed, the decision of the Judge of this Court reversed and the decree of the first appellate Court restored.2. The suit as framed was a suit for redemption in which the defendant was one Mt. Ram Kuer who is now before us as the appellant.3. It appears that on the 22nd of November 1884 one Pahar Singh executed a mortgage in favour of four persons, one of whom was Ram Prasad. The amount of the mortgage money was Rs. 1,000 and admittedly Ram Prasad was interested in this money to the extent of one-fifth only.4. On the 17th of October 1890 Pahar Singh, the mortgagor, sold some other property of his to three of these mortgagees and he left with them a sum of Rs. 938 in order to discharge the mortgage of 1884. It has been found and has not been questioned that Rs. 938 represented the full amount of the mortgage debt at the time this transaction took place.5. It is further proved that Ram Pra...
Jhabbu Ram Vs. Bahoran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All243
1. This is an appeal by a defendant-mortgagee arising out of a suit for partition of certain properties. Originally a mortgage was made by Ram Dhan, the plaintiffs' grandfather, in the year 1902 in favour of the mortgagee's predecessor. Subsequently, after the grandfather's death and in the year 1919, three out of his four sons, Narain Singh Deo Sukh and Punni Lal, executed a fresh mortgage in lieu of the amount due on the previous document. It is conceded that Narain Singh was the eldest member of the family then alive and was the karta. Tikam Singh, the plaintiffs' father, the fourth son of Ram Dhan, was alive. He was probably not then in the village and was living with his father-in-law. He did not join in the deed. By 1919, when the second document was executed twelve years had expired since the first mortgage. In view of a clause entitling the mortgagee to recover the whole amount in case of default of payment of interest, the mortgage debt had become time barred according to the ...
Raghunath Kandu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All227
ORDERMears, C.J.1. This is an application for revision of an appellate order of Pandit Uma Charan Misra, Magistrate, First Class, dismissing an appeal against the order of conviction under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Tahsildar of Mohammadabad against the applicant Raghunath Kandu. The facts of the case are as follows. Applicant Raghunath Kandu was sent up by the Mubarakpur police for trial under Section 34 of the Police Act 5 of 1861. It was complained that he kept logs of wood in a public way, and thereby caused obstruction to the passers-by. It was proved that logs of wood were lying there and they could cause obstruction on market days. The accused admitted that he cut a tamarind tree and some pieces of timber lay on the public way. He, however, pleaded that he could not remove them on account of the prevalence of plague in the village. The accused produced no evidence in his defence.2. The Tahsildar Magistrate found that the accused's act did not come under S...
Kalka Vs. Ranjit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All241
ORDERDaniels, J.1. In this case Kalka, complainant was ordered to pay. Rs. 50 as compensation to the accused under Section 250, Criminal P.C. Kalka has now applied to ma for revision of this order. The record shows that the Magistrate neglected to call upon the complainant to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. The complainant was absent on the day judgment was pronounced and the order granting the accused compensation was passed on the same day, viz., the 7th July 1925.2. It was clearly the duty of the Magistrate to issue a summons to the complainant to appear and show cause as laid down in the last sentence of para. 250 (i) of the Criminal P.C., but there is nothing on the file to show that this was done.3. I consider that the irregularity is a material one and the Magistrate's order was illegal. I recommend that the illegal order ha set aside and that the complainant may be called upon to show cause why compensation should not be paid by him to the accused....
Ram Newaz and anr. Vs. Nankoo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All283; 92Ind.Cas.401
1. This is the appeal of the plaintiffs who had instituted a suit as reversioners of one Ram Charan for the possession of 2 bighas of land. In 1884 Ram Charan appears to have been in difficulties and he had a 9-pie odd share in a certain village. He executed a sale-deed which has had to be construed in all the Courts and on the proper construction of that sale-deed the rights of the parties depend. The plaintiffs are the reversioners, but the defendants are the purchasers of whatever rights the vendee had. The real point is whether the sale was an out-and-out sale of the 9-pie odd share or whether it was a sale by the vendor of the 9-pie odd share minus the 2 bighas cow in dispute. The document lies before us and it starts by Ram Charan stating that he had a 9-pie 3-kauri 2-dant zamindari share in the property and then, after usual formal parts, says that he has absolutely sold, with the exception of 2 bighas of nankar land numbered as below (1460), the entire property. Pausing there a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »