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.
Muhammad Yusuf Khan Vs. Mahadeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All134
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution matter. A preliminary decree for sale was passed on 30th May 1916 and an appeal was preferred from that decree to the Court of the District Judge who modified the decree finally on 27th November 1919. Between the passing of the decree by the District Judge and the order of the High Court a final decree was passed by the Court of first instance on 22nd January 1918. The decree-holder applied for execution of the final decree as originally prepared. This application was, of course, rejected as the decree was based on the preliminary decree which had been modified on appeal by the High Court. Ultimately the decree-holder on 20th February 1922 applied to the Court of first instance for preparation of a new final decree or the amendment of the old one in accordance with the preliminary decree passed by the High Court in second appeal. The learned Judge instead of ordering that a new decree should be prepared on a ...
Jagat NaraIn Lal and anr. Vs. Hawaldar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All158; 90Ind.Cas.287
1. We have heard the learned Counsel in this appeal. We think it must fail. The dispute between the parties was as to the amount of consideration, the vendee pleading that it was Rs. 3,495 and the plaintiff asserting that the price was only Rs. 1,500. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiff's, but the lower appellate Court has directed the pre-emptors to pay the full purchase-money of Rs. 3,493. The findings of the Court below regarding the amount of consideration is final. There is only one point to be noticed. The decree of the Court of first instance which the lower appellate Court has affirmed was not a proper decree in a pre-emption suit. The Munsif directed the pre-emptors to pay the pre-emption money within 60 days of the date of the decree becoming final. The proper form of a decree for pre emption is laid down in Order 20, Rule 14 and the date by which the purchase-money should be paid must be specified. It is not a compliance with this direction of the la...
Harihar Dat Vs. Maksud Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All159
Sulaiman, J.1. The point which arises in this reference is as to whether when a complaint has been filed against an accused per9on for offences some of which are triable exclusively by the Magistrate and some by the Sessions Court and the accused after trial is discharged in respect of all the offences, an order for compensation against the complainant, under Section 250 can or, cannot be passed.2. The complaint was filed under Sections 395, 323 and 330, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate found that no case had been made out against the accused in respect of any of the offences mentioned. He accordingly discharged him. He farther ordered the complainant to pay Rs. 50 as compensation to the accused. The complainant applied in revision to the Additional Sessions Judge who has referred the case to the High Court. The learned Judge has declined to interfere on the merits, but has recommended that the order directing compensation to be paid should be set aside. He has cited the case of The Crown...
Sultan Muhammad Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All176; 90Ind.Cas.926
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a revision from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing a re-trial. The application is made on behalf of Mahbub Hasan Khan and eight other accused persons. A complaint under Section 147 read with Section 395, I.P.O., was made by Abdul Aziz Khan against these accused in the Court of the Tahsildar of Kasganj, a Magistrate of second class powers. The evidence of the parties was produced before the Magistrate. In his order, dated 29th April 1925, the trying Magistrate came to the following conclusion 'In my opinion only Mahbub Hasan Khan is guilty and he voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ibrahim Ali Khan and caused somewhat serious hurt to Abdul Aziz Khan and deserves more punishment than I have power to inflict.' Under Section 258(1) the Magistrate ought to have recorded an order of acquittal of all the accused persons except Mahbub Hasan Khan. He however made the following order; '1 submit the record under Section 349, Criminal P.C., to the Sub-Divisi...
Mutsaddi Lal Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All172; 90Ind.Cas.120
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff was employed as a weighman in the shop of the defendant on a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 13 per mensem. He claimed his wages from the 12th February 1921 to the 2nd February 1924 which the Court below has allowed for a period of three years prior to the suit.2. The question for determination is whether Article 7 or Article 102 is applicable to the suit. Art, 7 applies to suits for the wages of a household servant, artisan or labourer and provides a limitation of one year from the date when the wages accrue due. Article 102 applies to a suit for wages not otherwise provided for and allows a period of three years from the date when the wages accrue due. As stated by Stroud (Judicial Dictionary, 2nd Edition, page 2205), wages include payment for any services; yet in general the word salary is used for payment of servants of a higher class and wages is confined to the earnings of labourers and artisans: Gordon v. Jennings [1882] 51 L.J.Q.B. 417. A labo...
Nathu Lal Vs. Raghubir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All50
Boys, J.1. This is an appeal against an order purporting to be in review setting aside a decree on the ground of fraud or undue influence. The application for review alleged undue influence. The review has been granted upon a general finding apparently of fraud, undue influence, coercion, etc.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies; that it is barred by Order 47, Rule 7, in that none of the only three conditions in which an appeal is allowed is applicable to the case. For the appellant this is now practically conceded, but we are invited to hear the appeal as an application on the revisional side and to set aside the order granting the review on the ground that none of the conditions which under Order 47, Rule 1, are essential to a review existed in this case, and that the order granting the review was, therefore, an illegal exercise of jurisdiction. I think this contention is correct. Under Order 47, Rule 1, a review may be admitted on any of the three grounds set out ...
Muhammad Rahim Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All144
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Muhammad Rahim, who was convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and fined Rs. 50. He was ordered to execute a personal bond of Rs. 100 with two sureties of Rs. 50 each under Section 106, Criminal P.C. He has come up in revision and various grounds were taken by the learned vakil for the applicant. But the only ground in which there is force is ground No. 3, which is with reference to the order binding over the petitioner to keep the peace.2. It appears that the parties owned some fisheries and there was some dispute between the complainant and the accused about catching fish. There appears to have been a wordy warfare between the two and the accused caused simple hurt to the complainant. The learned Magistrate tried the case summarily; he found for the complainant on the question of the assault, and finding the accused guilty under Section 323 sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50. He further found that the parties were on bad terms. ...
Emperor Vs. Param Sukh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All147
Boys, J.1. In this case Government has appealed against the acquittal of one Param Sukh, son of Dwarka, caste Brahman, resident of Balhaura in the district of Banda. The charge was one under Section 302, I.P. C, and was in regard to the death of Sub-Inspector Jhamman Singh on whose head the accused was alleged to have struck two blows when he was engaged in making, or attempting, to make a search in the house of a cousin of the accused.2. On 7th November 1924, a report was made at the Police-station by one Bal Govind against Mahadeo, relative of the chaukidar of the village, Jeorakhan. Bal Govind charged Mahadeo with having stolen three ornaments from the person of his (Bal Govind's) son. Jeorakhan apparently arrived at the thana either with Bal Govind or at any rate, at just about the same time and he informed the Sub-Inspector that as a matter of fact the report made by Bal Govind was false as regards two out of the three ornaments, which, as a matter of fact, he (Jeorakhan) had seen...
Firm Mangal Chand-paramsukh Das Vs. Mt. Zainab Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All177; 90Ind.Cas.268
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for damages. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant in execution of a, decree against her husband Abdul Rashid and others attached a hand-loom belonging to her on 24th of May 1924 and thereby deprived her of its use till 1st of September 1924, when, on objection being raised by her, the attachment was released. She alleged that she could not work the hand-loom for three months and eight days and suffered a loss of Rs. 98. The defence was an assertion that the hand-loom belonged to the judgment-debtor and a plea that the attachment was bona fide and the damage claimed was remote and excessive. The denial of the plaintiff's ownership of the hand-loom does not appear to have been seriously pressed in the Courts below, both of which have assumed that the hand-loom belonged to the plaintiff. In the grounds of appeal before me there is no suggestion that was not so. The main contention on behalf of the defendant now is th...
Miran and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All168; 92Ind.Cas.224
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of six persons, who have been convicted under Section 147 read with Sections 149 and 332, I.P.C., and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, and they have been further directed to execute bonds with sureties under Section 106, Criminal P.C. to keep the peace.2. On 12th January, 1925, there was a wrestling match between Hasmat of Jalalabad and Inna of Kairana in the Chhaarian fair at Kairana. This wrestling match, it appears, was under the patronage of the Municipal Board and the Municipality had invited policemen to keep peace and order in the fair. The wrestling match, was a very evenly contested one and, according to the evidence of the Vice-Chairman, five minutes more were allowed to the wrestlers to finish the wrestling; but it appears that one Qazim Husain, constable, who was a backer of Hashmat, interfered with the wrestling. Thereafter there was a sort of souffle and the net result was that some of the policemen wer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »