Allahabad Court February 1926 Judgments
Bachhan Vs. Municipal Board of Mirzapur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All423; 94Ind.Cas.951
Lindsay, J.1. We have heard the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in this case in connexion with the office report, dated the 17th of February 1926, regarding the deficiency in the Court-fee in all three Courts. According to the office report there is a deficiency of Rs. 227-8-0 payable by the plaintiff-appellant.2. In our opinion the office report; is correct. The suit was brought for the purpose of obtaining a declaration of title regarding a certain piece of land in Mirzapur and for the declaratory relief Court-fee of Rs. 10 was paid. Further relief was sought in that the plaintiff asked the Court to issue a perpetual injunction restraining of Municipal Board of Mirzapur from interfering in any way with the construction of a chabutra which the plaintiff desired to erect on the land in question.3. In paragraph 7 of the plaint we find the following:For purposes of jurisdiction the value of the thing claimed is Rs, 1,100 and for payment of Court-fee it is Rs, 10, in respect of declar...
Tag this Judgment!Kalwa and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All377; 95Ind.Cas.74
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal by five men who have been convicted for participation in a murder. Two of the appellants, who are unrepresented, viz., Kalwa who confessed and whose confession has taken great prominence in the evidence at the trial and in the consideration of the case in Court, and Rasila, have been condemned to death. Against them there is positive evidence, in addition to the confession of Kalwa, going to show that they were seen coming away from the scene of the crime. Bhure Singh, also unrepresented before us, has been convicted under Sections 460 and 302, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life upon the statement of the confessing accused who testified to his presence at the commission of the crime and whose evidence against Bhure Singh is clearly corroborated in a manner impossible for the appellant to get over. The two remaining appellants, both of whom have been convicted and sentenced to transportation for life, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturi Lal Vs. Lakhmi Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All436; 94Ind.Cas.389
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for profits brought against the lambardar. The case has not been fully appreciated by the Courts below. The plaintiff alleged that the lambardar was most negligent and was guilty of misconduct. In the written statement this assertion was denied, but in para. 6 it was expressly admitted that the defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff asking him to adjust the accounts, but the plaintiff failed to do so Afterwards a money order was sent which also was returned The profits were sent to the plaintiff with reference to the amounts realised. The money order receipt was actually filed by the defendant which shows that a sum of Rs. 73 was sent by money order to the plaintiff. There can be no doubt that in the written statement it was clearly admitted by the plaintiff that on account of the amount realized by the defendant a sum of money was due to the plaintiff which was actually sent by money order and which was refused. Both ...
Tag this Judgment!Yad Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.359
1. This riot case really presents very little difficulty on either the law or the facts. A riot took place at Jalalpur. As usual both sides were sent up, the Police leaving it to the Magistrate to convict both sides if he wished. In Trial No. 21 the accused, the complainants in the present case, were all acquitted. In Trial No. 23 against 17 persons including the present appellant the Magistrate convicted the other sixteen under Section 325 read with Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted Yad Ram. We accept for the purpose of the present appeal, that the Police sent the accused up on charges under Sections 147 and 302, it being the fact established beyond doubt that one Mohan who was one of the present complainants' party, was killed in the course of the riot.2. The sixteen men appealed to the Court of Session and their conviction was set aside and their commitment ordered on charges including one under Section 302. That case was finally disposed of by the upholding of the...
Tag this Judgment!Khatun Bibi Vs. Rajjab
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All615; 94Ind.Cas.224
Walsh, J.1. This appeal arises a question of the validity of an agreement in relation to a Mahomedan marriage, which seem to me to be concluded by authorities which I feel compelled to follow, even if I did not agree with them.2. A Mahomedan husband sues his wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife alleges that in breach of an agreement, made on the 1st of March 1921, (an ante nuptial agreement) she is entitled to, and has, in fact, divorced her husband. The lower appellate Court held that there is no proof that the defendant exercised the option of divorce and it also rightly held that the agreement gave no power to the wife to divorce. In my opinion the question of divorce is a side issue, which really does not arise. The real question is whether the agreement is binding upon the husband so as to disentitle him to bring a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.3. The agreement is not correctly set out in the written statement. In fact, it appears to me to have been delibera...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Vs. Raghubir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All462; 94Ind.Cas.336
Walsh, J.1. I cannot interfere in this appeal. The plaintiff sues, as zamindar, some occupancy tenants who cut down some trees and sold them. The case is not without its humorous aspect. The plaintiff alleged that the trees were cut down in April 1922. He did not say that there was theft or concealment, so as to make Article 48 applicable, or that the matter came to his knowledge at a later date. What he said was that inspite of repeated demands for the money, not for the trees, the defendants refused to pay, and be claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 500. It reads like a claim for trespass upon immovable property in cutting down the trees and for conversion of moveable property by turning them into money after they have been cut down. This would be prima facie a theft; but inasmuch as the defendants are occupancy tenants of the zemindar there is a contract between them, and to cut down trees in breach of the landlord's right is clearly a breach of contract. So the action might be sai...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri and ors. Vs. Mangla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All463; 94Ind.Cas.442
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises a nice question of law and on the point there does not appear to be any clear authority. The Respondent No. 1 brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for recovery of a certain plot of land, over which there is a grove, by way of redemption. He alleged an ancient mortgage said to have been made by his father Kallu in the year 1863 for a sum of Rs. 500 in favour of three persons, Dewan, Yad Ram and Kanhaiya, being the ancestors of the Defendants Nos. 3 to 7. It is common ground that out of the entire area mortgaged the mortgagees made a sub-mortgage, in favour of certain persons, of all but the plot in suit, for a sum of Rs. 400. The sub-mortgage has been redeemed by the plaintiff and only the plot in suit remained unredeemed. The mortgagee interest of the Defendants Nos. 3 to 7 was sold by auction on the 21st of January 1878 to the father of the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff impleaded all the seven persons in his suit, viz. Defend...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Rashid Khan Arzoo Vs. Emperor Through Sarwar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All466
Dalal, J.1. This matter is like fighting with shadows. One Mohammad Rashid Khan, who is a subject of the Bhopal State, was not extradited by that State for an offence under Section 406, I.P.C. The question, therefore, is what is to be done. It is argued on his behalf that the offence under Section 406, I.P.C., if any committed, was committed in Bhopal and not in British territory. The answer to that is simple. Under Section 179, Criminal P. C, when a person is accused of the commission of an offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued. The consequence which ensued here is that money was taken out of the pocket of a British Indian subject. That man suffered in Allahabad from the consequence of the applicant's supposed guilt. Section 181(2), Criminal P. C, does not in any way mo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdeo Vs. Sheo Naik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All465; 94Ind.Cas.190
Sulaiman, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of fractional shares in certain holdings and groves, The plaintiff is the daughter's son of one Bhairo, deceased and the defendants are nephews of Bhairo. One of the points in dispute was whether Bhairo was joint with his nephews or separate. Both the Courts below have found the point in favour of the plaintiff and held that Bhairo was separate from his nephews. The holdings, however, remained joint and thus Bhairo and his nephews were co-owners of specific shares in the various holdings. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired interest in the occupancy holdings and groves by virtue of a deed of gift executed by Bhairo in his favour and also because he was the daughter's son and was sharing in cultivation with Bhairo during the latter's lifetime. None of the Courts below held that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed on the strength of this alleged gift. So far as the tenancies which are the subje...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Janki and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All563; 94Ind.Cas.210
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for the recovery of money due on an unregistered mortgage bond executed by Janki in favour of Har Sahai, the ancestor of the plaintiffs, on 4th January 1901. By virtue of that bond Janki had agreed to supply 99 maunds of grain by certain instalments and hypothecated certain property as security for the fulfillment of that engagement. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that Janki had failed to pay certain instalments, that a suit was filed by Har Sahai for the recovery of the instalments for 1960 to 1963 Sambat, and a decree obtained therefor to be enforced by the sale of the mortgaged property, and that in the course of the execution of that decree a compromise was arrived at on the 24th August 1912, between Janki and his son Ram Ratan on the one side and the present plaintiffs, who were the legal representatives of Har Sahai on the other, whereby the former agreed to pay Rs. 141 in satisfaction of the decree by certain instalments and 48 maunds...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »