Allahabad Court December 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.
Sahu Nandlal Saran Vs. Sahu Dharam Kirti Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All440; 94Ind.Cas.961
Dalal, J.1. This an appeal from an order by the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad in execution proceedings. The decree which was sought to be executed was passed on the basis of an award on 18th May 1909. The present application for execution was filed on 17th November 1924 In the lower Court the judgment-debtor, Sahu Nandlal Saran objected to the execution of the decree on the following grounds: 1. That twelve years has expired since the date of the decree sought to be executed, so the application was barred under the provisions of Section 48(a), Civil P.C.; (2) that if for any reason there was no such bar then the application was barred by the period of three years fixed under Article 182(2), Lim. Act, because no step-in-aid of execution of the particular decree had been taken with three years of 17th November 1924; (3) that the decree was not capable of execution on the ground that there was no operative order in the decree for the recovery of the sum claimed by the decree-holder.2. Th...
Musammat Champa Devi and anr. Vs. Pirbhu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.429
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision asking for further inquiry into a complaint of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code which has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr. P.C. An application was made to the Sessions Judge who has rejected it. One Musammat Champa Devi filed a complaint charging Pirbhu Lal, Basdeo and Banarsi Das with offences under Sections 451 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. When asked for their answer to the charge they said that they would file a written statement. In the course of that written statement they made an imputation of unchastity against the complainant alleging that she had an illegal connection with one Piare Lal and that the case had been instituted at the instigation of Piare Lal in consequence. That complaint was dismissed, and Musammat Champa Devi and Piare Lal then filed this complaint of defamation against Pirbhu Lal, Basdeo and Banarsi Das.2. The Deputy Magistrate made an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C...
Jagrup Singh Vs. Indrasan Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All216; 92Ind.Cas.1
1. This appeal raises a simple question of law on the construction of Section 12, Sub-section (3) of the new Pre-emption Act. That question is this: The sub-section providing that in a case 'where there are more persons than one of the same class claiming pre-emption,' is the vendee, or proposed vendee, or contemplated vendee, or intended vendee, a person claiming pre-emption within the meaning of the section. In the case of Iswar Datt Upadhiya v. Mahesh Datt Upadhiya : AIR1925All747 a Division Bench of this Court, including one member of the Court now sitting, has decided that question in the affirmative. Nothing is more important in connexion with this question and with the new Act than that the decisions of this Court should be consistent, and, unless there ware some very strong reasons compelling us to take a different view, we should prefer to follow the view taken in the case just cited. In that case, for some reason the respondents were unrepresented, and it might be said that f...
Kalka Prasad Vs. Panna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All233; 92Ind.Cas.3
Sulaiman, J.1. This purports to be in appeal from an order passed by the District Judge on an appeal from an appellate order of a Collector. Thus it is a third appeal to the High Court. Section 182, Agra Tenancy Act, only allows a second appeal to the High Court and not a third appeal. Section 175 bars all appeals which are not provided for. It is, therefore, clear that the appeal does not lie.2. The learned vakil for the appellant relies on the case of Chhajmal Das v. Sirya (1906) 3 ALJ 625 where a learned Judge of this Court entertained a third appeal. That case was contrary to the decision in Lachmi Narain v. Nirotam Das (1906) 3 ALJ 623 reported in the same volume at p. 251, and must be deemed to have by implication been overruled by the decision of the Bench in the case of Lachmi Narain v. Nirotam Das (1906) 29 All 69 reported in the same volume at p. 272. As no appeal lies this appeal is accordingly dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11....
Allahabad Bank Vs. Bhagwan Das Johari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All262
1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder, the Allahabad Bank, Ltd., Bareilly, an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, dated 24th February 1925. The order does not contain the facts of the case which must therefore be narrated here. The decree-holder had obtained a decree against one Banke Lal and his four sons on 31st January 1924. An application for execution was presented on 8th May 1924 and the property of the whole family was attached and proceedings were being taken for sale of the property. Before a sale took place, Banke Lal alone was adjudged an insolvent by the Insolvency Court which appointed a Receiver for his property. His property thereupon vested in the Receiver. On 7th December 1924, subsequent to the insolvency proceedings, the pleader for the Bank requested the lower Court that the father's one-fifth share may be released and only four-fifths of the attached property may be sold. The Court passed an order accordingly. On 26th January 1925 two sons of the Banke La...
Bahora Sri Kishen and anr. Vs. Kunwar Chandra Sekhar Baksh Singh and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.353
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, and the question for consideration is whether a custom of pre-emption recorded in the wajib-ul-arz framed prior to the partition of the village can be enforced after the village has been partitioned by a co-sharer of one mahal in respect of property situate in another mahal. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim, but the lower Appellate Court, relying on the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Digambar Singh v. Ahmed Sayeed Khan 28 Ind. Cas. 34 : 37 A. 129 : 13 A.L.J 236 : 19 C.W.N. 393 : 17 M.L.T. 193 : 2 L.W. 303 : 21 C.L.J. 237 : 28 M.L.J. 556 : 17 Bom. L.R. 393 : (1915) M.W. N. 581 : 42 I.A. 10 (P.C.), held that in the absence of a fresh wajib-ul-arz prepared at the time of partition, indicating a contrary intention, it cannot be presumed as a matter of law or principle that the custom of pre-emption in force before partition was no longer to have effect or operation. It referred to the tarz ...
The Allahabad Bank Ld. Vs. Bhagwan Das Johari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.309
1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder, the Allahabad Bank, Ld., Bareilly, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, dated the 24th of February 1925. The order does not contain the facts of the case which must, therefore, be narrated here. The decree-holder had obtained a decree against one Banke La1 and his four sons on the 31st of Jannary 1924. An application for execution was presented on the 8th of May 1924 and the property of the whole family was attached and proceedings were being taken for sale of the property. Before a sale took place, Banke Lal alone, was adjudged an insolvent by the Insolvency Court which appointed a Receiver for his property. His property thereupon vested in the Receiver. On the 7th of December 1924 subsequent to the insolvency proceedings, the Pleader for the Bank requested the lower Court that the father's one-fifth share may be released and only four-fifths of the attached property may be sold. The Court passed an order accordingly. On the 2...
Shanker Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All318
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order dismissing the appeal of the accused and upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 454, I.P.C. The judgment of the appellate Court is as follows:The case has been carefully triad, and after examining the evidence I am fully satisfied that Shanker, appellant, took part in the burglary. The appeal is dismissed.2. This judgment, with the exception of giving a revisional Court an idea that the accused was charged with an offence of burglary, does not show anything more. The first point taken in revision is that this judgment is not in accordance with law inasmuch as it does not comply with the provisions of Section 367, Criminal P.C. That section requires that a judgment shall contain the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The dismissal of the appeal was not a summary one under Section 421 to which case Section 367 would not have applied. The dismissal was after it had bee...
Bandhu Singh Vs. Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All329
1. This is a suit brought by the Liquidator of the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation in liquidation against the members of the family, the original mortgagors of certain property, under a hypothecation bond dated the 4th of February 1907, in respect of a sum of Rs. 10,000.2. The only real question which was raised was whether the claim was barred. The Bank were the original mortgagees, but the suit was not brought by the Liquidator until October 1920, and the mortgage was entered into in 1907. The defence of limitation was raised by the defendants, and it, therefore, became necessary for the plaintiff to prove that there had been a payment or acknowledgment within the meaning of the Act so as to set the statute running afresh. The learned Judge found against the defence and decreed the suit and ordered the sale, holding both that interest had bean paid and that the debt had been acknowledged by means of a transaction carried out between September and December 1908.3. The facts w...
Lallu Singh Vs. Gur Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All404
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the defendant judgment-debtor arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff obtained a decree for future mesne profits from the date of the suit' to be ascertained in the execution department. The defendant was in wrongful possession of the plaintiff's village properties and made realizations. During the period subsequent to the institution of the suit he made collections of arrears of rent for the past periods and also rents for the current year. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that under the decree the plaintiff is entitled to recover whatever rents have been realized by the judgments debtor in the years in question irrespective of the fact whether those were arrears of rent for previous years or whether they were on account of the current year. In appeal before me it is contended that only such arrears as were collected by the defendant for the period subsequent to the institution of the suit should have been decreed. It is u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »