Allahabad Court May 1925 Judgments
Darbari Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All591
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Magistrate who, sitting as a Court of appeal, has altered the conviction of the applicant from Section 451 to Section 454 of the Penal Code, and has converted his sentence from three months imprisonment and Rs. 50 fine to a sentence of whipping. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that this sentence is illegal, and the contention appears to me to be good. The Magistrate who tried the case charged the applicant with having committed an act of house-trespass with a view to outrage the modesty of Musammat Rampa. The District Magistrate has apparently concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the applicant's object was to outrage Musammat Rampa's modesty. There is, therefore, a common finding of both Courts that the applicant entered the house in order to commit an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Penal Code. This offence is not punishable with Whipping and therefore Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Bhakta Shiromani Alias Bachcha Vs. Seetal Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All680
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a revision from a decree of a Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff came to Court on the allegation that he was employed as a compositor in the defendant's press at a salary of Rs. 17 per month and that he was dismissed on the 20th of January, 1925, without notice. He claimed the pay for the 20 days ha served and an additional pay for 15 days as he was dismissed without previous notice. The suit was contested by the-defendant and all liability was denied. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has granted the plaintiff a decree for his pay for twenty days and dismissed the rest of the claim.2. The findings which I must accept are as follows : The plaintiff worked in the defendant's press up to the 20th of January, on which date at about 12 o'clock, ho, having got fever, disappeared from the press without applying for leave. He did not turn up for 5 or 6 days, and as he had disappeared without leave or sanction, and had left the work, the defendant was much...
Tag this Judgment!Het Ram Alias Udit NaraIn Vs. Dat Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All68
Sulaiman, J.1. This execution appeal arises under the following circumstances: A preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 4th of March 1910. This decree was made final on the 30th of April 1915. In 1917 the decree-holder put in application for execution. After his decree had been partially satisfied the execution case was struck off by order dated the 14th of December 1920. The decree-holder appealed to the High Court and his appeal was allowed on the 27th of February 1923 and the case sent back to the Court below with directions to readmit the application for execution. The High Court awarded the decree-holder Rupees 166-8-0 as costs of the appeal. The decree-holder has put his decree for costs in execution against the judgment-debtor personally. The judgment-debtor filed objections to this execution pleading that this amount ought to be added to the mortgage-money and realized exclusively by sale of the mortgaged property and that the decree for costs should not be executed agai...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Lal Vs. Jotia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All142
Sulaiman, J.1. This suit has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The learned Judge has in the first place misread the document and in the next place misapplied the law.2. The document nowhere says that in case of default of payment of the first instalment the plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire amount. The words are that on the expiry of the term for payment of half the sum with interest and compound interest the creditor has a right to recover it.3. That obviously means to recover the amount of first instalment with interest. It then goes on to say 'or to recover the entire amount after the expiry of the last term with interest and compound interest.' Obviously the right to recover the whole amount did not accrue till after the expiry of the date fixed for the second instalment. The learned Judge apparently had in mind the cases of this Court under Article 132. Lim. Act, which is applicable to mortgages. The bond in suit however was not a mortgage deed at all. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Reoti Ram Vs. Lachman Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All155
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision from a judgment of the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Shahjahanpur. The suit as brought was based on a sarkhat dated 25th November 1921. There was no mention of any previous connexion between the parties, nor wag there any mention that at any time account wag adjusted, balance struck or account stated. The plaintiff relied entirely on the sarkhat by saying that the defendant having acknowledged liability and undertaken it had executed the sarkhat. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint was the date of the sarkhat. When the trial commenced the counsel for both the parties declined to lead any evidence each thinking that the burden lay on the opposite side. The Court accordingly heard arguments and dismissed the suit.2. I am of opinion that it is impossible to interfere with this order. The sarkhat was not a promissory note but a mere acknowledgment of a liability. It cannot be made the basis of a suit so as to constitute a fresh cause of a...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamsala Lala Reoti Ram Vs. Lachhman Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.402
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision from a judgment of the Judge of Small Cause Court at Shahjahanpur. The suit as brought was based on a sarkhat. dated the 25th of November 1921. There was no mention of any previous connection between the: parties, nor was there any mention that at stay time account was adjusted, balance struck or account stated. The' plaintiff relied entirely on the sarkhat by saying that the defendant having acknowledged liability and undertaken it had executed the sarkhat. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint was the date of the sarkhat. When the trial commenced the Counsel for both the parties declined to lead any evidence each thinking that the burden lay on the opposite side. The Court accordingly heard arguments and dismissed the suit.2. I am of opinion that it is impossible to interfere with this order. The sarkhat was not a promissory note but a mere acknowledgment of a liability. It cannot be made the basis of a suit so as to constitute a fresh ca...
Tag this Judgment!Zorawar Singh and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All590
Daniels, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the present suit is barred by the provisions of Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act. The present suit is for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of an area of 25.17 acres out of a khata of 104 acres in mabal Bhagwan Singh. Mauza Sampat Jogi and that the defendants are wrongly entered in the revenue papers as owners of the equity of redemption. The area of which the property in dispute forms a part was originally mortgaged to Sahib Singh, a collateral relative of the parties. The plaintiffs are sons of Gulab Singh, the head of another branch, and the defendants are the heirs of Durg Singh who represented a third branch of the family. The equity of redemption in this property was purchased in equal shares in the names of Durg Singh and Sahib Singh at some time subsequent to the mortgage.2. On 17th March, 1909 the plaintiffs applied for partition of this property impleading Durg Singh whose name th...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Zahur Ahmad and anr. Vs. Taslim-un-nissa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All55
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision from an order passed in appeal by the District Judge. It appears that the parties had agreed to refer their disputes to the arbitration of two arbitrators and one umpire. There was considerable delay in the proceedings of the arbitrators, and ultimately the applicants filed an application under Schedule 2, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the filing of the agreement of reference to arbitration. Notices were issued to the defendants to show cause why the agreement should not be filed, and on the 14th of July 1923 the Court passed an order under Rule 17 filing the agreement, and made an order of reference to the arbitrators appointed in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge from the order filing the agreement, and owing to the pendency of the appeal there was at first some delay in the proceedings. The record was not sent to the arbitrators for some time. It appears that subsequently ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamdi Begum Vs. Tufail Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All20
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. It appears that on a previous occasion the plaintiff instituted a suit for redemption of this very mortgage and obtained a compromise decree in December 1916. The decree, as framed, was not in accordance with the compromise and was accordingly subsequently corrected in April 1924. The amended decree stood as follows: 'On payment of Rs. 225 to the defendant within one month of the date of the compromise the plaintiff would be entitled to get the property redeemed and put in possession but after the expiry of the fixed period he will be entitled to execute his decree on payment of Rs. 229. Parties shall bear their own costs.' The plaintiff failed to pay the amount in time and failed to apply for execution within three years. He however has brought a second suit for redemption of that property. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the claim was barred by the provisions Section 11, Civil P.C. On ap...
Tag this Judgment!Bankey Lal Kapoor Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All47
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision against an order of the Sessions Judge of Moradabad refusing to interfere with an order returning certain property to the complainant. The Allahabad Bank Ltd., prosecuted one Gopal Lal, the local Sub-Agent of the Allahabad Bank, who had absconded with about a lac of rupees. It transpired that Gopal Lal had been sending part of the embezzled money to his creditors in payment of his debts. He sent a sum of Rs. 2400 to the applicant Bankey Lal Kapoor in notes under insured cover. The police traced this payment, and the applicant handed the money back to them. At the conclusion of the trial the Court ordered it to be handed over to the complainant under the provisions of Section 517, Criminal P. C, as property in respect of which an offence appeared to have been committed. The present application is filed as a civil revision, but as it is against the order of a criminal Court, if any revision lies at all, it must be under Section 439, Crimi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »