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.
Ramdayal and ors. Vs. Mt. Saraswati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All526
1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit; for a declaration of title and in the alternative for possession as trustees over four items of property.2. The plaintiffs' case was that these properties were the private-property of Salig Ram, the father of Mt. Saraswati, on whom it had devolved through a line of spiritual ancestors, that Salig Ram made a Will of these properties on the 28th of June 1895, in favour of Mt. Saraswati and later on the 5th of November 1905, gifted them to her. Plaintiff No. 2 joined in the suit on the basis of the last-mentioned gift. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs were two fold. In the first place a declaration was asked for that they were owners of the entire estate and that the defendants or the public had no right of interference with it. In the second place it was prayed that even if any portion of the properties be declared to be endowed property the plaintiffs should be granted possession as managers and mutwallis.3. The plaintiffs alleg...
Basdeo Misra Vs. Badal Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All199
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application for transfer of a case under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (Basdeo Misra v. Badal Misra, and others) pending in the panchayat at Sonbarsa.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application by Mr. Pandey on the ground that a panchayat constituted under the provision of Act 6 of 1920 (United Provinces Village Panchayats Act) is not a Court within the meaning of Ch. 2 of the Criminal P.C., and as it is not a criminal Court within the meaning of that Act, Section 526 of the Criminal P.C. has no application, and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to transfer a case pending before a panchayat.3. The matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sat Narain v. Sarju A.I.R. 1924 All. 265. One of the learned Judges was of opinion that a panchayat constituted under the provisions of the Local Act referred to above is not a 'criminal Court' and as such this Court has no jurisdiction under Section 526 o...
Ganga Prasad Vs. Babu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All195
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of the site of a house by removal of the materials therefrom. The plaintiff admittedly is the zamindar of the abadi in which the house in dispute is situate.2. The house in dispute belonged to Defendant No. 2, who was a mere raiyat in the village, and who, by a sale-deed dated the 7th November 1921, transferred the said house to Defendant No. 1.3. The plaintiff's case was that according to the custom prevailing in the village in question the occupiers of the houses are only competent to sell the materials of their houses but cannot sell the site and that Defendant No. 2, contrary to his right transferred his house along with the site and all that Defendant No. 1 was entitled to was to remove the materials of the house, but was not entitled to the site of the house.4. The suit was contested only by Defendant No. 1, mainly on the ground that the custom set up by the plaintiff appellant did not prevail ...
Girdhari Lal Vs. Jhaman Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All203
Lindsay, J.1. This application has its origin in certain proceedings in the insolvency Court at Saharanpur.2. It appears that one Abdul Rahim was declared an insolvent and after the receiver had been appointed steps were taken for the realization of the assets of the insolvent for the purpose of discharging his debts. After other property of the insolvent had been disposed of it became necessary to resort to sale of his zemindari property paying land revenue and consequently under the provisions of Section 60 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Act V of 1920) the sale of the insolvent's immovable property was entrusted to the Collector. Under the section in question, when the Collector is entrusted with the duty of selling property of this kind in insolvency proceedings he exercises the powers which are conferred on him by paras. 2 to 10 of the Third Schedule to the Civil P.C. The Collector is moreover subject to such rules as have been made by the Local Government in the exercise of the...
Anant Ram and ors. Vs. Khushhal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All244
1. The plaintiffs have appealed from the dismissal of their suit for sale. The mortgage was a simple one and time of payment five years from the date of the bond which was 11th August, 1905. There was a further stimulation that interest shall be paid every six months and on non-payment compound interest shall be charged. Then the recital goes on 'dar surat waida khilafi' (in default) the mortgagee will have the right to recover the entire sum due to him with interest and compound interest by sale of the property. In the plaint it was stated in para. 5 that two six-monthly instalments of interest had been paid in 1926 meaning that the first default occurred on 11th August 1907. There was another payment of 11th February 1910 also alleged. There is no proof of the second payment of interest. The trial Court made no mention of any such payment and in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court it was not suggested that the trial Court had overlooked any evidence or failed to frame ...
Bhoora and ors. Vs. Tara Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All267
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut, asking this Court to set aside the order dated the 15th of July 1926 passed by a Magistrate of the first class in proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to direct the learned Magistrate to proceed according to the provisions of Section 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts that have led to this reference are shortly these. An application was filed by two persons Tara Singh and Balwant Singh under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notices were issued to the opposite parties who were the applicants before the learned Sessions Judge. The opposite parties appeared and denied the allegation of the applicants that any encroachment had been made by them on a public way. In short, they showed cause against the order drawn up by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Section 133 of ...
Ganga and ors. Vs. Jai Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All849
Kendall, J.1. This is a second appeal from the order of the learned District Judge of Cawnpore, setting aside the order of the first Court, by which the plaintiffs-appellants were given a decree for the ejectment of the defendant-respondent. The facts that have been proved in the lower Courts are that the plaintiffs-appellants are the occupancy tenants of the holding in dispute and that the defendant-respondent took forcible possession of that holding without the consent of the plaintiffs some time in the year 1328 F., and that the relation of landlord and tenant has never been admitted between the parties by the payment of rent. The first Court held that the defendant must be regarded as a subtenant and, in fact, was recorded as such, and that he was liable to ejectment. The lower appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a sub-tenant but a trespasser, and that the plaintiffs should have either taken proceedings under Section 79, N.W.P. Tenancy Act, 1...
Baldeo Sahai Vs. Jafar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All159
1. It has been found by the Courts below that this application for a final decree is barred by time, as it has been made more than three years after the passing of the preliminary decree. The plaintiff sought to bring his application within time by proving a payment by the judgment-debtor within three years. A Single Judge of this Court has referred the case to a Bench holding that this is a matter of some importance and there is no direct authority upon it.2. There is no question that Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies to the case, and that, therefore, an application for final decree must be made within three years of the preliminary decree, unless the period can be extended. The argument addressed to us on behalf of the appellant is that Section 20 of the Limitation Act lays down that where part of the principal of a debt is paid before the expiration of the prescribed period, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made; and that as d...
Chedi Lal and anr. Vs. Jawahir Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All160
Lindsay, J.1. This application ought not, in my opinion to succeed. The suit was a suit for return of certain ornaments on the allegation that there had been a breach of contract of a promise of marriage. The case for the plaintiff was that many years before the suit his son whilst still an infant was betrothed to the daughter of one of the defendants also an infant. It was alleged that at the time of the betrothal ornaments valued at Rs. 394 were made over to the defendants for the girl, and it was agreed that if the marriage was subsequently not carried out when the children reached the age of maturity the ornaments were to be returned. The parties are Telis, and it was pleaded that this was also a customary law of the tribe. The suit was resisted on various grounds. The defendants raised the plea that the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and relied upon Article 35 in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Judge says that this article cann...
Puttu Lal Vs. Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All158
Kendall, J.1. This second appeal is from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun, confirming an order of the first Court giving the plaintiff respondents possession of a certain share, which had been the property of one Baldeo Singh. The share in question had been transferred by a deed of sale by Mt. Nanhi Koer to the present appellant in 1923; but the lower Courts have found it proved that Mt. Nanhi Koer had no legal title to the property, although her name had been entered in the revenue papers as in joint possession of it together with the nephews of Baldeo Singh since 1916. Both the lower Courts held that the present appellant had no legal title to the property, and therefore, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. On second appeal in the High Court, the, case was remanded for a decision on the following issue:Did the respondents, or any of them, and if so which, take part in negotiating the sale of Mt. Nanhi Koer in favour of Puttu Lal appellant.2. It had been claimed on behalf of the...