Allahabad Court March 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.
Sat NaraIn Lal Vs. Ganga Jal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All409; 94Ind.Cas.1005
1. We are of opinion that this appeal must be allowed, and we think that in all probability Mr. Justice Walsh would have decided this matter differently if there had been called to his attention the cases of Desraj Singh v. Karam Khan (1896) 19 All 71 and Ruddar Singh v. Dhanpal Singh (1903) 26 All 156. Ganga Jal obtained two decrees against Sat Narain Lal, the judgment-debtor, on the 12th of May and the 11th of June 1917, respectively. They were decrees of the Bombay Court and were transferred to Jaunpur for execution. Thereupon Sat Narain Lal commenced a suit alleging that these decrees had been obtained by fraud. The judgment-debtor asked that execution proceedings should be stayed until the decision of his suit, and the Munsif, who was already in control of the execution proceedings in the Court of Jaunpur, made an order:Execution proceedings shall be stayed until decision of the regular suit.2. This was on the 20th February 1918. When the end of June was approaching and the Munsif...
Firm Bisesar Ram-dassi Ram Vs. Firm Har Kishen-pahlad Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All412; 87Ind.Cas.370
Boys, J.1. In this case a decree was passed ex parte on the 4th of August, 1924, for a sum of Rs. 174-7-9 with six per cent, interest. On the 16th of August, 1924, the defendant applied for restoration under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. When he applied for restoration, the defendant deposited the sum of Rs. 174-7-9, which was the amount due under the decree at the date of the decree, the 4th of August, 1924. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes dismissed the application for restoration on the ground that the application should have bean accompanied by a deposit of the amount due from the judgment debtor under the decree. So far he was clearly correct. But he went on to interpret these words to mean the amount entered in the decree plus the future interest at 6 per cent, from the 4th of August to the 16th of August, 1924, and here by the respondent an attempt is made to suggest that the words 'at the time of presenting the application' in Section 17 govern not...
Kehar Singh Vs. Jahangir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All487
Lindsay, J.1. After hearing counsel for the parties in this case, we have decided that the appeal must prevail. The facts may be briefly stated. The suit for pre-emption was filed on the 7th September, 1922, to pre-empt a sale, which was carried out on the 19th September, 1921.2. On the 14th September, that is one 'week after the suit had been filed the vendee re-sold the property to the vendor, and on the 11th October, 1922, he put in a written statement saying that the plain' tiff had no cause of action inasmuch as he the vendee, had got rid of the property by re-transferring it to the vendor. The Court of first instance applied the doctrine of lis pendens and decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the first Court's finding on the strength of the ruling to be presently referred to that the doctrine of Us pendens did not apply.3. In our opinion the decision of the Court below is erroneous. The case upon which the lower Appellate Court relied is reported in Herkeshi v...
Ghumna and anr. Vs. Ram Chandra Rao and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All437
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 4 and 5 who are transferees pendente lite arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff as the heirs of one Rama Kant for possession of a house by avoidance of a deed of gift dated the 21st of November, 1921. The plaintiffs claimed that the deed of gift had been obtained by fraud and was also void as being for an immoral and illegal consideration. They further alleged that their father, Moreshwar Rao, who would have been the heir to the deceased Rama Kant, had become a sanyasi and therefore must be treated as civilly dead and the plaintif's were the real heirs. The claim was contested by the transferees and the plaintiffs right to maintain the suit or to challenge the relation was disputed.2. Both the Courts below have given the plaintiffs a decree.3. The facts as found are as follows:Rama Kant, deceased became infatuated with Musammat Prabhawati, defendant No. 2, who is at present undergoing sentence of transportation for life. She ...
Emperor Vs. Mahadeo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All388
Walsh, J.1. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal must succeed. It has been brought on a Question of principle, and we are bound to say that the Magistrate, no doubt doing his best to give the accused, as he said, a sort of vague benefit of the doubt, has misunderstood the legal position in a way which would be very serious for the administration of the law under this Act if it were correct. He discusses what would have been likely to have been found in the house of the accused if the accused had been carrying on illicit distillation of liquor. That was not the charge. He says that he also inspected the room and there was no evidence of distillation. That also was not the charge, and he, therefore, allowed his mind to be diverted by irrelevant considerations. He then comes to the conclusion, apparently with great hesitation and as an element of doubt, that the articles discovered in the room were kept there without the knowledge of the accused. That is quite irrelevant. He al...
Gajraj Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All537
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from an order dated the 20th of December, 1924, contained in the judgment in a case against the opposite party, directing that a case against the present applicants be started under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code to be tried by a Deputy Magistrate.2. The police challaned the members of the opposite party under Sections 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. A cross-complaint was filed by the accused persons in that case against the complainants under Sections 147 and 323. A police report on this complaint was called for and after the accused in the case challaned by the police had been convicted, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint of these accused persons against the complainants under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The accused parsons appealed to the learned Sessions Judge who, upholding their convictions, dismissed their appeals. He felt inclined to hold that there was a free fight between both par...
Babu Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All396; 87Ind.Cas.523
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction of the applicant under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code and another conviction under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act. The sentence was one of two months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50 fine under the former conviction and one of two months' rigorous imprisonment under the latter, the sentences of imprisonment running concurrently.2. The charge against the applicant under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, as it is to be found in the charge-sheet, is as follows : 'You on or about the 10th day of Mohurrum this year at 4 p.m. or after threw bricks from your roof and fired a gun from the same roof in such a rash manner that it endangered human lives of persons who were passing on the roads near about your mohalla.'3. The learned Magistrate, who convicted the applicant in his judgment stated as follows : 'The evidence showed that there was a communal riot in the city of Pilibhit in different parts of it. The accuse...
Ram Prasad Singh Vs. Nepal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All420
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit by which the plaintiff sought recovery of possession as the usufructuary mortgagee of certain plots mortgaged to him under a deed of November 12, 1914. The mortgage was effected by a Hindu widow of the name of Mt. Gaura, but it has been found as a fact that she was the absolute owner of the property mortgaged. She purported to mortgage with possession three specified plots of land. She put the plaintiff into possession, and he remained in possession for six years. He neither received any rent from Mt. Gaura and still less did he pay any rent to her. On the lady's death the defendants, who are her heirs, being the nearest reversioners of her late husband, succeeded in ejecting the plaintiff. Hence the present suit. It was dismissed by the first Court, but a decree for recovery of possession was given by the learned Subordinate Judge in a carefully reasoned judgment with which we find ourselves in substantial agreement. A learned Judge of this Court in secon...
Kanji Mall Vs. Durga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All555
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for profits, and accounts had to be adjusted as between three distinct parties, namely, the plaintiff, Kanji Mai, the third defendant, Durga Prasad, and the other two defendants, Jugal Kishor and Ram Chandra, in respect of whom a joint account was required to be taken. The case underwent various vicissitudes; but in the end a learned Judge of this Court on the basis of express findings of fact, returned upon issues remitted for'the purpose, arrived at the conclusion thai! Kanji Mai, the plaintiff was, on a fair settlement of accounts, entitled to recover Rs. 242-7-6 in all from the other co-sharers. He also found that Durga Prasad was in debt to the other co-sharers by reason of realizations which he had made in excess of his rateable share, to the amount of Rs. 202-14-11. On these facts the learned Judge rightly held that there ought to be a decree in favour of Kanji Mai against Durga Prasad alone for a sum of Rs. 202-14-11. It was found that there had be...
Har Prasad and ors. Vs. Gulzari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All651
1. The only question raised by these two connected appeals is as to the interpretation of a document. That was an agreement between a tenant of the names of Bhola and his land-holder as to the terms on which Bhola would be permitted to plant a grove. The parties are agreed that Bhola was to become the owner of one quarter of the grove, subject only to such restrictions as were laid down in the agreement itself. One of these restrictions was that he should not sell this one quarter of the grove to any stranger, but only to the proprietor by whose permission the grove was to be planted or to co-sharers of such proprietor. As a matter of fact there has been no sale of the share in question, but only a mortgage, and the solo point for us to determine is whether this prohibition in terms directed only against a sale must be read, either by necessary implication, or on a view of the position of the parties and the terms of the document as a whole, as being also a covenant against mortgaging....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »