Allahabad Court November 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.
ihsan Ullah Vs. Farhat Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1927All374
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that although only one-sixth share each belonged to the vendors, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, they had fraudulently, in order to inflate the price and to defeat pre-emption included the whole share in the disputed plot in the sale-deed. The plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant No. 2 had no authority to execute the sale-deed on behalf of Defendant No. 3. He, however, prayed that if the Court found that the sale-deed had been validly executed by Defendant No. 3 he was ready to pre-empt his share also. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint as drafted was defective and the plaintiff's suit was liable to dismissal because he had tried to put the Defendant No. 1, the vendee, to the proof of Defendant No. 3's title. The lower appellate Court has come to a contrary conclusion. The finding of the lower appellate Court amounts to this t...
Mirza Muhammad Zakaria Vs. B. Kishun NaraIn and Muhammad Hafiz and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.644
Sulaiman, J.1. This purports to be an execution first appeal from an order dated the 6th of July 1925 passed by the Execution Court. It appears that a mortgage-decree for sale was in execution and a proclamation of sale was prepared and issued in the first instance under Order XXI, Rule 66. The date for the sale was fixed as the 9th of July 1925. Three days before this date the respondent Muhammad Hafiz who was till then no party to the execution proceedings filed an application in the Execution Court praying that a certain mortgage-deed dated the 14th of September 1810 in his favour be notified. In his application he set forth the fact that on a previous occasion he had instituted a suit for the recovery of the principal amount due on his deed but that suit was ultimately dismissed. He then recited a passage from the judgment of Mr. Justice Walsh who was one of the learned Judges who disposed of the appeal in the High Court, to the effect that 'it by no means follows from the decision...
Emperor Vs. Daulat Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.743
Daniels, J.1. This is a Reference by the District Magistrate of Bareilly submitted through the Sessions Judge asking this Court to modify in revision an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. Section 435 does not authorise the District Magistrate to make any such reference. He can refer the proceedings of any inferior Court but he is not entitled to question the propriety of an order passed by a Court of Session. His proper course when he considers that action is necessary is to move the Government to file an application in revision. This has been pointed out many times by this Court and by other High Courts, e.g., Emperor v. Javina Rai 28 A. 91 : 2 A.L.J. 589 : A.W.N. (1905) 198 : 2 Cr. L.J. 515, Emperor v. Ganga 23 Ind. Cas. 1004 : 36 A. 378 : 12 A.L.J. 519 : 15 Cr. L.J. and Emperor v. John Francis Lobo 36 Ind. Cas. 577 : 41 B. 47 : 18 Bom. L.R. 796 : 17 Cr. L.J. 529. The reference is also made very late. The order complained of was p...
NaraIn Das and ors. Vs. Sheo DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All234; 91Ind.Cas.859
Sulaiman, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents that this appeal has abated as a whole. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two plaintiffs, Sheo Din and Debi, framed as a redemption suit. The Court of first instance decreed the claim holding that the mortgage had been established. An appeal was preferred by the defendants and there was a cross appeal by the plaintiffs. Both these appeals have been dismissed. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the mortgage has not been satisfactorily proved by the plaintiffs, but he has repelled the contention of the defendants that they have been in adverse possession of this property. He has come to the conclusion that the defendants' possession has been permissive and that they are licensees. He was inclined to allow the plaintiffs a decree for possession without any consideration as to the payment of the sum offered by them. But as in their appeal they had not challenged that part of the decr...
Mohammad Ayub Vs. Surajpal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All254
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of an amount of money and for rendition of account. It is necessary to mention that the claim related to two periods, the period up to 26th October 1917, when the plaintiff's estate was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and a period subsequent to that date. The defendant was a zilladar appointed by the Court of Wards for the purpose of collecting rents. Even after the release by the Court of Wards the defendant was employed by the plaintiff as his own zilladar. With regard to the first period the plaintiff's claim is that the defendant, through bad faith, negligence and carelessness, allowed a sum of Rs. 1,417-11-9, the amount of arrears of rent, irrigation, taqawi advances and interest due by the cultivators of his circle to be time-barred. He is accordingly said to be liable to pay damages for this amount. As regards the subsequent period he is held liable because he has not accounted for sums of money r...
Bahadura Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All304a
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. A notice was issued by a police officer under Section 160 of the Criminal P.C., requiring the petitioner Bahadura to attend the enquiry. He is said to have refused to take the notice. He has been tried and convicted of an offence under Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code. This does not, however, amount to an offence of intentionally preventing service: Sahdeo Rai v. Emperor AIR 1918 All 409.2. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Bahadur of Bahadre Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.460
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. A notice was issued by a Police Officer under Section 160 of the Cr. P.C. requiring the petitioner, Bahadur a, to attend the enquiry. He is said to have refused to take the notice. He has been tried and convicted of an offence under Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code. This does not, however, amount to an offence of intentionally preventing service Sahdeo Rai v. Emperor 46 Ind. Cas. 522 : 40 A. 577 : 16 A.L.J. 453 : 19 Cr. L.J. 746.2. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Binda Prasad and anr. Vs. Raj Ballabh Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All220
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by two judgment-debtors arising out of an execution matter. It appears that Tapeshari Dayal, the father of these objector's had borrowed some money from the plaintiff decree-holder on a promissory note in 1914. On the basis of that promissory note a decree was obtained against him on the 28th of February 1916. Before any property of his was attached Tapeshari Dayal died. On his death he left his father Behari Lal and four sons, the two appellants, and two minor brothers of theirs. In 1919 an application for execution of the decree was made against the sons alone. The two major sons filed objections on the 5th of August 1919 denying their liability to pay the amount due under the decree. Behari Lal also filed separate objections. By an order dated the 2nd of September 1919 the objections of the two sons were disallowed. By a subsequent order dated the 11th of December 1919 the objection of Behari Lal was allowed with respect to the house which had been a...
Gopal Das Vs. Baij Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All238
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision from an order disallowing certain objections to an award and directing that a decree be prepared in terms of the award.2. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that no matter whether the decision of the Court below was right or wrong as to the objections raised before it, the order is not open to revision by this Court. Where objections are raised as to the proceedings before an arbitrator, and they are the subject of a decision by the trial Court, it cannot be suggested that there has been any irregularity committed by the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such objections, therefore cannot be properly raised again in revision. But where the applicant challenges the proceedings of the Court itself and attacks the reference made by the Court to the arbitrator it is not merely a question of a wrong decision by the Court, but may be one of irregularity or illegality committed by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction...
Krishna Gopal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.589
Daniels, J.1. In this case Krishna Gopal Sharma has been convicted of an offence under Section 19 of. the Arms Act. The upper storey of a house at Jhansi forming the Local Congress office was raided by the Police on 31st May last and a Mauser pistol and 64 cartridges were found in the bottom of a grain-bin in a room at the back. The room was behind the kitchen and had no doors. The upper storey was rented in the name of the accused. The accused, however, was not present at the time, and it is said that he had gone to Gawnpore five days before. At the time of the raid the key was in possession of Ajodhya Prasad to whom the accused had handed it over. There were two other members of the Local Congress present in the upper storey at the time of the search. It is further in evidence that the particular room in which the pistol and cartridges were found has no doors to it. The question is whether this is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pistol and cartridges were in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »