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.
B. Bandhu Singh Vs. the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation Under ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: 93Ind.Cas.295
1. This is a suit brought by the Liquidator of the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation in liquidation against the numbers of the family, the original mortgagors of certain property under a hypothecation bond dated the4th of February 1907, in respect of a sum of 'Rs, 10,000. 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 been paid and that the debt had been acknowledged by means of a transaction carried out between September and December 1908. The facts with ...
Lallu Singh Vs. Rai Bahadur Pandit Gur Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.768
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the defendant judgment-debtor arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff obtained 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 realisations. 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 realised by the judgment-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 urg...
Mehtab Rai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All321
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from a conviction under Section 251, Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that on the 24th of May 1925 the two accused Mehtab Rai and Ram Sarup arrived at Moradabad and through the help of a broker Ram Kishen were introduced to Rang Behari Lal the cashier of the Moradabad branch of the Imperial Bank. They showed him some samples of defaced coins and requested him to cash them next day when the Bank would open. Rang Behari Lal was reluctant to accept those coins and said that ho would consult other clerks of the Bank before giving his final opinion. The accused left some coins by way of sample with Rang Behari Lal and promised to return at about 3 p.m. in the afternoon. Rang Behari Lal approached another Officer of the Bank named Manohar Lal who came to the conclusion that the coins could not be taken by the Bank. The police were informed and some police officers came and concealed themselves in the house of Rang Behari Lal and lay in wait for the a...
Ram Charan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All614; 92Ind.Cas.882
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from an order dismissing an appeal in a Section 110 case. The accused, along with several other persons was tried, under Section 110 of the Criminal P.C. After the evidence of a number of prosecution witnesses including civil and military officers had been recorded, the accused was asked by the Magistrate why he should not be bound down. The reply of the accused was:I have no objection. I shall furnish security. I have never been convicted before. I shall produce no defence evidence. I have no witnesses.2. The Magistrate however examined more witnesses and did not take the statement to be a plea of guilty. He held on the evidence that a good case had been made out for an order under that section. The accused appealed to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge dealing with the case of this particular applicant remarked as follows:There is no force in the appeal of Ram Charan, Yadram and Bhabhuti inasmuch as all three of them expressed th...
Mulai Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All277; 92Ind.Cas.863
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from an order convicting the accused tinder Section 190 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 55.2. The applicant is the mukhtar-am of Mt. Daulata Kunwar who had constructed a temple inside her house, installed idols therein and performed puja by sounding conches in the evening. The Muhammadans of the mohalla objected to this and approached the District Magistrate who deputed a joint Magistrate to inspect the locality. The learned Magistrate being satisfied that there was an apprehension of some dispute passed an order under Section 144 of the Criminal P.C. on the 4th of February 1925 directing Mt. Daulata Kunwar to keep all the doors of the room in which the idols were kept closed and bolted, and to abstain from making any musical or other noise during a short period. After this the District Magistrate must have been trying to get the matter settled amicably if possible. On the 25th of February 1925 a large number of no...
Peary Lal Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All244
Mukerji, J.1. This is an execution first appeal and has arisen under the following circumstances: A certain suit, No. 428 of 1922, was instituted by two persons Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against one Ganeshi Lal as Defendant No. 1 and the Allahabad Bank Ltd. as the Defendant No. 2. The suit of Baij Nath and Murli Dhar was decreed for a sum of about Rs. 8,000 against Ganeshi Lal, but was dismissed as against the Bank. The Bank was awarded costs to the amount of Rs. 5-13-12. The decree was passed on the 27th of March 1923. On the 12th of May 1924 the Allahabad Bank applied for the attachment; of the decree obtained by Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against Ganeshi Lal in order to realize the money due to the Bank. Previous to this application for attachment, by a sale-deed, dated the 6th of February 1924, Baij Nath and Murli Dhar had sold the decree held by them against Ganeshi Lal to the appellant, Pearey Lal. Ganeshi Lal was declared an insolvent. Peary Lal, as a transferee of the decree obtai...
Muhammad Ismail Vs. Vahiduddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All270
Mukerji, J.1. This revision arises out of a suit for recovery of money brought on a promissory-note, dated the 10th of August 1923, admittedly executed by the respondent in favour of the plaintiff-applicant.2. The Court below has found in effect that the plaintiff was prosecuting one Khatratullah for cheating, before cheating was made a compoundable offence. The plaintiff, on consideration of the respondent giving the promissory-note for the sum of Rs. 400, withdrew the complaint with the permission of the Court. On this finding the learned Judge held that the suit on the promissory note was not maintainable as it was against public policy to receive money or a promise to receive money in consideration of an agreement to stifle a criminal prosecution.3. In this Court it has been urged that there is not only the promissory-note but also the additional facts that on three occasions the respondent admitted his liability for the debt and on the third occasion also sent by money order a sum...
Muhammad Afzal Vs. Muhammad Mahmud and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All327
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Subordinate Judge, holding that a certain deed, dated the 27th of March 1880, purporting to be a deed of waqf did not create a valid waqf. It is sufficient to say that this actual deed has already been on other occasions during the last seven years held to be invalid as waqf by two Subordinate Judges, one District Judge, and twice by two Judge Benches of this High Court of one of which a member of this Bench was also a member. The last time it came before this Court was in 1923, when it was held to be a gift in favour of private individuals which the donor in the course of the document wrongly described as a waqf, by my Lord the present Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Piggott. The judgment in that case is reported as Muhammad Afzal v. Maulvi Muhammad AIR 1924 All 28. We agree with the view there taken, and in substance with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge in this case. Although the dead is in favour of a family of a pious teach...
Ganga Dhar Baij Nath Vs. Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All602
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The question raised is whether there was a sufficient compliance with Section 17 of that Act in presenting an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The application was presented on the last day of limitation at about 3 o'clock. It would appear from the judgment of the Court below that it was accompanied by a tender of the amount payable under Section 17, but as no payments are passed by the treasury after 12 o'clock in the day the tender was not returned to the applicant or the money actually deposited in the treasury till the following day. I agree with the Court below that this was a substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 17. The applicant did everything that was possible for him to deposit the money at the time of presenting the application, and it was only owing to the particular rules in force of the local treasury that it could not be deposited till next day. The prin...
Ghissu Vs. Amir Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All604; 92Ind.Cas.555
Daniels, J.1. This revision is pressed on the ground that the Court below has entirely misread the findings submitted to is on a remand under Order 41, Rule 25. An examination of the record shows this to be correct. The issues remitted were:(1) Are the plots in suit situated in Mahal Basin Begam?(2) Did the defendant ever pay rent to the zamindar of Azizganj; and if so on what ground?2. The learned District Judge says: 'The finding on the first issue is in the affirmative, and on the second is in the negative.' In fact the finding on the first issue was in the negative. The learned Munsif found that the land in suit must be held to be in Azizganj. He also found that the Zamindar of Azizganj had been collecting rent. Through what extraordinary mistake the error crept into the learned Judge's judgment it is difficult now to know. The learned Judge, in treating the findings as being the opposite of what they really were, acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »