Allahabad Court June 1925 Judgments
Agha HusaIn and ors. Vs. Qasim Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All35
1. These execution appeals arise out of an application which was made by certain judgment-debtors on the sole allegation that the decree was incorrectly prepared and had been subsequently amended, and the sale which took place in execution of the incorrect decree should be set aside. There was no allegation of any fraud or collusion, nor was there any denial of the fact that the interests of third parties had come in. It was not expressly stated in the application under what provisions of law it had been made, but the learned advocate for the appellants has stated before us that it purports to have been made under Section 47, Civil P.C. The learned Judge of the Court below has declined to grant this application inasmuch as the judgment-debtors were parties to the proceedings in which the sale was confirmed.2. In our opinion, when the sale has been confirmed although it had taken place in execution of a decree which was incorrectly prepared, the sale cannot be set aside simply because t...
Tag this Judgment!Bahri Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All263
Boys, J.1. A woman has been convicted under Section 118(1)(a)(iii) of the Cantonment Act (2 of 1924) for having 'wilfully and indecently exposed her person.' The learned District Magistrate has referred the case to this Court, without going into the evidence, on the ground that in his opinion there can be no conviction under that section. He says 'that offence is wilful or indecent exposures of the person. If as alleged, the woman went into the barracks for immoral purposes she can have given no offence by her exposure.'2. The giving of offence by the exposure is not a necessary ingredient of the offence under Section 118(1)(a)(iii). The offence is complete if the exposure is 'wilful or indecent' and in a public place.3. Parenthetically I would observe that 'or' would seem to be a mistake in the Act for 'and.' The Legislature could hardly have intended that mere 'wilful exposure' not also indecent or mere 'in decent exposure' not also wilful should be an offence.4. The woman had appare...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Bahri Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.539
Boys, J.1. A woman has been convicted under Section 118(1)(a)(iii) of the Cantonment Act (II of 1924) for having 'wilfully and indecently exposed her person.' The learned District Magistrate has referred the case to this Court, without going into the evidence, on the ground that in his opinion there can be no conviction under that section. He says 'that offence is wilful or indecent exposure of the person. If, as alleged, the woman went into the barracks for immoral purposes she can have given no offence by her exposure.'2. The giving of offence by the exposure is not a necessary ingredient of the offence under Section 118(1)(a)(iii). The offence is complete if the exposure is 'wilful or indecent' and in a public place.3. Parenthetically I would observe that 'or' would seem to be a mistake in the Act for 'and.' The Legislature could hardly have intended that mere 'wilful exposure' not also indecent or mere 'indecent exposure' not also wilful should be an offence.4. The woman had appare...
Tag this Judgment!Megh Baran Singh Vs. B. Rama Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All111
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit which was dismissed by the Court of first instance on the 4th of August 1923. It is stated in an affidavit filed in the lower Court that an application for a copy was made on the 11th of August, but for some reason or another it was rejected on the 15th of August. This matter, however, may be ignored. The thirty days allowed for filing the appeal before the District Judge expired on the 3rd September 1923, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th happened to be holidays. Thus if the memorandum of appeal had been ready to be filed it would have been in time if it had been filed on the 5th September. The plaintiff, however, had not previously applied for fresh copies but made his application on the 5th September, the last day on which his appeal would have been within time owing to the holidays. The copies were granted to him on the 7th September and he took care to file the appeal on the very day, namely the 7th September.2. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Das Vs. Bikramajit Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All128
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff under the Letters Patent arising out of a suit for recovery of possession by avoiding a deed of gift executed by the last mahant in 1919 in favour of one Mt. Subhagi. Mt. Subhagi transferred the property gifted to her under a sale-deed dated the 15th October, 1919, in favour of defendants 2, 3, 5, 6 and the father of defendant 4. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the mahant, though it found that the property was trust property and the transfer was invalid. On appeal to the District Judge the suit was decreed.2. It, however, appears that before the appeal came on for hearing before the District Judge, Gobind Rai, one of the defendants-respondents, died leaving his son Ambica alive. No application for substitution was made, and in fact the attention of the Appellate Court was not drawn to the fact of his death at all. The appeal was allowed as against all the defendants-res...
Tag this Judgment!Makundi Singh and anr. Vs. Parbhu Dayal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All169; 90Ind.Cas.1
1. This is an appeal by the defendants, arising out of a suit for arrears of rent. On a previous occasion the plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the defendants to the present suit, namely Tirbhuwan Singh and two others, on the same cause of action, for recovery of the same arrears of rent. On the day fixed for the hearing of the previous suit Tirbhuwan Singh alone appeared before the Court, but neither the plaintiffs nor the other two defendants were present. The Court did not question Tirbhuwan Singh whether he admitted any part of the claim or, not nor did it take down his statement. It simply dismissed the suit for default, The plaintiffs made an attempt to have the dismissal set aside and the suit restored, but their application was infructuous. They then brought the present suit on the same cause of action against the same defendant. The Courts below held that the present suit was barred by the provisions of Order 9, R, 9, and the plaintiffs' only remedy was to have the prev...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. De Mello and anr. Vs. New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All17; 90Ind.Cas.287
1. This is a petition in revision against an order of the learned District Judge of Cawnpore transferring a certain suit pending in the Court of one Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore to the Court of another Subordinate Judge at the same place. The complaint is that this order was passed at the instance of one of the parties without issuing a notice to the other.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that no revision lay and the case of Farid Ahmad v. Dulari Bibi (1884) 6 All 233 has been cited as an authority. On behalf of the applicants the case of Fatima Begam v. Imdad Ali AIR 1920 All 249, has been cited. For the respondents it has been urged that the earlier case is a two Judges case and the later case is a single Judge case and therefore the earlier case is of greater weight than the later case. We have examined the case in Farid Ahmad v. Dulari Bibi (1884) 6 All 233, but have been unfortunately (with respect) unable to appreciate the grounds of the decision. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Shabbar HusaIn Vs. Abbas Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All152
1. The appellant in this case Syed Shabbar Hussain was the plaintiff in the Court below in a suit brought to pre-empt a sale which was carried out by means of a document executed on 20th August 1920. The first party of defendants to the suit consisted of eight persons who are the purchasers under the deed just mentioned. The defendants' second party, consisting of two persons, were the vendors. The sale was a sale to eight persons in consideration of a sum of Rs. 14,999.2. The plaintiff's suit failed in the Court below on the ground that the existence of a custom of pre-emption had not been proved. The plaintiff' then appealed to this Court and impleaded the eight vendees and the two vendors as respondents. Since the filing of the appeal one of the vendees has died and admittedly no application has been made within time to make his legal representatives parties to the appeal. The necessary result of this default on the part of the plaintiff-appellant is that the appeal has abated as ag...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Shabbar HussaIn Vs. Haji Abbas Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.324
1. The appellant in this case Syed Shabbar Hussain was the plaintiff in the Court below in a suit brought to pre-empt a sale which was carried out by means of a document executed on the 20th August 1920. The first party of defendants to the suit consisted of eight persons who are the purchasers under the deed just mentioned. The defendants second party, consisting of two persons, were the vendors. The sale was a sale to eight persons in consideration of a sum of Rs. 14,999.2. The plaintiff's suit failed in the Court below on the ground that the existence of a custom of pre-emption had not been proved. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court and impleaded the eight vendees and the two vendors as respondents. Since they filing of the appeal one of the vendees has died and admittedly no application has been made within time to make his legal representatives parties to the appeal. The necessary result of this default on the part of the plaintiff-appellant is that the appeal has abated as...
Tag this Judgment!Kehri Singh Vs. Thirpal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All113
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed by the District Judge in an appeal from a Revenue Court. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. This objection is well founded. Under Section 175 of the Agra Tenancy Act no appeal from any decree or order passed by any Court under that Act lies except as therein provided. Under Section 177 an appeal is provided from a decree of a District Judge passed on appeal but no appeal is provided from an order passed by a District Judge. It is, therefore, apparent that no appeal from his order of remand, which, of course is not a decree, lies to this Court. This view is concluded by the decision of the Full 'Bench case of Zohra v. Mangu Lal (1906) 28 All 753 which has been followed recently in the case of Gulzari Lal v. Latif Husain (1916) 38 All 181.2. The learned vakil for the appellant, however, contends that an appeal lies under para. 11 of the Letter Patent of this Court. In our opinion no such appeal lies ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »