Allahabad Court January 1926 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.
Khem Karan Das Vs. Baldeo Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All282; 92Ind.Cas.1046
Walsh, J.1. I agree entirely with Mr. Haidar that this is a nice question and an important question, but having made up by mind quite clearly and being prepared to give my reasons, I propose to dismiss the appeal so that he can appeal without further delay to the Letters Patent Bench, The question of law is whether a cosharer having claim against another cosharer, in respect of a separate matter altogether, namely for rent, can join that claim to a suit under Section 165 of the Tenancy Act brought for an account. It is a mere question of procedure but sometimes questions of procedure go to the root of a matter, and I can understand that the revenue side may have reasons for refusing to allow two such suits to be joined. A suit for accounts involves totally different considerations, and inasmuch as Assistant Collectors are not trained lawyers, it is quite likely that it is considered important to keep these matters distinct. The revenue procedure is strict and technical and I find on re...
Bansi Dhar Vs. Debi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All351
1. A suit was filed by a firm styled Raja Ram Dalal for the recovery of money alleged to have been due by the defendant. During the course of that suit Raja Ram, who was described as the manager of that firm, died and the munim of that firm continued to prosecute the suit without taking any steps to bring the other partners of the firm if any, on the record. Subsequently an application was filed by the sons of Raja Ram to be brought on the record in the place of Raja Ram, deceased. That application was dismissed on the ground that the suit had already abated. An appeal was filed from that order, which was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. The sons of Raja Ram then made an application to set aside the abatement and that application was granted and the delay excused in consideration of the time spent by them in prosecuting the appeal from the order refusing to bring them on the record. In other words the abatement was set aside by the Court of first instance in view o...
Kishun Singh Vs. Gobind Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All215
Walsh, J.1. The only question of law which can be said fairly to be raised by this appeal is academic, namely, whether the Privy Council in the case of H.H. Mir Abdul Hussein Khan v. Mt. Bibi Sona Dero AIR 1917 PC 181 really said that a custom should be immemorial. I do not think they said that. It was recognized that the rules regulating custom in India are very different from those in England. At any rate there was no Richard I in India, and these family customs in India are somewhat special. But the case in question does decide that they must be ancient and exact. Lord Buckmaster says: It is necessary to define what the custom is and then examine the evidence to see if it satisfies the conditions so laid down.' Both the Courts have done that in this case, and both of them are dissatisfied with the evidence, and hold that it does not prove the custom. Ordinarily a half-brother does not inherit, and a custom to the contrary ought to be clearly established by convincing evidence. I agr...
Udraj Singh and anr. Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All338
Walsh, J.1. This is an execution appeal by the decree-holder. The decree is a simple money-debt obtained against Parsotam Das. I do not say that no point of law arises, but I think the law is clear. Two questions are involved. Parsotam Das was a member of a joint Hindu family, but he inherited property independently so that it became his self-acquired property; but both Courts have found that by his consent it passed into the common stock, and, therefore, became part of the joint property. That is a question of fact to be judged upon the conduct of the parties.2. The second question which arises is whether his interest can be seized and sold by the decree-holder. If he were the father of the family, and were alive, the whole family property could be taken in execution in favour of the debt. If he were living, his right, title and interest could be sold, but he is dead; and when be dies, the other members of the joint family acquire an undivided share in his former interest by survivors...
Emperor Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All389
1. This is a Government appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra sitting at Muttra.2. The facts involved are very simple and are these. The respondent, Panna Lal, executed a document on the 27th of January 1925 in more or less the following language. He recited that a certain parson named in the deed had executed in his favour on the 24th of August 1915 a simple mortgage bond for Rs. 300 hypothecating certain properties which he mentioned. Then ha received that he had received from Durga Prasad (evidently the successor-in-title of the mortgagor) a certain sum of money and that after giving credit for the money paid only a sum of Rs. 100 was due to him. Panna Lal then went on to say in the deed that he was going to receive that sum of Rs. 100 from Durga Prasad before the Sub-Registrar and that accordingly he executed the document of release (datbardari) and thereby renounced all rights that had accrued to him...
Gur NaraIn Chaube Vs. Nirand Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All342
Lindsay, J.1. In my opinion the plaintiff-appellant cannot succeed. The suit was a suit for arrears of rent. It is stated that the tenant paid rent at the rate of Rs. 100 up to the year 1917. It was pleaded that in 1917 the tenant had by an oral agreement undertaken to pay rent at the increased rate of Rs. 118 a year, and it was on the basis of this agreement that the present suit was brought. It was further stated that the plaintiff had been paid rent at this enhanced rate for some years subsequent to 1917. The learned Counsel informs me that the suit has failed in the Court below on the ground that it was not competent to the plaintiff to enforce a claim for enhanced rent on the basis of an oral agreement. In my opinion that is a perfectly correct finding. Section 41(1), Agra Tenancy Act, lays, down that the rent of an exproprietary or occupancy tenant shall be liable to enhancement or abatement only: (a) by a registered agreement; or (b) by a decree or order of a revenue Court. Ther...
Ram Raj Dassundhi Vs. Mt. Umraji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All345
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings. The decree was passed by a Small Cause Court for a sum of Rs. 115-4. No second appeal lay in the original case. It is clear that no second appeal lies on the execution side. The appeal would fail on this technical ground alone.2. Even on the merits the appeal must fail. The Court below has found that the present application for execution was made more than throe years after the decree. The decree-holder, however claimed to save limitation by virtue of an application dated the 30th of May 1924 filed in the Court of the Munsif. The Courts below have found that when the Small Cause Court which had passed the decree was abolished the Small Cause Court cases were transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judges who alone had Small Cause Court powers.. The Munsif in whose Court the application was filed had no such power. He had therefore no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the decree ...
Param Sukh and anr. Vs. Dambar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All102
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that they are the occupancy tenants of the holding and are not the sub-tenants of the defendants. Prior to the institution of the suit the defendants had filed a suit, in the revenue Court against the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants were the tenants-in-chief and that the plaintiffs were the sub-tenants. That suit admittedly resulted in a decree which was affirmed by the Board of Revenue The result is that the plaintiffs have been ejected by the revenue Court. After the passing of the revenue Court decree the present suit in a civil Court was instituted for the declaration afore mentioned. Both the Courts below have thrown out the suit, on the ground that it is barred.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants contends that the ejectment by the revenue Court proceeded on the assumption hat the plaintiffs were holding the land under Section 34 of the Tenancy Act and were not the tenants of the def...
Munna Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All390
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from an order passed under Section 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the applicant to have a portion of his building removed within a month. The accused went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who summarily dismissed his application.2. The matter in dispute was somewhat complicated as is borne out by the circumstances that the original notice issued under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code had to be amended several times. The notice proceeded on the assumption that the accused in building a shop had encroached upon apart of the public way. When the accused appeared he contested the notice and denied that there had been any encroachment. His pleas were that he made no encroachment and that there was already a distance of 9 feat between the road and his shop. He produced a map showing that there was a space of 9 feet between the road and the shop and that the width of the public road varied at different places. ...
Raghubir Singh and ors. Vs. Nathu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1013
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an order of a Bench of this Court passed in its revisional jurisdiction. It appears that in the Court of first instance a suit was brought against one Manohar Singh. The 17th of November 1923 was fixed for the settlement of issues. Before that date Manohar Singh came into Court and filed a written statement in which he stated that he was willing to confess judgment and prayed that he might be relieved from the costs. The plaintiff consented to this arrangement and on the 13 th of November 1923 a judgment was given as on a compromise.2. On January 26, 1924, the defendant Manohar Singh filed an application for review before the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge went into the matter and after having recorded certain evidence he gave effect to the application and. re-called his first decree. Against this order of the Subordinate Judge, an appeal was brought to this Court which was filed as a first appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »