Allahabad Court July 1925 Judgments
Sheo Prasad Vs. Mt. Naraini Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All95; 90Ind.Cas.938
1. Lala Sheo Prasad, appellant here, obtained a simple money decree against Isri Prasad, husband of Mt. Narainibai, respondent here, in the Court of the Munsif of East Budaun on 9th March 1916. On 12th November 1918 he applied for execution. On 23rd January 1920 this application was struck off with the consent of the decree-holder. On 4th March 1921 he applied again for execution to the Munsif of East Budaun. The relief asked for in that application was that certain property be attached and brought to sale. There was a further reference to the heirs of the deceased judgment-debtor, but it is admitted now on behalf of the respondent that there had been a previous application to bring the heirs on the record and that the reference to these heirs in the application of 4th March 1921 can have no bearing on the matter which we have to decide. This matter need not therefore be further referred to, and the application of 14th March, 1921 will be considered as being simply one for the attachme...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Singh and anr. Vs. Phul Kumari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All202; 90Ind.Cas.904
1. We have decided, after hearing arguments of counsel in this case, to refuse this application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The order which it is sought to take in appeal is an order which was passed by this Bench in Civil Revision No. 125 of 1923. In other words, it was an order passed under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P.C. The matter came before this Court in connexion with an arbitration award. The award having been attacked in the trial Court was accepted by the learned Judge of the Court below and we decided by our order that there was no case for interference in revision. We therefore allowed the order of the District Judge to remain as it was.3. A preliminary objection has been raised before us and it is argued in this connexion that having regard to the language of Section 109, Civil P. C, Clause (a), the applicants have no right to apply for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. This argument is based on the consideration that the order which...
Tag this Judgment!Fatima-ul-hasna and ors. Vs. Baldeo Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All204a
Lindsay, J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by the District Judge of Moradabad under the provisions of Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C.2. The facts are as follows:In execution of a decree obtained against the minor heirs of one Abdus Sattar, deceased, certain immovable property of the judgment-debtors was attached and notified for sale. This property was sold by auction on 20th October 1924. On 23rd March 1924 the guardian of the minors had entered into a contract with Mt. Rifaqat-un-nisa for sale to her of the property which was under attachment. At that time the guardian (Mb. Fatima-ul-Hasna) had not obtained from the District Judge the sanction to the transfer which it was necessary for her, as the certificated guardian, to secure. The Judge's sanction was not got till 25th September 1924. Acting on the sanction so obtained, she executed a sale deed of the property in favour of Mt. Rifaqat-un-nisa on 23rd of October 1924, i.e., three days after the Court sale. On 19th No...
Tag this Judgment!Bachan Vs. Raghunath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All304; 92Ind.Cas.264
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an application in revision for the discharge of an order for the amendment of a decree passed by the trial Court on the 9th May 1925. The trial Court observes that there was a mistake in the decree which was not in accordance with the judgment and it has directed that mistake to be rectified. It is argued here that the trial Court had ceased to have any jurisdiction to amend this decree or to rectify it after an appeal had been filed from that decree in the Court of the District Judge. But till the District Judge hears the appeal and decides it, the decree of the trial Court remains in force and it can be rectified or amended by the Court which passed it. It is only when the appeal has been decided and a decree has been passed in appeal confirming, amending reversing it that the appellate decree operates to supersede the decree of the trial Court, and it is only then that the jurisdiction of the trial Court to interfere with the decree so superseded ceases. I...
Tag this Judgment!Bachan Singh and ors. Vs. Bijai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All180; 90Ind.Cas.238
1. After hearing the arguments in this case we have come to the conclusion that the appeal must be allowed. It is quite true that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is based upon a ruling of this Court reported as Her Keshi v. Mewa Ram AIR 1928. All 294. There can be no doubt that on the facts that case is not distinguishable from the case now before us, but nevertheless for the reasons we are about to give, we think it should not be followed. What happened in the present case was this: one Charan Singh sold some property to Bijai Singh and Chandrahas. This Bijai Singh was a co-sharer in the property, while Chandrahas was a stranger. This sale was made on the 15th December 1922. The four plaintiffs-appellants here before us filed a suit for pre-emption on the 1st December 1923. On the 14th December 1923, a rival set of pre-emptors Gulzar Singh and others, filed their suit for pre-emption and on this very day, that is on the 14th December 1923, the vendees Bijai Singh and Chandra...
Tag this Judgment!Mittar SaIn and anr. Vs. Data Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All194; 90Ind.Cas.1000
Mears, C.J.1. This was a suit by two brothers for a declaration that the defendant was liable to pay them Rs. 15,000 within 15 years from the 14th of December 1918 in accordance with the terms of two documents of 12th of December 1918 and 14th of December 1918 respectively. There was a difference of opinion between Lindsay, J., and Lal Gopal Mukerji, J.,with the result that this case has come before us for decision. About the year 1912 one Dalip Singh died childless, leaving a widow, Mt. Manohri. Ha was a Vaish Jain Agarwal. The case, as put by the plaintiffs, is that Mt. Manohri had been given an express authority to adopt, and shortly before or on 27th of October 1918, that is some six years after her husband's death, she agreed to adopt the plaintiff, a man of full age, provided he would consent to pay according to her directions sums inter alia amounting to Rs. 20,000 and an annuity of Rs. 360 a year to a certain person. The defendant was a penniless man, and these sums of money we...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Hasan Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All251
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Amir Hasan Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police. The charge framed reads as follows: 'That you on or about the 26th day of September 1924 at Police Station Ushet dishonestly misappropriated certain property, to wit, a lawaris bullock.' Now under Section 403 if a lawaris bullock is appropriated and immediately afterwards the owner of the bullock is found, certainly a man can be convicted, but in this case for 20 days the bullock was kept by the Sub-Inspector and then sold. No owner has up to now turned up. The Inspector advertised for the owner but no one turned up, so it is impossible to say that he knew or had means of discovering the owner, and he had certainly kept the property a reasonable time before disposing of it. Even if I had found him guilty, I would have considered that he had been sufficiently punished by being prosecuted. As it is, upon the finding I hold that no offence has been made out. I set aside the conviction and sen...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Sunder Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All264
Ashworth, J.1. The applicant, Sham Sunder Lal, has been convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class of an offence under Section 32 of the Police Act V of 1861 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200. An application in revision was made to the Sessions Judge and has been rejected. The applicant comes up before this Court in further revision.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: There is a mala held every year at a village called Daranager, 7 miles from Bijnor. Last year this mela was held from the 8th of November. The District Magistrate issued orders to the police that a certain schedule of tolls for the admission of animals and carriages into the mela ground had been fixed. Various toll-gates were set up for the collection of these tolls and at the gate in question in this case a District Board schoolmaster was put to receive the tolls. The applicant, when asked by this official to pay the toll for the bullock tonga in which he was seated refused to pay it and entered into argu...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Ali Vs. Raja Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All670
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order discharging three persons Raja Bahadur, Raj Narain and Murari Lal who were prosecuted on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code of murdering Asghar Ali. There is no doubt that Asghar Ali was murdered on the 23rd of September 1924 at Shahjahanpur. A severe religious riot took place on that date, and it is said that a number of other persons were killed. So far as the evidence in this case goes it appears that one Munna Lal a Hindu, was seriously injured shortly after 10 o'clock and died between 10 and 11. The first report in regard to the attack on him was made at the Kotwali at 10-45 A.M., and he died before he could be conveyed to hospital. The report of Asghar Ali's murder is said to have been made at the Kotwali at 12 o'clock, the time of the occurrence being given as about 11. A special Sub-Inspector, S. Masum Ali, was sent from Budaun a few days later to investigate this case. He had two other similar c...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Chand Vs. Ekram Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All181; 90Ind.Cas.887
Mukerji, j.1. This appeal raises two points, viz., (1) whether the mortgage dated the 14th of April 1917 is binding on the plaintiff-respondent Ekram Ahmad, and (2) if not, whether the amount of share decreed to him is too large, and if so, what is the proper share which should have been decreed to him.2. The facts are briefly these: The pedigree of the family to which the respondent belongs is given in the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge. One Karamat Ali owned a 16 annas share in the property in suit. That property descended to his son Hashmat Ali, as Hashmat All's mother who was the other heir, did not claim any interest. Hashmat Ali died two years after his father and then a question arose as to who should have the property. Hashmat Ali was survived by his cousin Mahmud Ali being a son of Lutf Ali, a brother of Karamat Ali, and also by Yakub Ali and Qadir Ali, sons of Ilahi Bakhsh, another brother of Karamat Ali. On the 2nd of February 1907 an agreement was arri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »