Allahabad Court April 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.
Hasan Ali and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All22
Boys, J.1. This appeal concerns a dacoity said to have been committed and which was undoubtedly committed, at the house of Brij Rai Pandey, in the village of Pipra Hamail, in the Gorakhpur district, at some time in the middle of the night of the 27th-28th July 1924. The police station of Hata was five miles off, and the first report was made at 10 a.m. on the 28th. One of the alleged dacoits, Dukhi, was captured on the spot, and on the 31st of July, he was taken before a Magistrate and made a confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and he has not retracted from that confession though he has filed an appeal from jail. His uncle, Nagri, says that he, Nagri, gave himself up after having consulted the karinda of his zamindar. He suggests that he was alarmed when he found that one of the dacoits, his nephew Dukhi, was missing, and apparently thought it advisable to consult the karinda as to the best way of saving his own skin. On the other hand, a constable ...
In Re: J. H. Chandler and Co., Ltd. (In Liquidation) Official Liquidat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.927
1. The Official Liquidator claims a sum of Rs. 1,000 from Mr. H. I. Phillips, agent of the Allahabad Bank Ltd. at Patna, on the ground that he is a contributory inasmuch as he agreed to purchase 100 shares of Rs. 10 each by subscribing to the menorandum of association before it was filed with the Registrar.2. Mr. Phillips denies his liability and has filed an affidavit to state the facts. The affidavit is really the basis on which the case is to be decided because there is no counter affidavit.3. The facts appear from the affidavit to be these, Mr. Chandler, who was anxious to float the Company, approached Mr. Phillips, and at his request Mr. Phillips signed the memorandum to be attached to the articles of association, to be forwarded to the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, for registration. Mr. Phillips admits that he put himself down for 100 shares. It also appears from the affidavit that in 1921, apparently after the registration of the Company, Mr. Phillips received a letter from ...
Motilal Vs. Bishambhar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All431
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order dated the 16th of November, 1923. The plaintiff had instituted a suit against Chhunnu Lai and obtained an ex parte decree. Chhunnu Lal applied to have that ex parte decree set aside, and while that application was pending, he died. His son, Bishambhar Nath, applied to continue the application as the legal representative of the deceased applicant. Moti Lal, on the other hand, objected to the application on the ground that the right to sue did not survive, and that, therefore, Bishambhar Nath, though the son of the deceased, was not his legal representative so far as this ease was concerned. In support of his contention Moti Lal relied on an alleged oral will said to have been made by the deceased Chhunnu Lal under which he is said to have directed that this litigation should be put an end to and that the decree passed against him should be accepted.2. The learned Subordinate Judge in disposing of the application of Bishambh...
Ram Baran Chaube and anr. Vs. Bhagwati Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All804; 83Ind.Cas.142; 89Ind.Cas.295
Boys, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. It was a suit for a declaration of title that the plaintiff was mortgagee in possession of Plot No. 118 and that he was not a tenant of the defendants, and he also prayed for redemption of two simple mortgages. It appears that the original owners were Dharam Dut and Aman Dut whose heirs were Defendants Nos. 10 to 16. A simple mortgage was executed by Dharam Dut and Aman Dut in February 1876, in favour of one Debi Dayal whose heirs were represented by Defendants Nog. 1 to 8. A second mortgage, similar in all respects, was executed on the 28th of September 1876. Finally Dharam Dut and Aman Dut executed in favour of one Pabaru Sunar a usufructuary mortgage on the 22nd of May 1879. The grandson of Pabaru Sunar, Ram Nath, who was really a pro forma defendant 3rd party, sold his rights, on the 7th of August 1909, to Ram Baran Chaube and Hazari Chaube, the present plaintiffs, and got possession. On the 17th of April 1888, the heirs of Debi Dayal, the p...
Lala Moti Lal Vs. Bishamber Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.95
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order dated the 16th of November 1923. The plaintiff had instituted a suit against Chhunnu Lal and obtained an ex prate decree. Chhunnu Lal applied to have that ex parte decree set aside, and while that application was pending he died. His son Bishambhar Nath applied to continue the application as the legal representative of the deceased applicant. Moti Lal, on the other hand, objected to the application on the ground that the right to sue did not survive, and that, therefore, Bishambhar Nath, though the son of the deceased, was not his legal representative so far as this case was concerned. In support of his contention Moti Lal relied on an alleged oral Will said to have been made by the deceased Chhunnu Lal under which he is said to have directed that this litigation should be put an end to and that the decree passed against him should be accepted.2. The learned Subordinate Judge in disposing of the application of Bishambhar Nath which pr...
Raja Devi and anr. Vs. Muhammad Yaqub and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All411
Boys, J.1. This is a reference by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Saharanpur under Order 46, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code asking this Court to express its opinion in regard to two questions which are set out in the order of reference. The matter is really a very simple one. The plaintiff was the owner of a mango grove of which she gave the crops to the defendants for three years at an annual price of Rs. 400. The defendants took the crops for the first year and paid the price. They took the crops for the second year but did not pay, with the result of a suit by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 400 and Rs. 31 interest.2. The first question that we are asked is whether a contract for sale of a crop of mango fruit not in existence at the time of the contract is a contract relating to movable or immovable property?3. We have not the smallest hesitation in. holding that it is a contract in reference-to movable property and as such did not require a registered document. Growing...
Muhammad Abdul Rab Vs. Khodaija Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All457
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal arises under the Guardians and Wards Act. The appellant was appointed guardian of the minor, Mt. Khodaija, and under sanction of the District Judge, he exchanged certain property of her own with that of his minor ward on the 25th of July, 1912. In 1916 he was discharged, and the girl's father was appointed her guardian. Subsequently she was married, and her husband Aziz Ahmad was appointed her guardian. Aziz Ahmad applied to the District Judge for re-opening the exchange on the ground that it was highly disadvantageous to his minor wife. The learned Judge, after enquiry, passed an order, on the 28th of April, 1921, setting aside the deed of exchange and ordering Abdul Rab, the appellant, to return the property which belonged to the minor before the exchange. This order expressly mentioned that Abdul Rab was agreeable to the cancellation of the exchange. Abdul Rab came up in revision here. This revision was dismissed on the ground that the said order was a con...
Budhan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All694
Boys, J.1. This is a ease in which security has been taken from three persons under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One of them, Budhan, has applied to this Court in revision. He, together with the others, received a copy of an order under Section 112 of which the following are the material terms : 'are members of a common gang of dacoits, and that you are dacoits, and house-breakers and thieves by habit and you jointly commit offences.' The Magistrate found in following terms at the end of his judgment : ' I, therefore, confirm the notice given to the accused and order them each to execute a bond, etc., etc.' As he took security for three years, the case went up to the Sessions Judge who confirmed his order. The application for revision made by Budhan in this Court came before Mr. Justice Stuart. In the first of the grounds reliance was placed upon a ruling of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad v. Emperor : AIR1925All250 . Mr. Justice Stuart referred the case to a Ben...
Bhagwan DIn and ors. Vs. Sri Kishen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All85
Stuart, J.1. The only matter to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-appellants have the rights to redeem a mortgage which was executed by Sheo Dayal in favour of Lachhman in the year 1857. They sued to redeem five mortgages. They have been allowed to redeem four; but the Courts have held that the redemption of the mortgage of 1857 is time-barred. The suit was instituted in 1920, 63 years after the execution of the mortgage, and in order to redeem, it is necessary for the plaintiff-appellants to show that there are circumstances in the case which will permit the extension of the period permitted by Article 148 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act. They argue that they have a right to extend that period. They base this alleged right first of all upon the existence of three alleged acknowledgments of liability in respect of the existence of the mortgage which, they say, fall under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. The first of these is a certified copy of the...
Dhum Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All448; 88Ind.Cas.1
Banerji, J.1. A report was made at the police station, Srinagar, Garhwal, by constable Sadanand that one Dhum Singh came into the bazar carelessly and fast on a bicycle. Two girls were pushed down by it, and in spite of the policeman asking him to stop, he did not. The girls wept loudly but were not hurt. Upon that the Sub-Inspector submitted the report to the Town Magistrate suggesting that the man should be triad for driving the bicycle rashly without blowing the horn. Thereupon summons were issued to Dhum Singh to answer a charge under Section 34 of the Police Act. The accused was tried by a Magistrate of the first class. The Magistrate says that the facts proved do not constitute an offence under Section 34, but the Magistrate convicted him under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered him to pay a fine of Bs 15. The accused went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, and one of the points taken by him was that he could not be convicted under Section 279 of the Indian P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »