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.
Kulsum Bibi Vs. Muhammad Ismail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All677
Daniels, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a certain share by partition of the house in dispute. At the time when the suit was instituted, proceedings in the Revenue Court for a perfect partition of the village were pending. One of the pleas taken in the written statement was that the suit, in view of the Revenue Court's partition proceedings, was not maintainable. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that it was not maintainable. On appeal the learned District Judge has taken a contrary view and has remanded the case.2. In our opinion the view taken by the lower Appellate Court is perfectly correct. The subject-matter of dispute in the civil suit is a residential house which is said to have belonged to the ancestor of the parties and in which the plaintiff claimed a denned share. The Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to partition a house, that is to say, partition the buildings at all. It can partition the site occupie...
Har Bhajan Lal Vs. Har Charan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All539
Mears, C.J.1. This application in revision must be allowed, the decision of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bareilly, set aside, and judgment entered for the plaintiff for Rs. 500. It is a curious case. A young boy of 13 or 14 years, Ram Kishen, ran away from his father's home at Baheri on the 9th of June, 1924. The father eventually issued a pamphlet, offering a reward in these terms : 'Anybody who finds trace of the boy and brings him home, will get Rs. 500.' That is the translation that has been put to me as the correct translation, and there seems to be no substantial difference about the matter. It happened that one of these hand-bills came into the possession of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff undoubtedly had the boy's name in his memory. On the 19th of July the plaintiff was at the dharamshala of the Bareilly Junction railway station. There he saw a boy, overheard part of a conversation, realised that the boy was the missing Ram Kishen and promptly took him to t...
Sita Ram Vs. Peare Alias Alloo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All558
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order remanding the case so that it be tried de novo and the parties be allowed opportunities of producing additional oral and documentary evidence.2. The plaintiff brought a suit praying that a certain spout opened by the defendant towards his court-yard should be closed. The defence was that this spout was an old one and not a recent one, and that, in any case it threw water on the defendant's own land. On the 10th of December, 1923, both the parties made statements before the Court that they did not want to produce any evidence whatsoever, and that whatever the Court, after making a local inspection, decided, that would be acceptable to both the parties. This was duly signed by the parties, In pursuance of this no further evidence was recorded by the Munsif, and he made a local inspection of the place and came to the conclusion that the spout was a recent one and not an old one at all. He was further inclined to hold that the water from this ...
Lahori Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All647
Mears, C.J.1. The only point that has been taken by Mr. Ambika Prasad, who appears on behalf of the appellant, is that the learned Sessions Judge accepted the plea of guilty and did not hear any evidence. He has called our attention to a case of Dalli v. King Emperor A.I.R. 1922 All. 233. In that case Mr. Justice Ryves said : 'After all murder is a mixed question of fact and law, and unless the Court is perfectly satisfied that the accused knew exactly what was necessarily implied by his plea of guilty, the case should be tried, and in dealing with people of the status of Dalli, this of course can never be the case.' There are points of distinction which can readily be drawn between the case of this appellant and that of Dalli, because the appellant is undoubtedly a man of very considerable intelligence, and having beyond question killed this woman, made a few hours later, on the same day, a perfectly clear statement about the facts, and later, on the 9th March, the day after the crime...
Tula Ram Vs. Bhup Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All691
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a judgments-debtor's appeal arising out of an application for a decree absolute in which the main plea is that the application is barred by time. It is surprising to find that both the Courts below call the proceeding an execution of the decree which of course it is not. It appears that the plaintiff instituted a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed executed by Tula Ram, the appellant himself, impleading his sons, Jugal Kishore and Ratan Lal. A preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 16th of April, 1918 against all the three defendants and the time fixed for payment was the 17th of October, 1918. The sons had contested the suit on the ground that there was no legal necessity for borrowing the amount. They had preferred an appeal to the District Judge in July, 1918, which was dismissed on the 2nd of November, 1918, and a second appeal to the High Court by them was also dismissed on the 31st of March, 1921. It is to be noted that neither in their app...
ishwar Datt Upadhiya Vs. Mahesh Datt Upadhiya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All747
Lindsay, J.1. The following pedigree will explain the position of the parties. JAGANNATH | ________________________________ | | | | Isliwar Shyama Sada Rama Dat Nand Nand Nand | | | Mahesh Brijmohan Ganesh Dat Dat2. The principal defendant in the two suits out of which these appeals have arisen is Ishwar Dat, whoso name appears in the pedigree above. Two sale-deeds were executed in his favour; one on the 27th April, 1923, by Brijmohan, and the second on the 10th of August, 1923, by Ganesh J Dat.3. I It appears that previous to certain partition proceedings, which are about to be mentioned, all these parties were co-sharers in a patti of mauza Latwapur called patti Jagannath.4. A partition was begun and by the 15th December, 1922, the partition was confirmed by the Collector. Under Section 131 of the Land Revenue Act that partition could not take effect till the 1st July, 1923.5. Under the arrangement which was made by these partition proceedings, patti Jagannath was divided, and one ...
Sahu Banarsi Prasad and ors. Vs. Kuer Manmohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All119
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a decree-holders' appeal arising out of a mortgage decree for sale in execution. The claim was decreed for a sum of Rs. 16,793 with interest at six per cent. per annum. When the preliminary decree was prepared on 5th February 1919, was fixed as the date for the payment of the money, and the amount of principal, interest and costs found due to the decree-holders on 5th February 1919 was put down in the decree as being Rs. 17,918-6-9 and it was stated that the aforementioned sum should bear interest at six per cent. per annum till the date of realisation. The decree further provided that if by that day no payment was made then the property would be sold and out of the sale proceeds the amount found due to the plaintiffs as aforesaid together with subsequent interest and costs should be deducted and whatever remained as surplus would be paid over to the defendants. This decree is in perfect concurrence with the directions contained in Order 34, Rule 4, read with Rul...
iswar Datt Upadhiya Vs. Mahesh Datt Upadhiya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.114
1. The following pedigree will explain the position of the parties: JAGANNATH | _____________________________________________ | | | | Ishwar Dat. Shyama Sada Nada Rama Nand Nand | | | | Brij Mohan | Mahesh Ganesh Dat. Dat.2. The principal defendant in the two suits out of which these appeals have arisen is Ishwar Dat, whose name appears in the pedigree above. Two sale-deeds were executed in his favour, one on the 27th April 1923 by Brijmohan and the second on the 10th of August 1923 by Ganesh Dat.3. It appears that previous to certain partition proceedings, which are about to be mentioned, all these parties were co-sharers in a patti of Mouza Latwapur called patti Jagannath.4. A partition was begun and by the 15th December 1922 the partition was confirmed by the Collector. Under Section 131 of the Land Revenue Act that partition could not take effect till the 1st July 1923.5. Under the arrangement which was made by these partition proceedings, Patti Jagannath was divided, and one of ...
Pitam Lal Vs. Balwant Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All556
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order amending a decree. A mortgage decree for sale was passed by the Court below which was appealed against to this Court, The question of the liability to pay costs was raised in appeal but the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The judgment-debtors satisfied the decree in full and the case was struck off. Three years afterwards, the respondent Balwant Singh applied to the Court below to have the decree amended on the ground that it was not in strict accordance with the judgment. The learned Subordinate Judge, who disposed of this application, felt himself compelled to grant the application because he imagined that he had no discretion to refuse it. He clearly says : 'I think, however, that that course is not open to me.' He would have dismissed the application had he thought that he had any discretion in the matter for he distinctly remarks: 'I may, however, note in passing the circumstances which would have made i...
Ganga Chamar and ors. Vs. Bindesari Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All615
Daniels, J.1. In this casa an ejectment suit was brought in the revenue Court against Bindesari Rai, the present plaintiff-respondent, on the allegation that he was the sub-tenant of the present defendants. His defence was that he was the mortgagee and proprietor of the land. The revenue Court, acting under Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 199 of the Tenancy Act, ordered him to file a suit in the civil Court within three months for a declaration of his title. The question is whether he is entitled to ignore that order and file a suit after the expiry of the three months period, and if he does so, whether the civil Court should entertain it. The date of the Revenue Court's order was 19th November, 1921. The period of three months expired on 19th February, 1922. The suit was filed two months later, on 19th April, 1922. It was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit and a fresh suit was filed on 3rd January 1923. It may be taken as settled by the decision in Randhir Singh v....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »