Allahabad Court February 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.
Mathura Prasad Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.136
Daniels, J.1. This case has been referred by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mainpuri on the ground that an order of continuing fine purporting to be passed under Section 307 (b) of the U. P Municipalities Act is illegal. The Magistrate convicted the accused of constructing a culvert without the permission of the Municipal Board and fined him Rs. 20. At the same time he ordered the accused to remove the culvert and directed that if he failed to do so he would have to pay a daily fine of Re. 1 so long as it was not removed. The learned Magistrate in his explanation justifies the order as covered by Section 307 (6). The provisions of this section are constantly misunderstood by Magistrates in spite' of their effect having been pointed out more than once by this Court. Section 307 (6) says that the offender shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate to a daily fine for every day after the date of the first conviction during which the offender is proved to have persisted in the off...
Mewa Ram Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All337; 97Ind.Cas.90
Sulaiman, J.1. First Appeals Nos. 373 and 374 of 1922 are connected and the same substantial questions of law arise in these appeals. These appeals arise out of two separate suits brought for dissolution of partnership. The substantial pleas raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant, Rai Bahadur Lala Mewa Ram, were: (1) that the partnership in question consisted of more than 20 members and was therefore illegal within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Companies Act (7 of 1913) and (2) that the partnership being an illegal association, no suit for the dissolution of partnership was maintainable in a Court of law. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that as a matter of fact the number of partners in either of these associations did not exceed 20 and therefore the association was not illegal. In these appeals it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion as to the right inter he of the members, of any illegal association because we are satisfied that in neither of these cases ...
Kharag Singh and ors. Vs. Kiddha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All667
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a mortgage of an occupancy holding, effected by Murli Singh, the brother ami predecessor of the plaintiff in favour of Gopal Singh, the predecessor of the defendants, on the 3rd February 1880. The mortgage was with possession and provided for the payment of the mortgage money within 12 years. It further contained a stipulation that if the mortgage was not redeemed within 12 years it would be treated as a sale.2. The contention of the defendants was that by reason of the above stipulation they had become owners of the occupancy holding. That contention was repelled by both the Courts below on the ground that the above covenant operated as a clog on the equity of redemption and was therefore unenforceable. The mortgage was effected when the Bengal Regulation (17 of 1806) was in force. Prior to the passing of that regulation a mortgage by conditional sale executed itself on breach of the condition and operated as an...
Parabhans Pande Vs. Sheodarshan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All685
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed under Section 146 of the Criminal P.C. the proceedings have been very protracted. It appears that they were first started in December 1924 on the application of the first party B. Sheodarshan Singh and others. The Magistrate dismissed the application on 27th February 1925 nearly a year ago, on the ground that Section 145 was not applicable. He appears then to have taken proceedings under Section 144. These were set aside by the District Magistrate who thought that action under Section 145 was the proper course. The proceedings were then re-started and have been concluded by the order under revision. In this order the,District Magistrate states that he is unable to determine which party is in possession and he therefore, attaches the land and appoints the Tahsildar receiver.2. The pleas urged in revision are first that Section 145 is inapplicable where neither party is entitled to exclusive possession, and secondly, th...
L. Mewaram Vs. Seth Ram Gopal and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.152
Sulaiman, J.1. First Appeals Nos. 373 and 374 of 1922 are connected and the same substantial questions of law arise in. these appeals. These appeals arise out of two separate suits brought for dissolution of partnership. The substantial pleas raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant Rai Bahadur Lala Mewa Ram were that the partnership in question consisted of more than 20 members and was, therefore, illegal within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Companies Act (Act VII of 1913) and (2) that the partnership being an illegal association no suit for the dissolution of partnership was maintainable in a Court of law. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that, as a matter of fact, the number of partners in either of these associations did not exceed 20 and, therefore, the association was not illegal. In these appeals it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion as to the right inter se of the members of any illegal association because we are satisfied that in neither of these ca...
ChaIn Sukh Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.7
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. In the course of a pending suit brought by the plaintiffs for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the construction of a certain wall by the plaintiffs and for damages, the Pleaders for the parties accompanied by their clients, stated that the sole question in dispute was whether the wall in question belonged to the plaintiffs or the defendants, and that the Court might inspect the locality and the parties shall be bound by the decision at which the Court would arrive on such an inspection. They also stated that they did not want to produce any evidence, oral or documentary, and that the plaintiffs were giving up their claim for damages. The Court fixed a date for the inspection of the locality and in the light of the khasra and the copy of the khasra abadi map on the record, and the measurements made on the spot, it came to the conclusion that both the parties were in possession of an area in excess of that given in the khasra of t...
Chandan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.363
Lindsay, J.1. The three appellants in this case, Chandan, Udai Singh and Bansi, all brothers, have been convicted in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Muttra on charges under Section 325, Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced each to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine.2. The accused were committed for trial on a charge under Section 304 and, in my opinion, they ought to have been convicted on this charge and not under Section 325.3. The case against the accused was that on the 18th of September 1925 they joined in attacking one Kalla jat with lathis with the result that Kalla received injuries which caused his death on the following day. The medical evidence shows that death was caused by fracture of the skull.4. On the morning of the 18th of September these three accused went to the door of Kalla's house where some cattle were lied up. It is said that they loosed the cattle and began to drive them towards the pound at Sadabad. Two brothers of Kalla named Moti and Bhopal ...
Hira Lal Vs. Tikam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All401; 94Ind.Cas.1
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings. A decree, which was more than three years old, was put in execution and notice was served on the judgment-debtor to show cause why it should not be executed. He filed written objections admitting certain payments made out of Court and yet pleading that the application was barred by time. On the date fixed for the hearing of objections, he did not appear. The Court passed the following order;2. Objector absent. Objection dismissed for default.3. From this order the judgment-debtor appealed to the lower appellate Court which came to the conclusion that even though the judgment-debtor was absent the Court ought to have considered the plea of limitation on its merits and should have disposed of it. Instead of deciding the point of limitation itself as it was urged by the judgment-debtor the lower appellate Court thought that an opportunity should be given to the decree-holder to show cause, if he can, that his a...
Majid HusaIn and ors. Vs. Kurban Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All412
1. The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether the interest of a permanent lessee of agricultural land, declared to be transferable by the lease, is transferable.2. The facts are given in the judgment of this Court and they need not be repeated, but briefly they are as follows: The zamindar of certain lands granted a perpetual lease to two persons and, by the terms of the lease, granted them a transferable right. The lessees made a mortgage of their interest in favour of the plaintiff appellant before us. The mortgagee brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to enforce this mortgage against the sons of the lessees. The sons having died during the pendency of the suit, the zamindar was brought on the record as, by escheat, the lands had gone back to him. The zamindar raised the plea that the transfer was void under Section 20(3) of the Tenancy Act and the mortgage was not enforceable. This plea has found favour with a learned Judge of this Court and it is cont...
Muhammad Nasir Vs. Roshan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All479
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that though there is a custom of pre-emption prevailing in the village the plaintiff has not the right to pre-empt as against the vendee. The plaintiff is not a co-sharer in the mahal in which the property sold Is situate. He is however a proprietor in the village. The custom of pre-emption is recorded in the wajib-ul-arz prepared about the year 1870 and is as follows:Every co-sharer has (a right) to transfer his haqiyat (property) by sale first to own brother, and then to a qaribi ekjaddi (near rightful collateral) for a price which might be current at the time. If the transferor fixes a fictitious price in order to deprive the co-sharers it will be caused to be settled by arbitrators. If no one wishes to purchase that property for the price fixed by the arbitrators, the proprietor shall be at liberty to sell it to any other co-sharer of the village...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »