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.
Ram Nath Singh and anr. Vs. Gajadhar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All300
Daniels, J.1. This was a suit for possession of groves standing on certain plots. The suit has been decreed as to possession by the Court below, but remanded on the question of damages.. The defendants have come up in second appeal.2. Two pleas have been urged:(1) that the sale deed of 1888, which forms the basis of the plaintiff's title to Plots Nos. 2876, 2877 and 2883, was invalid for want of registration;(2) that the findings of the lower appellate Court do not warrant its awarding to the plaintiff the trees of Nos. 2903 and 981.3. As regards the first point the sale-dead in question was for a sum of Rs. 32 only. The transfer could, therefore, be made either by a registered sale-deed or by delivery of the property. The Court below holds that the registration was unnecessary as the plaintiff was already in possession of the property under a mortgage. This view is supported by the ruling of the Madras High Court in Muthukaruppan Samban v. Muthu Samban AIR 1915 Mad 573. In that case t...
Ram Nath Singh Alias Lal Singh and anr. Vs. Gajadhar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.478
Daniels, J.1. This was a suit for possession of groves standing on certain plots. The suit has been decreed as to possession by the Court below but remanded on the question of damages. The defendants have come up in second appeal.2. Two pleas have been urged:(1) that the sale-deed of 1888 which forms the basis of the plaintiff's title to plots NOS. 2876, 2877 and. 2883 was invalid for want of registration;(2) that the findings of the lower Appellate Court do not warrant its awarding to the plaintiff the trees of Nos. 2903 and 981.3. As regards the first point, the sale-deed in question was for a sum of Rs. 32 only. The transfer could, therefore, be made either by a registered sale-deed or by delivery of the properly. The Court below holds that the registration was unnecessary as the plaintiff was already in possession of the property under a mortgage. This view is supported by the ruling of the Madras High Court in Muthukaruppan Samban v. Muthu Samban 25 Ind. Cas. 772 : 38 M. 1158 : 1 ...
Musammat Ram Kuer Vs. Govind Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.414
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 Musammat Ram Kuer who is now before us as the appellant.3. It appears that on the 22nd of November 1881 one Pahar Singh executed a mortgage in favour of four persons one of whom was Earn 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 ...
Mulraj Vs. Indar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All102
1. The facts involved in this appeal are as follows: The appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court below obtained a mortgage from the Respondent No. 1, Indar Singh, in respect of several, properties out of which only one is in dispute in this appeal. In this property Indar Singh had only a reversionary interest on the death of a certain lady at the date of the mortgage. After the mortgage the lady died and the contesting respondent, viz., Babu Girdhari Lal obtained at an auction purchase this property. When the appellant put his mortgage into suit Babu Girdhari Lal raised the plea that the mortgage of the property in question by Inder Singh was invalid and did not convey any right to sell it. The appellant relied on Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and the question arose whether the plaintiff was or was not aware at the date of the mortgage of the fact that Indar Singh's interest in the property in question was only that of a reversionary and not that of an absolute propri...
Mt. Sumaria Alias Bismilla Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All247
Dalal, J.1. The applicant woman Mt. Sumaria alias Bismilla, was ordered by the learned District Magistrate of Ghazipur to pay compensation of Rs. 50 to each one of three constables whom she accused of having committed extortion. The total sum she was required to pay was Rs. 150.2. When she went up in appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that no appeal lay. I do not think that he was right in this conclusion. In Clauses 1 and 2 of Section 250, where the limit of compensation is stated, it is definitely laid down that the limit of compensation is Rs. 100 with respect to every accused person. On the other hand in Clause 3 which relates to appeal, the words are general and the right of appeal is given wherever the order relates to the payment of compensation exceeding Rs. 50. In Clause 3 the words of Clauses 1 and 2 are not repeated of compensation to each individual accused person. I am, therefore, of opinion that when the total amount of compensation ordered to be paid by a complainant...
Musammat Sumaria Alias Bismilla Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.882
Dalal, J.1. The applicant woman, Musammat Sumaria alias Bismilla, was ordered by the learned District Magistrate of Ghazipur to pay compensation of Rs. 50 to each one of three constables whom she accused of having committed extontion. The total sum she was Required to pay was Rs. 150.2. When she went up in appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that no appeal lay. I do not think that he was right in this conclusion. In Clause 1 and 2 of Section 250, where the limit of compensation is stated, it is definitely laid down that the limit of compensation is Rs. 100 with respect to every accused person. On the other hand in Clause 3 which relates to appeal, the words are general and the right of appeal is given wherever the order relates to the payment of compensation exceeding Rs. 50. In. Clause 3 the words of Clause 1 and 2 are not repeated of compensation to each individual accused person. I am, therefore, of opinion that when the total amount of compensation ordered to be paid by a compla...
Pandit Mulraj Vs. Indar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.471
1. The facts involved in this appeal are as follows:--The appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court below obtained a mortgage from the respondent No. 1 Inder Singh in respect of several properties out of which only one is in dispute in this appeal. In this property Inder Singh had only a reversionary interest on the death of a certain lady at the date of the mortgage. After the mortgage the lady died and the contesting respondent, viz., Babu Girdhari Lal, obtained at an auction-purchase this property. When the appellant put his mortgage into suit Babu Girdhari Lal raised the plea that the mortgage of the property in question by Inder Singh was invalid and did not convey any right to sell it. The appellant relied on Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and the question arose whether the plaintiff was or was not aware at the date of the mortgage of the fact that Inder Singh's interest in the property in question was only that of a reversionary and not that of an absolute proprie...
Shiam Sunder Sinha Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All658
ORDERDaniels, J.1. Ram Narain Singh filed an application on 6th March 1925, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the defendants.. His case was that there is a public path running east-west. To the south of the path, is a chabutra of Shivaji and a pacca well. There was a house of defendants to the north of the path. Defendants have pulled down that house and are building a new one. Defendants' privy formerly was in the northern portion of the house. This time defendants have made a latrine which opens on the road. This latrine will cause much nuisance to the worshippers of Shivaji and to those persons who use the water of the well, as the latrine is very near the chabutra of Sivaji and the well.2. The Court, after taking the statement of the applicant, asked the police to submit a report after local inspection and also to submit a map of the place.3. The police reported that this latrine seems to be new. Its situation is a source of nuisance as it will be cleaned ...
Shyam Sundar Sinha and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Ram NaraIn Sinha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.645
Bucknill, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur under the following circumstances. A notice was issued to the applicants under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. for the removal of a privy which was alleged to constitute a nuisance as it had been constructed on a, public path and only a few paces from a; shivalah. They appeared and asked for the appointment of a Jury and a Jury was duly constituted. The Jury, however, failed to return a verdict as required by Section 139. The learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that the parties were thereby relegated to the same position as when the notice under Section 133 was originally issued. This, however, is not what the Code lays down. Section 141 provides that if the Jury fails to return, a verdict within the time allowed in accordance with law the Magistrate may pass such, order as he thinks fit, and the order shall; be executed in the same manner as, a final; order under Section 140. What the Magistrate, did in this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›