Allahabad Court February 1925 Judgments
Panchaiti Akhara Vs. Beni Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All587; 87Ind.Cas.262
Mukerji, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies and that objection seems to be valid.2. It appears that the decree-holder, the appellant in this case, obtained a decree from the Court of Small Causes against the respondent. The decree was transferred to the Court of Muusif, Allahabad, in order to enable the decree-holder to attach immovable property. He sought the attachment of certain groves, hold by baa judgment-debtor, in an area to which the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act applies. The judgment-debtor objected, that under Section 16 of the above mentioned. Act the groves were not saleable in execution of a decree. The decree-holder then made a statement to the effect that he wanted to sell not the groves as they stood but only the trees. Evidently he meant that the purchaser would be required to cut the trees and take the timber or wood away. The question, therefore, that arose in the case was whether the trees were, apart from the land or as apart of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Chaube Vs. Ram Dular Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All736; 87Ind.Cas.439
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to revise a judgment of the Court of Small Causes under the following circumstances: The applicant obtained a document, said to be a sub-mortgage, from the respondent on the 3rd of August, 1923, for a consideration paid by him of Rs. 300. It appears that the respondent was in possession of certain plots of land as mortgage under a deed, dated the 10th August, 1918. The respondent said that he would pay interest till Jeth following the execution of the deed when the plaintiff would take possession of the property mortgaged. The applicant said in the plaint that he had neither been paid interest nor had he been put into possession of the property. He accordingly sued to recover his money with interest.2. The respondent pleaded payment of the money which he had borrowed, and also urged that the contract was an illegal one and could not be enforced and the money could not be refunded.3. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the money ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Jee Vs. Sat NaraIn Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All572; 87Ind.Cas.205
Walsh, J.1. This to my mind is a very clear case, and I find myself unable to agree with the decision of the Court below. Nobody can doubt that to affirm the decision of the Court below would result in grave injustice and injury to the decree-holder, which would be entirely due, as it seems to me, to the acts of the Court itself. Except so far as they afford a guide for the principles which ought to govern cases of this kind, the authorities referred to in the Courts below and in the arguments do not really assist one, because these cases must depend in the main upon the facts peculiar to them. In this case there are two appeals and there are two decrees, both of which were obtained by the appellant decree-holder in Bombay in 1917, one on the 12th of May, 1917, and one on the 11th of June, 1917. They were transferred to the Court of the Muasif of Jaunpur for execution, presumably upon the application of the decree-holder. On the 20th of February, 1918 an order was made by the Munaif of...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat NaraIn Dube Vs. Nageshwar Prasad Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All663
Lindsay, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption brought in respect of certain property situated in the village Ajgara. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the patti in which the share sold is situated. The defendant vendee is a co-sharer in another patti, but claims to be related by blood to the vendor. The Court of first instance found that no custom of pre-emption was established and did not proceed to try the other issues raised in the case. The lower Appellate Court, however, contented itself by holding that even if there was a custom of pre-emption, the plaintiff was not entitled to preference because the defendant vendee was related to the vendor and was consequently entitled to preference.2. The wajib-ul-arz of the village Ajgara, prepared in 1820, allows a right of preemption in the first instance to the co-sharers of the village. The wajib-ul-arz prepared in 1862 is more specific. It gives a right of pre-emption to near co-sharers (hissedar qaribi) and in case of th...
Tag this Judgment!Surja Vs. Joti Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All681; 87Ind.Cas.445
Mukerji, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for sale to recover money on a bond executed by him. The main ground is that at the time of the execution of the deed he was a minor.2. Both the Courts below have placed the burden of proof that he was a major on the date of the execution of the deed on the plaintiff. Even in this view of the case the lower Appellate Court found that the defendant had made certain admissions which were enough to shift the burden on to the defendant and that the defendant's evidence had failed to rebut the case made by the plaintiff and, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant appeals.3. The matter is now set at rest by the decsion of a Bench of this Court in Narain Singh v. Chiranji Lal A.I.R. 1924 730 in which it was pointed out that in a casa like the present the burden of proof lies on the person who says that the defendant was a minor at the time of the execution of the document. It is admitted that if the burden of proof lay on th...
Tag this Judgment!DIn Dayal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All443; 87Ind.Cas.517
Walsh, J.1. I am unable to find any justification for this order. It lays itself open to such serious criticism that it is difficult to know where quite to begin. The order of the Deputy Magistrate, by which expression I mean the judgment, is mainly based upon a case which he had heard himself in which some of these persons were involved. I will deal the question of the personnel in a moment. But it is quite plain that although he referred to other matters, he could not leave out of his mind the case of assault which he referred to, and which he had heard the same day. That case of assault in which he convicted has bean upset, and, therefore, three-fourths of the judgment of the Deputy Magistrate disappears. I will refer to the judgment in which it was upset in one moment. There would have been no harm, and it would have been only natural for him trying a security case and an assault case on the same day against the same persons, to use his knowledge of the one to govern his judgment i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›