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.
Jairaj Singh Vs. Bansi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All165
Banerji, J.1. On 15th March 1925, one Jairaj Singh made a report at the police-station Bachraun, district Moradabad, that Bansi and three others had stolen 8 bundles of sugarcane seeds belonging to him. The report ends up by saying 'Mere dawa in charon par hai; tahqiqat chahta hun.' After an inquiry by the police the accused came up before a Magistrate of the First Class at Moradabad, who on 23rd April 1925, held that the case was a false and frivolous one and being of opinion that the complainant should pay compensation to the accused, immediately asked Jairaj Singh, who was present in Court, why he should not pay compensation to the accused for having brought a false and frivolous case. Jairaj not being able to show cause, he directed Jairaj to pay Rs. 50 as compensation to Bansi. Jairaj went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad. He has referred the case to this Court with a recommendation that the order directing compensation should be set aside, as it is il...
Ganga Sahai and ors. Vs. Mukarram Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All361; 97Ind.Cas.556
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a creditor's appeal from an order, dated the 30th July 1923, passed in an insolvency proceeding, which is the subject of much controversy. The respondent was adjudicated an insolvent on the 16th February 1917, and a large number of creditors were intered as schedule creditors. On the 19th April 1922, the insolvent put in an application, purporting to be under Section 38 of Act No. V of 1920, stating that the major part of the debts alleged to be due to the creditors were fictitious and were not really due. He expressed his readiness to pay the amounts actually due to the creditors in full, together with interest at a rate which the Court might consider reasonable. There was also a suggestion in paragraph 4 of the application that the Court had full power to hold an enquiry into the true accounts of the debts and to correct the schedule accordingly. The learned Judge, without passing any formal order as to whether he approved of the proposal or not, at once appoin...
Fateh Singh and ors. Vs. Gopal NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All637
ORDER1. The question for decision in this case is briefly this:While an ejectment suit is pending in the revenue Court in which the main issue is whether the defendant is or is not a tenant of the plaintiff, will the civil Court entertain a suit the object of which is to compel the revenue Court to hold that the defendant is not a tenant?2. The plaintiffs respondents Gopal Narain Singh and Sri Narain Singh are mortgagees from certain occupancy tenants under a mortgage executed in 1882.3. The mortgage was a burdensome one as the interest exceeded the profits of the holding.4. The tenants relinquished their holding in favour of the zamindars on the 23rd of March, 1923.5. On the 1st October, 1923, the zamindars B. Fateh Singh and others, brought a suit in the revenue Court for the ejectment of the respondents Gopal Narain and Sri Narain as non-occupancy tenants. Their position was that as the occupancy tenants had relinquished the tenancy, the occupancy tenure had come to an end and the m...
Mt. Kishan Dei Vs. Sheo Paltan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All1
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. The plaintiff had a brother Paltu, who died some six years ago. He married a woman named Mt. Mano and executed a deed, dated 29th January 1904, under which he stated that he had installed her in his house (apne ghar men baitha lia hai) and made a Will that after his death she would inherit the whole estate and that his brothers would have no right. There was a further provision that if he were not to keep her he would pay her Rs. 10 a month regularly. In his lifetime, however, he executed a deed of gift, dated the 29th of April 1917, under which he transferred the property in dispute to Mt. Mano. The validity of this deed is accepted by the plaintiff and he admits that the property thereafter became the stridhan property of Mt. Mano. Paltu died in 1919, and it was a part of the plaintiff's case that after his death there was an agreement between him and Mt. Mano as well as some other relations...
Ram Harak Pathak Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All57
Banerji, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Basti under Section 477, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 2 and 1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The charge against him is that he destroyed a patta which he and Sheo Agyan had executed in favour of Sheobalak, son of Jagai, on 11th February 1925.3. It appears that there was a suit filed in the Court of the Munsif of Basti by the accused and some others against Jagai for a declaration that certain land was their khudkasht. Jagai defended the suit on the ground that the land was his occupancy tenancy. Jagai was referred by the Munsif under the provisions of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act to the revenue Court to get his status qua this land declared. In the meantime a riot took place in the village, and he, the appellant and several others were prosecuted for offences of rioting and hurt. While that case was pending, a patta (together with a kabuliyat) was executed on the 1st of October 1924, in favou...
Ram Harakh Pathak Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.913
Banerji, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Basti under Section 477, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 2 1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The charge against him is that he destroyed a patta which he and Sheo Agyan had executed in favour of Sheobalak, son of Jagai, on the 11th of February 1925.3. It appears that there was a suit filed in the Court of the Munsif of Basti by the accused and some others against Jagai for a declaration that certain land was their khudkasht. Jagai defended the suit on the ground that the land was his occupancy tenancy. Jagai was referred by the Munsif under the provisions of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act to the Revenue Court to get hid status qua this land declared. In the meantime a riot took place in the village, and he the appellant, and several others were prosecuted for offences of rioting and hurt. While that case was pending, a patta (together with a kabuliyat) was executed on the 1st of October 1924 in fav...
Musammat Kishan Dei Vs. Sheo Paltan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.358
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. The plaintiff had a brother Paltu, who died some six years ago. He married a woman named Musammat Mano and executed a deed, dated the 29th of January 1904, under which he stated that he had installed her in his house (apne ghar men baitha lia hai) and made a Will that after his death she would inherit the whole estate and that his brothers would have no right. There was a further provision that if he were not to keep her he would pay her Rs. 10 a month regularly. In his lifetime, however, ho executed a deed of gift, dated the 29th of April 1917, under which he transferred the property in dispute to Musammat Mano. The validity of this deed is accepted by the plaintiff and he admits that the property thereafter became the stridhan property of Musammat Mano. Paltu died in 1919, and it was a part of the plaintiff's case that after his death there was an agreement between him and Musammat Mano as w...
Mt. Begam Sultan Vs. Sarvi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All93; 90Ind.Cas.274
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of an execution matter. The respondents took the objection, inter alia, that the application for execution was barred by the three years' rule under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, as well as by the 12 years' rule under Section 48 of the Civil P.C.2. The objection is based on the following circumstances: A decree for sale was obtained against two sets of properties situated in Bulandshahr and Meerut in the year 1907. Before the final decree was passed part of the property situated in the Meerut district was sold at an auction and purchased by Sarvi Begam on the 25th of March 1908. An order absolute under the old Code was passed on the 10th of August 1908. Sarvi Begam, the purchaser, was, however, not impleaded till then. Subsequently Sarvi Begam made a gift of a portion of her interest in favour of Taimur Ali Shah some time in the year 1325 Fasli corresponding to 1918.3. The decree-holder first proceeded to execute his decree in respec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›