Allahabad Court October 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.
Naubat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All136
Ashworth, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur recommending that an order passed by a First Class Magistrate for the summary trial of 31 accused should be set aside. A complaint was lodged against 31 accused alleging facts, which if believed, would indicate that offences under Sections 147 and 427, Indian Penal Code, had been committed by them. This complaint Was filed before one Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged under Section 190(a) of the Criminal P.C. that is to say, he took cognizance on a complaint. He then, under Section 202, directed an investigation by the police. The police expressed the opinion that the facts justified the accused being put on their trial under Sections 143 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and that it was a case where the summary method of trial might be employed. The Magistrate appears to have accepted the police report and the case was transferred by the District Magistrate for a summary trial to anoth...
Mt. Tirbeni Vs. Mt. Bhagwati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All149
Kendall, J.1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Meerut under Section 488, Criminal P.C., recommending that the order of Mr. Puech, Special Magistrate of the First Class of Meerut, rejecting the application of Mt. Tirbeni to be excused from personal attendance in his Court under Section 205, Criminal P.C., should be set aside. The facts appear to be that two ladies made cross-complaints against each other under Sections 323 and 452, Indian Penal Code, and both those ladies appeared in Court; but Mt. Tirbeni, who is the accused in one of the cases but who had not made any complaint, did not appear in Court. All the ladies belong to a class that observes parda, and the Magistrate's chief reason for refusing to excuse Mt. Tirbeni' a personal attendance was that the other ladies who were related to her, had appeared in Court; but, as the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, they did so of their own free will. The matter appears to be a trivial one from the point of view of the...
Prabhu Dayal Vs. Munshi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All573
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. By this application it is sought to get a decree passed by the learned Munsif of Ghaziabad revised, That decree was passed in accordance with an award. One of the objections to the award that was taken before the learned Munsif, and that has been reiterated in the course of the arguments before me, was that one of the three punchas having refused to sign the award the award was bad in law. The learned Munsif overruled this objection and the other objection of the applicant, and as stated above passed a decree in accordance with the award.2. In my opinion this Court cannot interfere with the decree so passed in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The award having been made and not having been found invalid by the learned Munsif for the reasons given by him, the only course open to the learned Munsif was to pass a decree in terms of the award and in so doing he has not exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law, nor has failed to exercise a jurisdiction ...
Lakhmi Chand Vs. Kedar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1928All12
Kendall, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Agra, setting aside the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge disallowing an objection of the judgment-debtor, named Kedar Nath, to the execution of a decree against him. The decree-holder in the present appellant. The circumstances of the case are briefly as follows:2. The judgment-debtor, Kedar Nath, was declared an insolvent under the Insolvent Debtors Act, '1848, and has not been discharged. The decree-holder is applying to execute his decree by attaching the judgment-debtor's property acquired after the insolvency, but has not issued notice to the official assignee. The claim of the judgment-debtor in the first Court was that the decree could not be executed without making the official assignee a party to the proceedings. The first Court relying an a decision of this Court published in Chhote Lal v. Kedar Nath A.I.R. 1924 All. 703, allowed the objection. The learned District Judge decided that th...
Jagdish Prasad NaraIn Sahi Vs. Jang Bahadur Naik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All148
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute and that by pure mistake that land has been recorded in the revenue papers in the name of the defendant. The defence was a denial of the plaintiffs' title to the land in dispute and further that the suit was barred by the six years rule of limitation. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' suit. From a perusal of the judgment of the learned Munsif it appears that he has not dealt with the question of limitation that formed the subject-matter of Issue No. 2. Probably the question was not discussed before the learned Munsif. But the point appears to have been raised before the learned Subordinate Judge and the learned Subordinate Judge has overruled the plea of limitation and affirmed the decree of the trial Court.2. The lower appellate Court has found as a fact that the title to the land in dispute is with the plaintiffs. This is...
Shyam Lal Vs. Dwarka Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All277
1. This is a pre-emption appeal. The suit was brought by the appellant and professed to be a suit under the Agra Pre-emption Act, 11 of 1922. The Courts below have dismissed the claim on the ground that no right of pre-emption exists in this village, and this decision is founded upon the interpretation of Section 5 of the Act, together with a construction of an extract from the wajib-ul-arz.2. There was produced before the Courts below a wajib-ul-arz in which substantially the record was couched in the following language:Up to the present time there has been no case of pre-emption in this village, but in the surrounding villages there is a custom of pre-emption by which, when one co-sharer wishes to sell his land, pre-emption is to be allowed in favour of...[Here follows the scheme of pre-emption.]3. The Courts below were of opinion that this record did not satisfy the requirements of Section 5 of the Pre-emption Act. Section 5(1) says that the right of pre-emption shall be deemed to e...
Lachman Prasad and anr. Vs. Faizul Hasan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All273
1. These two appeals raise the question of the proper interpretation of Section 12 of the Agra Pre-emption Act.2. The plaintiff Faiz-ul-Hasan brought two separate suits for pre-emption in respect of two separate sets of items of property situated in mauza Nawada, mahal Baqi Manda, patti Muhammad Haji, Khewat No. 1.3. In each case the plaintiff claimed preemption on the ground that he was a co-sharer in the mahal. It has been found by the Courts below that the plaintiff is in fact a co-sharer in the mahal and is also the lambardar, and it is further found that he is a cousin of the vendor.4. The plots of land which were sold in these sale-deeds were specified as separate plots situated in the khewat mentioned above. The vendees resisted the claim and put forward the case that they had as good a right of pre-emption as the plaintiff. In the lower appellate Court the point seems to have been taken on behalf of the vendees that the interests sold under each of these sales were petty propri...
Ram Gopal Vaish Vs. Mahanand Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All420
1. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit in which he asked that a certain mortgage-deed dated the 28th a April 1921, should be cancelled and declared to be null and void and ineffectual as against the plaintiff, but he gave as the date from which his cause of action arose the 28th of November 1921, which was the date on which the Court passed an order proclaiming that mortgage to be a burden on a house, which the plaintiff has attached in execution of a decree. From this it may be seen that the plaintiff's suit is really a suit for a declaration that order is ineffective. The suit was not brought until the 29th of March, 1923, and it has been held by both the Courts below that it is barred by limitation. We must agree with this view. The plaintiff had no cause of action to have this mortgage set aside except in virtue of the order passed by the Court, for he had no interest in the property. If his suit has been brought as we must hold, to set aside the order of the Court passed on the...
Raza Hasan and ors. Vs. Mohammad YasIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All155
1. The plaintiffs' suit for pre-emption has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that on the date of the sale sought to be preempted Nazar Husain, Plaintiff No. 4, had no interest in the pre-empted property. It is found that he acquired a share in the mahal some time after the execution of the sale-deed now challenged. In view of this finding the learned Subordinate Judge applied Section 21 of the Agra Pre-emption Act and dismissed the whole suit. Section 21 of the Act lays down that:where a person having a right of pre-emption sues jointly with a person not having such right, he shall lose his right.2. The first ground of appeal taken here is that the Court below has misinterpreted Section 21 of the Agra Pre-emption Act; It seems to be argued that because the Plaintiff No. 4 had acquired an interest in the mahal prior to the date of suit his case was not within the mischief aimed at by this section. But clearly this argument cann...
Raza HussaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All184
Walsh, Ag. C.J.1. This is one of those troublesome and difficult cases, which are dignified by the misleading description of an application for transfer. I am quite satisfied that no grounds for transfer exist, that the affidavit, which is put forward to support it, is a scandalous and irrelevant document, which must be removed from the file of the Court where it ought never to have been placed, and that I might confine myself to the simple duty of dismissing this application. It is true that there are two so-called complaints against the particular gentleman who is trying the charge under Section 110 against the applicant. One of them is that he refused to make an order disclosing to the accused the names of the witnesses for the prosecution. The circumstances under which he did so do not very clearly appear. My attention has not been drawn to any provision of the law which has been broken in this matter, and I decline to regard that as a serious allegation in any way affecting this a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »