Allahabad Court March 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.
B. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. L. Nanag Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All584; 95Ind.Cas.103
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellant for the redemption of an alleged mortgage or charge in respect of certain thok or a mahal. About the year 1875 the zamindar of this particular thok allowed his revenue to fall into arrears. For a short time the areas were taken under the direct management of the Collector and were subsequently made over to Bishambar Nath, a co-sharer of the mahal in which the thok was situated for 5 years his payment or agreement to pay the Rs. 683, the arrears of revenue, to Government.2. The plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest of the zamindar Izat Rai, who defaulted in respect) of his revenue in 1875, and the defendants are the successors-in-interest of Bishambhar Nath, who is still in possession of the thok. The suit was in effect based on an alleged mortgage by the zamindar Izat Rai to Bishambhar Nath, and alternatively on the allegation that the procedure of Government in transferring temporarily to Bishamhbar Nat...
Lala Bishamber Nate Vs. Firm R. G. Bansal and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.893
Boys, J.1. One Riaz-ud-din on January 30th, 1920, executed a usufructuary mortgage-deed of his house in favour of Bishambhar Nath and on the same day Bishambhar Nath executed a lease of the houses in favour of Riaz-ud-din. A rate of interest was specified in the mortgage-deed and a sum exactly equivalent to this interest Was named as the rent provided for by the lease. The periods of the mortgage and the lease were identical and mutual references were made in the deed and in the lease inter se to each other.2. On August 9th, 1922, Raiz-ud-din executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of R. G. Bansal & Co., for Rs. 12,000 by the terms of which Rs. 11,000 were to be paid to Bishambhar Nath in discharge of his mortgage. This condition was, however, never carried out.3. On November 29th 1922, Riaz-ud-din executed a third usufructuary mortgage in favour of Bishambhar Nath for Rs. 12,000. This mortgage also, like the first was accompanied on the same day by a lease from Bishambhar Nath to R...
Rammu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.911
Daniels, J.1. I think it would be absurd to re-open a petty case in which the accused has been lined Rs. 20 and in which it is not even suggested that he has been in any way prejudiced merely because some prosecution witnesses were examined after the accused's statement was taken. The Court appears to have examined two witnesses for the prosecution, then taken the statement of the accused and then framed a charge. This is what appears from the order-sheet, though it is pointed out that in the heading of the witnesses' evidence which is not written by the Court but in the hand-writing of a clerk the date of the second witness in given as 14th. The accused made a full statement of this case. On. the charge being framed he did not desire to re-call any of the prosecution witnesses. A further prosecution witness appears to have been called on a subsequent date. I adhere to the view taken by this Court in Bechu Chaube v. Emperor 71 Ind. Cas. 115 : 45 A. 124 : 20 A.L.J. 874 : A.I.R. 1923 All...
Khan Sahai and anr. Vs. Mahurmun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All551; 95Ind.Cas.100
1. This was a suit for the recovery of money due on a mortgage purporting to have been effected by Chhunni, Sitaram, Nakrarn and Bhagirath, sons of Harimal, in favour of Sumer, on the 8th January 1879. The mortgage-deed provided for the payment of the mortgage-money within 15 years and it further contained a provision that if the money was not so paid the mortgage will be deemed to operate as a sale. The mortgagor had covenanted to deliver possession over the mortgaged property, but the finding of both the Court below is that for some reason or other the mortgagee was not given possession.2. The defendants first party are the descendants of the original mortgagor, Their main plea was that they had been in adverse possession of the disputed property and that the claim was barred by limitation. Two of the defendants further suggested that the sons of the original mortgagee had purchased the mortgaged property after getting the same sold by auction in satisfaction of some other debt, but ...
Mt. Habib Fatma Vs. Mt. Arjumand Khatun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All228; 95Ind.Cas.140
Mukerji, J.1. Two points have been raised in this appeal: one relates to the interpretation of a document and the other to a question of fact. The question of fact is whether a certain oral gift did take place or not, and the finding on the point given by both the Courts below is that there was no such gift. This is a finding of fact and the reasons given by the Courts below are satisfactory. We do not propose to go into the evidence even if we could. This point clearly fails.2. To appreciate the first point it will be necessary to state the facts in some detail. They are these: One Tahar-ud-din had children by two wives. By one wife, who was dead in 1877 there was a son Noor-ud-din and by the other wife, Mt. Mashkur-un-nissa, he had two children: a son Mahbub Ahmad and a daughter Mt. Arjumand Khatun. Mahbub Ahmad's daughter is the appellant before us, and she was the plaintiff in the First Court. Arjumand Khatun was the defendant in the Court of first instance and is the respondent in...
Mahbub Ali Khan Vs. Chiddan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All519; 95Ind.Cas.291
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for the ejectment of the defendants on the allegation that they were non-occupancy tenants of two plots of land, viz., Plots Nos. 977 and 1007, paying an annual rent of Rs. 4 and that they were liable to ejectment at any moment. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and the plots in suit were described as being portions of the plots mentioned above and bearing the sub-number of 2; that is to say, by amendment, the plots were described as 977 and 1007-2. This amendment has some significance and will be considered later on. The defence was that the plots in suit were groves and the suit was not cognizable by the revenue Court. There is a further plea that at any rate the defendants had held these plots for more than 12 years and had become occupancy tenants of the same.2. The Court of first instance found that the plots in suit were portions of bigger plots which were grove lands belonging to the...
B. Jagmohan Das and ors. Vs. Kunwar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All532; 95Ind.Cas.135
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for the recovery of money due on a mortgage effected by Dwarka Singh and Kuar Singh on behalf of the defendants and certain minors in favour of Jagmohan Das, Raghunath Das and Baijnath Das on the 25th of November 1919, and the main question for consideration was whether the mortgage bond aforesaid had been allotted by partition to the plaintiffs, i.e., to the branch of Jagmohan Das and Baijnath Das; and if so, was that partition binding on the contesting defendants-respondents who were the other members of the family to which the mortgagees originally belonged.2. At the time the mortgage died was executed Raghunath Das, Jagmohan Das and Baijnath Das were joint. Hari Das another member of the same family had separated some time in 1917. Baldeo Das, a descendant of the branch of Girdhar Das, had similarly separated in 1919. When Hari Das separated the indigo factory at Bela and the village of Sheopurwa with the tena...
Ram Kishore Singh and anr. Vs. Jai Mangal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All535; 94Ind.Cas.992
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed by the appellate Court of the Subordinate Judge of Basti. Objection is not made as to the remand itself, but the appeal is in the nature of a second appeal from a finding of the lower appellate Court on a question of law.2. The plaintiffs and defendants are grandsons of two brothers and owned a certain revenue-paying property in equal shares. They also held sir land jointly in the village. In 1906 the father of the plaintiffs mortgaged his share of the zamindari property, including the sir rights, to the father of the defendants, and the mortgage has now been redeemed. The present dispute relates to actual cultivating possession of sir land previously held jointly in equal shares by the parties. Both the subordinate Courts have decided that, on redemption, the plaintiffs are not entitled to possession as cultivators and sir-holders of the land which they held as sir at the time of the mortgage. The reason they give is that immediately...
Bankey Lal and ors. Vs. Piare Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All587; 95Ind.Cas.411
1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Lal Gopal Mukerji, who has held that a judgment given on appeal by the District Judge of Pilibhit on the 31st of August 1914, and the decree of this Court following on that judgment of the Court of the District Judge were both without jurisdiction, and cannot be held to operate adversely to the defendants in this particular suit. The claim was brought by Bankey Lal and others against Piare Lal and others for possession of 10 bighas and 11 biswas of land, being the western portion of a grove bearing No. 1549, and comprising in all 20 bighas 10 biswas.2. The story, as set out in the plaint, was that the father of Banke Lal, Seth Ratan Lal, filed in the Court of the Parganah Officer, on the 19th of September 1923, a suit for the ejectment of certain tenants from the plot in question, alleging a breach by them and invoking Section 57 of Act II of 1901. That suit by Ratan Lal, based upon the fact that the tenants had used the land for a pu...
Muhammad Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All428; 95Ind.Cas.319
ORDERDaniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order convicting the applicants under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act (Act III of 1867). The main ground on which the application is pressed is that the Magistrate who issued the search warrant should not have tried the case. The trying Magistrate issued the search warrant tinder Section 5 not only on information but as the proceedings show also after an enquiry. There is a direct authority reported in Chin Pin v. Emperor AIR 1920 LB 85. The decision is no doubt under the Burma Gambling Act, but the reasoning would apply equally to the facts of the present case. I quote the relevant portion of the judgmentThe main ground is that the Magistrate issued the warrant under Section 6 of the Gambling Act after expressing his belief on the information received that the house in question was a common gambling house, and that he is, therefore, disqualified from trying the case. The belief expressed was that the information ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »