Allahabad Court July 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.
Ram Sarup Vs. Gaya Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All610; 90Ind.Cas.180
Lindsay, J.1. The question which has to be determined by the Full Bench is whether this Court can interfere in revision with an appellate order directing the setting aside of an ex parte decree, when the appellate court had no power, under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 to give such a direction.2. There are two grounds upon which it has bean urged before us that the Court cannot subject this order to revision:(1) because the party against whom The order has been passed is not without another remedy; and(2) because the order does not fall within The purview of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as there is no case which has been decided.3. Dealing with these propositions in inverse order I would say that the second one of them is untenable. In my opinion we have before us a case which has been decided. It cannot with any show of reason be maintained that the order complained of is a more interlocutory order passed in the course of the trial of the suit, for the suit, had bee...
Ahmad HusaIn Khan Vs. Hardial
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All142a; 90Ind.Cas.243
1. This is an application in revision under the following circumstances: A suit was decreed ex parte against the applicant on 29th April 1924. On the 26th July the Subordinate Judge set aside the ex parte decree on condition of the defendant paying the plaintiff Rs. 40 as costs by the 28th July. The defendant did not at the time make any objection that the time allowed was too short. On the 28th July the defendant having failed to deposit the money applied for ten day's further time, which was refused. An appeal from this order was dismissed by the learned District Judge. It appears to us that because the learned Subordinate Judge in the exercise of his discretion considered that the defendant was not entitled to an extension of time for payment of the money, this does not amount either to a failure to exercise jurisdiction against which a revision can lie. The applicant has drawn our attention to a decision in Jagarnath Sahi v. Kamta Prasad Upadhya AIR 1914 All 55, in which the opinio...
Amir Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All143
Daniels, J.1. Amir Ahmad Appeals from his conviction under Section 19(f), Arms Act, for possession of cartridges, and Nathu Ram from his conviction under Section 20, Arms Act, on account of possession of a revolver after taking precautions to conceal the offence from a public servant. The Sub-Inspector at Nagina searched Amir Ahmad's house in the hope of finding stolen property. He found instead the accused Nathu hiding in a grain-bin covered by a Coat. On his being dragged out, a revolver was found in the pocket of his coat. In another portion of the house a number of cartridges were found, and it is in respect of these latter that Amir Ahmad has been convicted.2. The facts of the case are quite clear, and on the facts there is no room for doubt as to the propriety of the convictions. Amir Ahmad's appeal has been strongly pressed on the ground that the whole trial is illegal on account of the District Magistrate's sanction to the prosecution not having been first obtained. The Magistr...
Ahamad HusaIn and ors. Vs. Muhammad QasIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All46
1. This appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court and raises two points. It appears that the learned Judge decided a question of fact, viz., whether all the representatives of the original mortgagees together, had acquired an interest in a part of the mortgaged property or whether some of the representatives of the original mortgagees had acquired that interest. It has been pointed out to us that this question never arose in this Court and the argument of the appellants seems to be right. In Clause (g), para 2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that the original share mortgaged was a 5 biswas one, that a portion of it, viz. 1 biswa, had already been redeemed, that 2 biswas had been purchased by the mortgagees themselves, that 2 biswas remained under mortgage, that out of these 2 biswas an 11/42 share had also been redeemed and that they wanted the redemption of the remaining 31/42 share out of the 2 biswas. The defendants in their written statement did not conte...
Dip Prakash and ors. Vs. Dwarka Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All71; 90Ind.Cas.83
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors arising out of an execution matter. The plaintiffs, decree-holders, obtained a decree from the appellate Court on the 15th December 1920 ordering the defendants to remove the walls and sheds which they had constructed on the disputed land, and for an injunction 'not to erect any building on the land.' The claim of the plaintiff's for other reliefs like joint possession was dismissed. On 30th April 1923 the decree-holders put in an application for execution of the said decree complaining that the defendants in spite of the aforesaid injunction had constructed a pucca pavement and several walls and had put a tin shed on the latter. In this application they expressly asked to execute the decree by demolition of the walls, the tin shed and the newly constructed pavement. Upon this, notice was issued to the judgment-debtors fixing the 30th of July 1923. On this last mentioned date the judgment-debtors appeared and put in a written obj...
NaraIn Das Vs. Ram Chander and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All124; 90Ind.Cas.116
1. After hearing the arguments in this case we are of opinion that the decree of the Court below must be reversed and the suit must be sent back for disposal on the merits. The case is a somewhat peculiar one. The plaintiff Lala Narain Das alias Ram Dayal brought this suit originally against Ram Chander, son of Kanhaiya Lal praying for his ejectment from a certain shop situated in Mandavi Ghalla in the city of Meerut.2. The title which the plaintiff asserted to this shop was that it had bean bought by his own brother from a Receiver who had been appointed by the Court in a partnership. The plaintiff asserted that his brother, who is also called Ram Chander, had purchased this property really on his behalf, being at that time the guardian of the plaintiff who was then a minor. Ram Chander, son of Kanhaiya Lal joined issue regarding this question of title and stated that the title to the shop was not in the plaintiff but was in him. He stated that the purchase which had been made by Ram ...
Ghurahu Das Vs. Shakalraj Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All157
Daniels, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, asking this Court to set aside an order passed under Section 133, Criminal P.C., in regard to an alleged obstruction on a public road. The learned Sessions Judge has given good reasons for setting aside the order. In the first place even on the finding of the Magistrate the alleged obstruction is at least fifteen or sixteen years old. Section 133 is not intended to be employed to avoid the necessity of filing a civil suit in regard to a construction which has been in existence for fifteen years. In the second place the Naib Tahsildar who inspected the spot found that there was no obstruction, and his report is supported by the settlement map. The reason given by the Magistrate, for accepting the Qanungo's report in preference to that of his superior officer which is supported by the settlement record are extremely flimsy. As regards Section 139-A, I am not sure that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly in...
Emperor Vs. Mewa Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All178; 90Ind.Cas.917
ORDERDaniels, J.1. I have the honour to report for the information of the Hon'ble High Court that a criminal appeal on behalf of four persons: Mewa Ram, Khiali Ram, Sobha Ram and Chunni Lal, was presented in this Court on 12th June 1925 through a mukhtar along with an application for bail. As I had been permitted by the Hon'ble High Court to avail of the first half of the vacation, the application for bail, together with the appeal, was sent to the Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, who was to receive and pass orders on urgent criminal applications of this Judgeship during that period. The papers reached Bareilly on the 13th June, but the postman delivered the envelope containing them to the Subordinate Judge on. 6th July 1925 when the Courts re-opened. The Sessions and Subordinate Judge, Bareilly, sent the papers to me on 7th and I received them on the 8th July. On 16th June four appeals on behalf of the very same four persons were received through jail. Through mistake of my...
Ahmad HusaIn and ors. Vs. Muhammad Qasim Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.80
1. This appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court and raises two points.2. It appears that the learned Judge decided a question of fact, viz., whether all the representatives, of the original mortgagees, together, had acquired an interest in a part of the mortgaged property or whether some of the representatives of the original mortgagees had acquired that interest. It has been pointed out to us that this question never arose in this Court and the argument of the appellants seems to be right.3. In Clause (g), para 2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that the original share mortgaged was a 5 biswa one, that a portion of it, viz., 1 biswa, had already been redeemed, that 2 biswas had been purchased by the mortgagees themselves, that 2 biswas remained under mortgage, that out of these 2 biswas an 11/42 share had also been redeemed and that they wanted the redemption of the remaining 31/42 share out of the 2 biswas. The defendants in their written statement did not...
Bisheshar Prasad Pandey Vs. Raghubir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All58; 90Ind.Cas.353
Daniels, J.1. This revision involves an important question as to the application of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant was plaintiff in the trial Court. He had given a perpetual lease of Bs. 31-8-18 biswansis of land to two of his servants on a rent of Rs. 17-1 a year. He subsequently gave a theka of his zamindari share to the second defendant Indrasan Singh giving him the right to realize the rent from the perpetual lessees. After the theka had been given the perpetual lessees relinquished their lease. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant Raghubir Singh, who is the father of Indrasan Singh the second defendant, obtained unlawful possession of the 34 bighas odd of land. The plaintiff asserts that on the relinquishment by the perpetual lessees he himself became entitled to actual possession of the 34 bighas held by them. He therefore brought the present suit for the ejectment of Raghubir Singh as a trespasser, and for mesne profits and rent for three ye...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »