Allahabad Court December 1925 Judgments
Chitar Mal Vs. Panchu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All392
Dalal, J.1. This is a reference made to this Court by the Court of the District Judge of Ajmere under the provisions of Section 17, of Regulation No. 1 of 1877. The plaintiff aggrieved by the decision of the District Court in appeal confirming the decision of the trial Court on a point of law applied to the District Court of first appeal to draw up a statement of the question of law. Such a statement has been drawn up and submitted to this Court.2. There were two brothers, Ram Narain and Jai Narain, who owned a house in a street in Ajmere in equal shares. Jai Narain made a gift of his share on 9th January 1903 to the idol of Shri Chatturbhujj Maharaj installed in a temple in Ajmere. Under the deed of endowment he gave directions as to the use to be made of the income derived from the rent of half of the house. The defendant Mt. Bishni is the widow of a son of Ram Narain. On the 17th April 1907, the managers of the temple sold the gifted portion of the house to Mt. Bishni. On the 5th De...
Tag this Judgment!Pati Ram Vs. Har Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1927All118
Lindsay, J.1. I have read the judgment of both the lower Courts in this case, and I have also heard learned, counsel in support of this appeal. In my opinion the judgments of the Courts below ought not to be interfered with. The plaintiff appellant is a zemindar in the village, and the land in dispute between the parties was a plot described as No. 483. The defendants are ryots in the village, and their case was that they were not liable to ejectment on the ground that this land had been used for many years as a place for pressing sugarcane and for tethering cattle. It is quite true that in the written statement the plea of customary right was not raised, and the defendants seem to have suggested that they had acquired a title to the land by adverse possession. However it was found by the Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court has agreed, that this land has for a very long time been used, by the village people as a place for manufacturing sugar and for tying cattle. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Puran and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All298; 92Ind.Cas.895
Daniels, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh. The facts out of which the reference arises are these. The complainant Chhidda had to deposit a sum Rs, 615 to complete the purchase money of a Court auction sale which had been concluded in the name of his wife. He had only Rs, 415 with him and wished to borrow the remaining Rs. 200 from the applicants Puran and Hoti. They agreed to advance it on condition that Chhidda made over the Rs. 415 he had with him, that they made the entire deposit and that the house was transferred into their names. Chhidda consented to this, and an application was made, but the Court refused it. This happened on 21st July.2. Chhidda owed Puran and Hoti a sum equal to the amount which he had placed in their hands. They seem to have retained the Rs. 415 against their debt. On the following day he filed a complaint against them which was dismissed the same day under Section 203, Criminal P.C. on the ground that no criminal offence was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Badan Upadhiya and anr. Vs. Sankatha Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1030
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision of an order passed under Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C., giving the plaintiff permission to file a fresh suit. The order is an extraordinary one. It was passed by the Appellate Court and runs thus:This appeal is withdrawn; hence it is dismissed....The appellant may bring a fresh suit if necessary.' The effect of the dismissal of the appeal is to leave the judgment of the original Court standing, and though the learned Subordinate Judge says that the appellant may bring a fresh suit he has passed no order for withdrawing the original suit. No reasons are given for his order. It is contended that these reasons are supplied by an application presented on the same date. The application is not of a nature to support any order allowing the suit to be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh one. It is absolutely vague. It gives no particulars whatever. It states that some matters unspecified are not mentioned in the plaint and that some other m...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mt. Durga Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All301
1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the District Judge of Agra on the 30th May last with regard to the disposition of the funds of certain minors by their guardian. The two children are aged respectively 13 and 14. The girl is 13 and the learned Judge, by the order complained of, has allowed Rs. 100 for the marriage of the girl, and Rs. 50 for the education of the boy. The grounds for this application are that the sum of Rs. 100 is not adequate, and that having regard to the status of the ward, and the customary expenditure upon marriage ceremonies in a Hindu family, at least Rs. 500 should have been awarded. It seems to us that prima facie there is something to be said for this contention. Rs. 100 is certainly small. On the other hand it sometimes happens that people, when left to their own devices spend proportionately a larger sum than is prudent upon marriage ceremonies, and we appreciate the fact that in all probability the Judge was desirous of preventi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhirgu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1927All122
Boys, J.1. In this case one Bhirgu Singh was tried summarily by a Magistrate of the First Class and convicted under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence alleged against him was that being legally bound to attend at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice or order from a public servant he had intentionally omitted to attend. In this case the public servant who issued the directions to attend was a Tahsildar and the direction purports to have been issued under Section 147 of the Land Revenue Act. That section says thatwhen an arrear of revenue becomes due, a writ of demand calling on the defaulter to pay the amount within a time therein stated or a citation to appear may issue.2. It was alleged on behalf of the Crowns that a citation had issued. A Tahsildar had power to issue the citation. The only question that arises in the case is whether the power to issue citation connotes a legal liability on the part of the person to whom the citation is issued to a...
Tag this Judgment!Wilayati Begum and anr. Vs. Firm Jhandu Mal-mithu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All286
1. A question of limitation arises in connexion with this application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The judgment of this Court was delivered on March 1925, and admittedly the application for leave to appeal was not presented till 20th October 1925.2. Certain reasons are given in explanation of the delay. It is said that some time had to be taken for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the decree of this Court, and further it is said that sometime was taken for the purpose of obtaining a copy of this Court's judgment.3. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that if both the periods just referred to can be taken into consideration and allowed, then the application for leave to appeal is within time. It is conceded, however, that if Sub-section (3), Section 12, Lim. Act, does not apply to the case cow before us, then it must be held that the application for leave is beyond time.4. Section 12, Lim. Act, provides for exclusion of time which is consumed in certain legal pro...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Dayal Vs. Mt. Dhan Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All311
1. This is an application by Bhagwati Dayal for leave to appeal to. His Majesty in Council in consequence of the reversal by this Court of the decision of the Subordinate Judge, who allowed a compromise between the parties.2. The plaintiff brought a suit on the allegation that he had been adopted in 1918 by Mt. Dhan Kunwar, a defendant, under a verbal authority given by her deceased husband, Salig Ram. Another defendant who was impleaded was Ajudhia Prasad, he having obtained a mortgage on some of Salig Ham's property. After both the defendants had filed separate written statements denying the alleged adoption the parties were said to have come to a compromise, which was evidenced by a document, dated 6th August 1923, registered on 8th August. In the ordinary course the Subordinate Judge issued a commission for verification of the deed by the pardanashin lady, Mt. Dhan Kunwar, and she denied any knowledge of the compromise or having put her thumb-impression upon any document evidencing...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Annapurna Co. Ld
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All397
1. The liquidators in this case sought the direction of the Court to sell a certain flour mill as an asset of the Company in liquidation.2. One Dr. Tug objected to the sale of the property, and this date was fixed for the disposal of his objection. Dr. Tug's case seems to be this: On the 23rd of January 1923 he entered into an agreement, with the Managing Agents of the Annapurna Company, to the effect that the latter were to employ Dr. Tug's son as their servant on a pay of Rs. 200 per month, Dr. Tug or his son furnishing a security of Rs. 10,000. Dr. Tug under the agreement was not to receive any interest on the money deposited. The money was to be re-paid after the expiry of the term of appointment, namely three years, or as soon as the appointment of his son otherwise terminated. It was also provided that Dr. Tug might in the absence of his son carry out the duties entrusted, or to be entrusted to his son. On the foot of this agreement, says Dr, Tug, he deposited the sum of Rs. 10,0...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Gopal Ram and anr. Vs. Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.325
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The parties in this case referred a certain dispute pending in Court to the arbitration of a Pleader under a joint application dated the 8th of December 1924. An award was duly made on the 16th of January 1925, but on the objection of the plaintiffs it was remitted to the arbitrator for re-consideration with a direction to restrict it to the matters in suit. A fresh award was, therefore, made on the 19th of March 1925. It appears that an application was filed by the plaintiffs on the 7th of January 1925, asking leave to revoke the reference on the ground among others that the arbitrator was hard of hearing and unable to follow the evidence properly. A similar application was filed again on the 16th of March 1925, asking that the matter should not be referred to the arbitrator again, and suggesting that the arbitrator was not acting impartially. In the objections filed to the first award it was mentioned that the plaintiffs had sought to withdraw from the reference. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »