Allahabad Court November 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.
Emperor Vs. Ishwar Dayal Pandey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All238
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of a Magistrate of the Second Class in a case under Section 62 of the Indian Stamp Act. The order is as follows:From the statement recorded I find that the offence was not done intentionally by the accused. They were not knowing that two anna stamp was necessary. They have admitted their mistake and expressed their regret and said that nothing was done intentionally. I, therefore, warn them act to do so in future.2. The District Magistrate evidently considered that this order was pissed under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the provisions of which do not apply to an offence under the Stamp Act. His objection to the order is valid, if the order was really passed under that section. Had the learned Magistrate not warned the accused for the future, I should have been inclined to regard the order as one of acquittal. In view of the fact that the trying Magistrate has, found that there was no dishonest intention on t...
Ali Bahadur Beg and anr. Vs. Rafi-ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All272
Pullan, J.1. The question arising for decision in this second appeal is whether the suit has abated as no application was made for substitution within the time prescribed after the death of the judgment-debtor. A preliminary decree for sale in this mortgage suit was dated the 13th of May 1920. The judgment-debtor died in July 1920 and admittedly no application for substitution was made prior to the application for final decree on 12th of May 1923. It has been argued that in a case of this kind Order 22, Rule 4 does, not apply because of the use of the words 'right to sue,' and Rule 10 is more applicable to this case. This view is based upon a decision of the Nagpur Court to which we have been referred: Tula Ram v. Tukaram A.I.R. 1921 Nag. 32. But we do not find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning in that decision. In our opinion the law has been more correctly laid down by the Madras High Court in Lakshmi Achi v. Subbarama Ayyar [1916] 39 Mad. 488 and in a later ruling reported a...
Sami Nath Singh and anr. Vs. Thakur Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All309
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a 10-gandas zemindari share in village Chhatunan.2. There is no controversy about the facts. Parkash Rai, the father of Defendant No. 1, mortgaged a 12-gandas share to the plaintiff who, on the basis of that mortgage, obtained a preliminary decree for sale on the 9th of December 1910. To that decree only Defendant No. 1 was a party. After the passing of the preliminary decree, viz., on the 20th of July 1911, Defendant No. 1 sold a 10-gandas share, out of the 12-gandas share mortgaged to Sukh Deo Pal, Defendant No. 2. Thereafter, on the 10th of February 1912 the plaintiff-respondent obtained a final decree on the basis of the preliminary decree of the year 1910, as against Defendant No. 1 and he did not implead in those proceedings Sukh Deo Pal. On the 28th of April 1913, after the final decree had been obtained by the plaintiff, Sukh Deo Pal, transferred the 10 gandas share purchased by him to Def...
Lachman Dube and ors. Vs. Ambika Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All366; 100Ind.Cas.444
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of a one anna 15-gandas and odd zemindari share by cancellation of a sale-deed dated the 18th May 1908, executed by Deoki Nandan, grandfather, Chandrika, father, and Ram Behari uncle of the plaintiffs along with one Parshotam who was a nephew of Deoki Nandan, the grandfather of the plaintiffs. The property sold by the said sale-deed was a two-annas 13-gandas and odd share out of which 17-gandas and odd belonged to Parshotam and I am not concerned with that share in the present appeal. The remaining share, viz., the share in dispute was sold by the remaining vendors for a sum of Rs. 1,000.2. The plaintiffs' allegations were in the common form jointness of the family, the property in dispute being joint ancestral property of the family, and an assertion of the absence of any legal necessity for the sale.3. The suit was resisted by the defendants substantially on three grounds. Firstly, that...
Kesho Singh and ors. Vs. Roopan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All355
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The controversy in this appeal relates to old plot No. 1166 corresponding to new plot No. 1501. The said plot admittedly belonged to Roopan Singh defendant-respondent. The plaintiff's case was that Roopan Singh, by a sale-deed, dated the 23rd of November, 1907, sold the said plot along with certain other plots to Mahadeo Singh, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, but by mistake in lieu of Plot No. 1166, Plot 1167 was entered in the sale-deed. The plaintiffs alleged that notwithstanding this mistake their names were recorded as against Plot No. 1166 by the Revenue Court, and the entry in their favour continued up to 1329 F, when on an application of Roopant Singh, defendant-respondent that entry was corrected and Roopan Singh's name was entered against the said plot. That plot from before the execution of the sale-deed has all along been in possession of a mortgagee and as such the relief claimed by the plaintiff's was for a declaration of their title to that p...
(Maharaj) Hari Ram Vs. Sri Krishna Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All418
Dalal, J.1. A decree-holder applied for the arrest of the judgment-debtor, who was insolvent, and it was granted by the first executing Court of the Subordinate Judge. On appeal the learned District Judge held that in consequence of an order of adjudication in favour of the judgment-debtor passed by the Insolvency court under Section 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the respondent was protected from arrest. The decree-holder has come here in second appeal. It was first argued that the application for execution was time barred because the insolvent was automatically discharged six months after the order of adjudication, that is, on the 13th November 1921. The application was made by the appellant on 2nd March 1925. We are of opinion that the provisions of Section 43 of the Insolvency Act do not contemplate any automatic discharge. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court was of that opinion in Abraham v. Sookias : AIR1924Cal777 . Without an order of the Insolvency Court the insolvent is n...
NaThe Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All829
Kendall, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to this application on the ground that no application has been made for revision to the Sessions Judge. It is admitted that no such application has been made, although it is claimed that the fact that an appeal was made to the District Magistrate ought to be sufficient. That is, however, quite a different matter. It has been decided by a Bench of this Court in Sharif Ahamad v. Qabul Singh A.I.R. 1921 All. 30 that so far as the practice of the High Court in the matter of applications for revision on the criminal side is concerned, an application to the lower Court should be considered an essential step in the procedure. In future, therefore, failure on the part of the applicant to submit his application through the lower Court will operate as a bar to the application being entertained by the High Court. In view of this decision, I am precluded from tearing the application at this stage. It is, therefore, dismissed....
Maharaj Hari Ram Vs. Sri Krishan Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.320
1. A decree-holder applied for the arrest of the judgment-debtor, who was an insolvent, and it was granted by the first executing Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge. On appeal the learned District Judge held that in consequence of an order of adjudicaton in favour of the judgment-debtor passed by the Insolvency Court under Section 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the respondent was protected from arrest. The decree-holder has come here in second appeal. It was first argued that the application for execution was time-barred because the insolvent was automatically discharged six months after the order of adjudication, that is, on the 13th November, 1921. The application was made by the appellant on 2nd March, 1925. We are of opinion that the provisions of Section 43 of the Insolvency Act do not contemplate any automatic discharge. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court was of that opinion in Abraham v. Sookias : AIR1924Cal777 . Without an order of the Insolvency Court the insolvent is not d...
Raja Ram Vs. NaraIn Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All206
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents against the defendants-appellants for rent of a holding. The plaint sets forth that the plaintiffs are the zemindars of the village and that the Defendant No. 1 is an ex-proprietary tenant and the other defendants his sub-tenants. The defendants resisted the suit on the plea amongst others that the plaintiffs were only co-sharers and could not bring the suit without joining the other co-sharers. The Assistant Collector allowed this plea and dismissed the suit. He held that as a previous suit by the plaintiffs on the same cause of action had been admittedly dismissed, it must be held that it had been decided once for all that the plaintiffs alone could not sue this former decision operating under the rule of res judicata. He also held that if the point was open to proof there was sufficient evidence that there were other co-sharers.2. In first appeal the Additional District Judge found that no p...
Munna and ors. Vs. Baij Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All212
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act, The plaintiffs were admittedly occupancy tenants of the holding comprising the plots in dispute. The plaintiffs case was that the defendant was in possession as their sub-tenant and as such was liable to ejectment. 2. The defence to the suit was that the relation of landholder and tenant did not exist between the parties, and that the plots in dispute were once in possession of Kallu and Madhol, who left the village and then the defendant entered into possession of the same about six years prior to the institution of the suit in the capacity of a zemindar.3. The trial Court held that the holding belonged to several co-sharers, and that the rent of the holding was actually realised by Chandra Shekher lambardar and by another co-sharer named Raj Bahadur, and the defendant never collected any portion of the rent due in respect of the holding. It furth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »