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.
Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. Gaya Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All810
Stuart, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought under Section 165 of the Tenancy Act by certain zamindars for profits. During the period in which the profits have become due Ram Dayal was lambardar. Ram Dayal had, however, died before the suit was brought and it was sought to obtain the profits from his sons as his representatives. The trial Court awarded profits on a basis of demands. The lower appellate Court has awarded profits on a basis of collections.2. In second appeal it is asserted that the profits should have been given on a basis of demands and in support of that proposition reliance is placed upon the authority of the Full Bench decision in Bharat Singh v. Tej Singh (1918) 40 All. 246. That decision does not, however, support the appellant's contention. The suit out of which the appeal decided in Bharat Singh v. Tej Singh (1918) 40 All. 246 arose was one brought under Section 164 against the lambardar and the Full Bench decided that, where a suit had been ...
Mt. Nur Bibi Vs. Sk. Ali Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All550
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant No. 1 was his legally wedded wife, that he had come to the house of her father when on the 6feh of June, 1922, her father and brothers forcibly under a threat of injury to his person and life made him sign a document purporting to be a deed of divorce, that accordingly no valid divorce was pronounced by him and that even if there was a divorce it was a revocable one and he revoked it by registered notices on the 17th of June, 1922.2. The contesting defendant No. 1 in her written statement denied that there had been any coercion or compulsion and pleaded that a valid divorce had been pronounced and that it was an irrevocable one.3. The Court of first instance although finding that some moral force might have been used in obtaining the document came to the conclusion that even if it was obtained under compulsion it was valid. It thought that a ...
Sarju Prasad Vs. Bhagwati Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All542
Lindsay, J.1. This appeal is up for admission under Order 41, Rule 11, and from the date of the sale which took place in November 1923, it appears that the law to be applied is that contained in the Agra Pre-emption Act, Act XI of 1922.2. Two wajib-ul-arzes were filed in the case, one of the year 1833 and the other of 1860 and Dr. Agarwala, who appears for the vendee-appellant, informs us that the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 contains no provision for pre-emption. He, therefore, refers us to the language of Section 5 of the Agra Pre-emption Act, Act XI of 1922, as it stood before it was altered by the amending Act, Act VIII of 1923. According to the former state of things, Section 5 laid down that a right of pre-emption should be deemed to exist only in mahals or villages in respect of which the wajib-ul-arz prepared prior to the commencement of this Act recorded a custom, contract or declaration, etc.3. On the language of this section as it stood, it necessarily followed that the wajib-ul-arz...
Parbhu Lal Vs. Chattar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All557
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal and appeal No. 1106 of 1923 arise out of similar facts. It appears that certain persons executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of three persons Badam, Uday Ram and Chiranji Mai. Badam made a mortgage to plaintiff-appellant in the present appeal and Uday Ram and Chiranji Mal executed a simple mortgage in favour of the appellant in the other appeal. Among the properties mortgaged was the interest of the mortgagors as usufructuary mortgagees. The plaintiffs brought their respective suits to recover money and claimed the right to bring to sale the mortgagee's interest of Badam in one suit and Uday Ram and Ghiranji Mai in the other. The mortgagors of these mainly contended that they had satisfied the usufructuary mortgage and redeemed the property and that therefore there was nothing to be sold.2. Both the Courts found against the plaintiffs. They held ihter alia, that the original mortgagors had no notice of transfer of the mortgagee rights and were therefore...
Bahadur Vs. Raja Moti Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All580
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that certain ejectment proceedings carried through in the Revenue Court were null and void and ineffectual as against the right of the plaintiff and that the defendant No. 1, the zamindar, had not acquired any right in the said lands as' against him. There was a further prayer for a declaration that the proceedings relating to delivery of possession in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 9 were also not binding on him. There were many pleas takes in the written statement filed by the contesting defendants to which we shall refer later. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit and on appeal that decree has been affirmed by the District Judge.2. In order to understand the points in dispute it is necessary to recite briefly the history of this litigation.3. It appears that the defendant No. 1, who is a zamindar of the village, granted two leases in November, 1909 in respect of different sets of plots in f...
Lodai Ram Vs. Sukhdeo Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All776
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The plaintiff and the Defendants Nos. 2 to were the holders of a grove bearing number 311. The zamindars, by a partition among themselves, divided the site of the grove, and a portion of it described in the patwari's papers as No. 311/2/2 was given to a co sharer. He leased out this portion of the land to the Defendant No. 1 who has since died and is now represented by his heirs. The plaintiff brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for recovery of possession from the lessee.2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court held that although Plot No. 311 was undoubtedly the grove of the plaintiff the trees had been, for a long time, falling down, and ultimately only 14 trees were left standing on the land, and that a portion of the grove having been leased out by the zamindar to the principal defendant, and the principal defendant having occupied the land for more than six months, the plaintiff's right ...
Emperor Vs. Kutroo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All434
Walsh, J.1. In our view this appeal succeeds on the merits, but not upon the point of law upon which the Government sought by the appeal to challenge the decision of the learned Judge. This miscreant, as he appears to be, having the reputation of a badmash likely to be engaged in dacoities, was suspected of having arms and ammunition in his house. Thereupon a patwari, who, by the rules applicable to Kumaun, entitled to exercise the powers of a police officer, searched his house with witnesses and found gun-powder, some dynamite, and a detonator and fuse. He was thereupon convicted and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. He appealed and took the point that there had been no proper search because there had been no order under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and because the search was not made in the presence of an officer specially appointed or by virtue of his office under Section 30. We agree with this view for reasons which we will state in a moment, but t...
Ammar and ors. Vs. Govind and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All465
1. On the 26th of July, 1921, five of the present respondents to this appeal brought a suit against Ammar, plaintiff No. 1 in this matter, alleging that they (the respondents) were tenants-in-chief and that he (Ammar) was a subtenant. The suit was for arrears of rent. Ten days later Ammar and his three brothers brought a suit in the Civil Court against all the six respondents alleging that they (the four brothers) had a joint and equal right of occupancy with the six respondents. On the 28th of September, 1921 the Revenue Court passed an ex parte decree in favour of the present respondents, thus accepting their statement that they were in fact tenants-in-chief, and that Ammar was a sub-tenant. There the matter rested for the moment, but on the 20th of December the Munsif gave a decision in the ease now under consideration. One of the pleas undoubtedly taken was that the suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs were joint in occupancy with the defendants was a matter that was exclusiv...
Ram Ghulam Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All401
ORDERStuart, J.1. This is an application for revision against the order of the District Magistrate, Hamirpur, dated the 10th November, 1924, convicting the applicant under Section 186, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in a summary trial.2. The prosecution was started on the written complaint of B. Bhagwati Prasad Sinha, Sub-Divisional Officer who is said to have been obstructed by the applicant in his attempts to re-organise and reconstitute the Korara panchayat according to the orders of the District Magistrate.3. The Sub-Divisional Officer in his complaint Exhibit D says that he called the Panches with their records at his camp in Damar and they came as instructed. He proposed to them the inclusion of a member of the depressed classes in the Panchayat but this displeased Ram Ghulam applicant who is one of the Panches and he eyed the other Panches and declared that the Panchayat would cease forthwith. He, the Sub-Divisional Officer, argued with him for a wh...
Munno Devi Vs. the Muncipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All415
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Agra recommending that the convictions of Mt. Munoo Devi, a school teacher, under Sections 185 and 307 of the Municipalities Act (Local Act No. II of 1916 as amended by Act No. II of 1919) and the sentences of fine of Rs. 10 on each count be set aside.2. The facts are not in dispute. The lady applied to the Municipal Board on the 29th of July,1924, for permission to rebuild certain parts of her house, but in her application she did not clearly specify the extent of the proposed building. On the 30th of July the municipal draftsman prepared a map showing the western side of the building only. Acting probably on the approval of the Ward Member she began to build in anticipation of sanction. On the 25th of August she applied for the preparation of a new plan including both the western and eastern sides. The Board ordered a new plan to be prepared and the applicant to deposit the necessary fees. On the 2nd of September before any ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »