Allahabad Court April 1925 Judgments
Tulshi Ram Vs. Daya Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All604
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand under the following circumstances. In the course of the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff agreed that if the defendant would take an oath holding one of his eons in his lap with : his hand placed on the son's head, he would accept it. The defendant agreed to do this, and a date, was fixed for the required oath to be taken and for no other purpose. We may point out that the oath in question was one which it was not permissible to the Court to allow to be administered in view of Section 8 of the Oaths Act of 1873 as it was an oath affecting a 'third person. The Court, therefore, acted wrongly in fixing a date for the oath to be taken. On the date so fixed, the defendant asserted that he was unable to produce his son as the plaintiff had persuaded his wife not to allow her son to come. This allegation, so far as it concerned the plaintiff, may have been, and very likely was, false. However that may be, it was impossible for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhunde Chaudhri Vs. the Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All699
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction restraining the Municipal Board of Kunch from interfering with the plaintiff's construction on a certain piece of land. The plaintiff had given notice under Section 178 of the Municipalities Act to the Municipal Board for sanction to build upon it.2. The Municipal Board, for reasons which are not material to consider, refused to grant sanction to build upon this piece of land. The plaintiff feeling himself aggrieved by that order appealed to the District Magistrate who confirmed it.3. He then instituted the present suit and alleged that the land on which he wanted to build being his own land and not a street, the Municipal Board had no right to refuse permission or prevent him from building upon it. The Municipal Board took up the position that the land was in fact a street within the meaning of the Act and also that they had full power to refuse the sanction and therefore the claim was barred under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Jorhawan and ors. Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All18
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs have a right to set up door-leaves or a gate in the eastern wall of an enclosure newly constructed and to build a house on the open space inside the enclosure. The suit is in substance to challenge the refusal of the Municipal Board of Gorakhpur to grant permission to build the constructions or to put door-leaves in an archway.2. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the preliminary ground that it is barred under the provisions of Section 321 of Act No. 2 of 1916.3. It appears that the plaintiffs applied to the Municipal Board for permission to build an enclosure round their land and to make certain constructions. They also wanted to have door-leaves set up in the entrance on the west side. A report was called for by the Building Sub-Committee which recommended the granting of the application partially. The Board however by its resolution refused to grant any sancti...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Jagatamba Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All547
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order holding that the applicants were not entitled to sue as paupers.2. They are minor sons suing to set aside an alienation by their father of joint family property. The learned Judge has found that there is a share which had not been transferred at the time when the suit was filed and that, therefore, they are possessed of sufficient means to enable them to pay the Court-fee. This is a finding of fast which we must accept in revision. It is argued for the applicants that this share is useless to them because they could not raise money on it, as the Privy Council have held in the case of Gharib-ullah v. Khalak Singh (1903) 25 All. 407, that no guardian can be appointed for a minor member of a joint family. If this argument is correct, then every minor member of a joint family, except in the rare case of his possessing separate property, must be ipso facto entitled to sue as pauper. We are not prepared to accept this result or to...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Prasad and anr. Vs. Munia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All759
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of an order returning the plaint in a suit under Section 92 of the code of Civil Procedure for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiffs alleged that the houses and other properties detailed in the plaint were trust properties situated in the cantonments at Meerut and had been endowed for public and religious purposes for over a century. They further alleged that part of the constructions had been made from public subscriptions and that houses and residential quarters had been built for barbers. It was the plaintiffs' case that the barber community of the cantonments used to appoint a manager to look after the worship of the temples and to manage the properties, and that the last manager was one Dhi Mai, father of defendant No. 2, who died in 1916. The plaintiffs went on to allege that since the death of Dhi Mai no manager had been appointed, but the defendant No. 1, a lady, as guardian of defendant No. 2, had been acting a...
Tag this Judgment!Charan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All798
ORDERBanerji, J.1. Charan Singh, applicant, was convicted under Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, fined Rs. 50 or two months' simple imprisonment in default, and had his license cancelled for the remaining portion of the year 1925; that is to say, about nine months from the date of the order. The facts of the case were that the Superintendent of Police personally saw the accused driving in what he regarded as a grossly negligent and dangerous manner. He stopped him and took his address, directing him to appear for examination in driving. The Reserve Inspector reported that applicant was not qualified to hold a license, and the license was therefore, cancelled by the Superintendent of Police.2. Thereupon Charan Singh put in an application to the District Magistrate stating the facts, and asserting that the cancellation of the license without conviction was illegal. The District Magistrate sent the application to the Superintendent of Police with the following remark : 'For favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!Basanti Bai Vs. Nanhe Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All29
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by a claimant, Mt. Basanti Bai, arising out of certain insolvency proceedings. On an application presented by a creditor of the firm of Nanhe Mal, the firm, which was owned by Nanhe Mal and his three sons including Raj Narain, the youngest, was adjudicated an insolvent on the 9th of October 1922. On the 21st of April 1922 and the 11th of May 1922, Raj Narain had transferred by two registered sale-deeds two houses which had been previously acquired in his name, to Mt. Basanti Bai, the appellant. The first deed was for Rs. 800 and the second one for Rs. 2,500. The entire sale considerations of these two deeds were paid before the Sub. Registrar.2. Jugal Kishore, one of the creditors, put in an application, on the 22nd of February 1923, before the Court stating that the two houses, which had been ostensibly sold in April and May 1922, were part of the assets of the insolvent firm and should be attached by the receiver. This application was sent to the offi...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Vs. Emperor Through Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All540
Mears, C.J.1. One Moti Lal has applied in revision to this Court against his conviction and sentence by a first; class Magistrate the conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore on appeal. Moti Lal was convicted of the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, and the contention of his learned Counsel is that on the facts found by the Courts below, the conviction cannot be supported. The facts are briefly these : One Mt. Basanti was in possession of her husband's property which consisted inter alia, of some shops. On the death of the lady, there were two claimants to the property-one Kanhaiya Lal, a cousin of her late husband, and the other the applicant before this Court. He claimed to be an adopted son. The property immediately in question was a shop which was in the occupancy of a tenant, Yusuf. Both Kanhaiya Lal and Moti Lal appeared as witnesses in support of Yusuf's defence. The defence failed and Kanhaiya Lal got a decree. Subsequently...
Tag this Judgment!Prem NaraIn and ors. Vs. Jagdamba Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All762
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit for defamation brought by the plaintiff, a peshkar in the employ of the Bareilly Municipal Board, against four members of the Board. The Board had passed a resolution on the 15th of September, 1919 that the plaintiff should be removed from service. The Commissioner asked for a further report from the Board before accepting the resolution. The majority of the Board then went back on their previous opinion and recommended the reinstatement of the plaintiff. The four defendants wrote a dissentient note. The dissenting note contains the following passage which is relied on by the plaintiff as furnishing his cause of action:who has earned a notoriety for quarrelsomeness, not only by assuming a defiant and insulting attitude before a full house towards a member of the Board (which formed the subject-matter of the case against him), but also by resorting to similar acts while in service under his former employers, but rather had been at the root of mu...
Tag this Judgment!Meharban Singh Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All75
Stuart, J.1. This second appeal has arisen in the following manner: On the 14th May 1914, the defendant executed a simple unregistered money bond for good consideration of Rs. 3,999 at 12 per cent simple interest in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was not liable to pay the amount till 5th June 1917. On the 3rd June 1920, an endorsement was written on the back of the bond by one Sumer Singh on the instructions of the plaintiff. This was signed by the defendant. We translate the endorsement as follows:Accounts having been made up the sum of Rs. 6,500 has resulted as principal and interest 'in which' (this is a literal translation: the words are jismen) a usufructuary mortgage of village Samogarh for Rs. 4,000 has been executed today: Rs. 10 in cash have been paid.2. The same day a deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the village Samogarh. This deed is the 'usufructuary mortgage' to which reference is made in the endorsement. The deed is not a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »