Allahabad Court May 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.
Komil Prasad Vs. Bharat Indu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All82
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment brought by the plaintiffs who have purchased the village. The house in question is situated in Kamalganj in the district of Farrukhabad and has the following history: this house was purchased at auction from some one also by Baba Lachmandas. It is not clear what the true character of the possession of the judgment-debtor had been, but we know that Baba Lachmandas had been a zamindarin the village and was a bairagi. He was certainly not a tenant or an ordinary occupier like a raiyat. On the 15th of October 1881, he sold this house along with its site to the predecessor of the defendant and there was a clear recital in the sale-deed that he was the full owner of the house and the site and was transferring his proprietary interest. This sale deed was actually attested by Shib Dayal, one of the zamindars in the village and the predecessor-in-title of the present plaintiffs. Subsequently the house was sold again...
Shiva Nath Prasad Vs. Tulshi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.480
1. This is an appeal by a Hindu son-from a decree parsed in execution against him. His father had made a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff-decree-holder and a suit was instituted against him, impleading his minor son. On behalf of The Son at was pleaded that the debt was tainted with immorality and, therefore, the mortgage was bad and the son was not liable to pay the debt. The Court found that the debt was proved to have been, tainted with immorality and therefore declined to pass a decree for sale on the basis of the mortgage-deed but simply passed a money-decree against the father personally. The decree-holder put the decree for money against the father in execution and attached the whole of the ancestral property including that which had been mortgaged. The Court below has allowed the objection of the son so far sis the attachment of his interest in the property is concerned but has ordered execution against the interest of the father in the joint property. The son appeals to thi...
Sukhai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All676; 157Ind.Cas.1049
1. The accused Sukhai has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code of murdering his wife Musammat Sukhia and sentenced to transportation for life. The commission of the offence is admitted, and the question is whether the offence is one under Section 302 or Section 304. On 29th November, 1924, Dharam Raj, headman of Mouza Deopar, found the dead body of a woman with a number of wounds on it in his grove through which he was passing. He informed the Chaukidar who made a report. The body still had ornaments on it and some pieces of glass bangles were picked up near-where the body had been lying. It was not known at first who the woman was but she was identified through one Musammat Jagrani who had known her as Musammafe Sukhia the wife of the accused. The Sub-Inspector then proceeded, on 30th November, to the house of the accused. He found the house shut up. The accused had shifted to another house. The Sub-Inspector went there and found him Eventually the accused gave up...
Roshan Lal and anr. Vs. Maharaj Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All166
1. In this case one Shib Dayal brought a suit for recovery of a moiety of certain properties by partition against his uncle Raghubar Dayal's sons, Maharaj Prasad and Matru Lal. On Shib Dayal's death were substituted his sons Roshan Lal and Mukat Behari Lal. The properties were six in number. For the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to specify them other than by their numbers 1 to 6. It is admitted that about the year 1893 there was a partition of the zamindari property. The question at issue in this case was whether these other six properties were ancestral and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a moiety thereof, or whether they were, in fact, the self-acquired properties of the defendants or their father Raghubar Dayal. After the case had been remanded by the lower appellate Court for a decision as to whether the properties were ancestral or not, the lower appellate Court gave the plaintiff a decree as regards the properties Nos. 3 and 6 holding them to be ancestral an...
HusaIn Baksh Vs. M. Mahfuzul Haq and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All559
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent sued for pre-emption under the Muhammadan Law in respect of a house situated in Sabaranpur city which was sold by lit. Habib-un-nissa to Husain Bakhsh on the 9th January, 1920, the house of the plaintiff stands to the North of the house in dispute. The allegation of the plaintiff was that two parnalas of his house discharged water into the inner court-yard of the house sold; that there was a joint wall between the two houses, and that there was also a plot of land lying in front of the doors of the two houses, which was used as a common pathway, closed on one side, and belonging to the persona whose houses opened towards that lane the vendor and the vendees are Shias. They denied that the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the property sold or in any pathway appertaining to it or that the plaintiff had any right to claim pre-emption. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiff was not entitled to pre-emption as he had no joint interest in ...
(Thakur) Bilas Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All737
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge of Bareilly from an order of the election commissioners purporting to act as a civil Court under Section 476, Criminal P.C. As the learned District Judge happened to be one of the Commissioners himself he referred the case to this Court recommending that it should be transferred from his file. Without prejudice to the question whether an appeal lay we directed that the case be transferred to the High Court.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that if the commissioners had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 476, Criminal P.C. no appeal lay from their order at all. We thick that the preliminary objection cannot prevail. The commissioners have professedly acted as a Civil Court and assumed jurisdiction under Section 476, Criminal P.C. As an appeal is expressly provided from an order passed by a civil Court under Section 476, Criminal P.C., the present appeal does lie even though ...
Kali Charan Singh and ors. Vs. Bageshra Kunwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All585
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by certain persons alleging themselves to be the presumptive reversionary heirs of one Makundi Singh against the widow in possession and against certain transferees from the widow.2. Amongst other points taken up in defence, it was urged that the plaintiffs-appellants were not the next reversioners. The Subordinate Judgo of Jaunpur framed an issue on this pleading and decided it in favour of the defendants, namely, he held that there was a nearer reveraioner, one Jangbahadur, grandson of Makundi Singh. The plaintiffs, however, pleaded that the defendants were debarred from taking advantage of this plea because in a previous suit brought by their father as next reversioner against the widow and against transferees of other portions of the estate of Makundi Singh, the widow and those transferees had failed to adopt the plea now put forward that the plaintiffs' father was not the next reversioner. The Subordinate Judge accepte...
Sundar Rai Vs. Suraj Bali Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All783
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent for recovery of a half-share in certain property. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement, whereby, in consideration of the plaintiff standing all the expense of litigation, the defendant would bring a certain suit for obtaining the property in question, and, if ultimately successful, would give the plaintiff a half-share in that property.2. The Munsif dismissed the suit on a finding that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate the will of the defendant and that the transaction was on the face of it unfair. He, accordingly, held that the contract was a voidable one as induced by undue influence. The District Judge, on first appeal, upheld this decision.3. The first question is whether there was evidence to justify the finding that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate the will of the defendant. The Munsif based his finding on the fact th...
Bhikki Mul Vs. Ragubir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All811
Boys, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The suit was one to recover money on a hundi drawn in favour of the payee, the plaintiff, at Muzaffarnagar. It was drawn on the 5th of May 1920, and was payable at sight on Dina Nath Jasraj of Delhi.2. Both the Courts below have held, as a matter of fact, that there was no presentation in fact. This, under Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, would have sufficed by itself for a dismissal of the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, added: 'I am nevertheless of opinion that the plaintiffs are equitably entitled to recover their money. Admittedly the defendant-appellant had taken back his money from the firm of Dina Nath Jasraj and he could not therefore suffer damage for want of presentation.' The learned Judge was presumably referring to Section 76(d) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. We think that he is wholly wrong in assuming that the defendant could not have suffered any damage merely because many months afterwards he withdrew ...
Kali Charan Singh and ors. Vs. Musammat Bageshra Kunwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.374
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by certain persons alleging themselves to be the presumptive reversionary heirs of one Makundi Singh against the widow in possession and against certain transferees from the widow.2. Amongst other points taken up in defence, it was urged that the plaintiffs-appellants were not the next reversioners. The Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur framed an issue on this pleading and decided it in favour of the defendants, namely, he held that there was a nearer reversioner one Jangbahadur, grandson of Makundi Singh. The plaintiffs, however, pleaded that the defendants were debarred from taking advantage of this plea because in a previous suit brought by their father as next reversioner against the widow and against transferees of other portions of the estate of Makundi Singh, the widow and those transferees had failed to adopt the plea now put forward that the plaintiff's father was not the next reversioner. The Subordinate Judge accepted this plea a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »