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.
Naurang Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Sumer Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All680
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is a donee of a share from a Hindu widow, who was recorded as a proprietor. On a suit brought by the reversioners, it was declared, subsequent to the passing of the first Court's decree in the pre-emption suit, that this transfer would not be binding on the reversioners after the widow's lifetime. The contention before us is that under these circumstances the plaintiff is not entitled to pre-emption. This contention in our opinion is not correct. A Hindu widow is a co-sharer and represents the whole estate for the time being. In the same way a donee from her is a proprietor and a co-sharer so long as she is alive. A deed of gift by a Hindu widow is only voidable by the next reversioners. It was not declared voidable till after the first Court's decree. In view of both these grounds it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no right of pre-emption.2. The appeal has no merits and is dismissed with costs i...
Jawahir Singh Vs. Jahan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.106
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising oat of a suit for preemption. In support of his allegation that a custom of preemption exists in the village, the plaintiff produced the wajib-ul-arz of 1279' Fasli. The defendants produced the wajib-ul-arz of 1262 Fasli and a dustur dehi of the year 1307 Fasli. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim holding that the custom has not been proved. The lower Appellate Court concedes that there is no material variation between the entries as regards the right of pre-emption contained in the wajib-ul-arz of 1279 and 1262 Faslis. The lower Appellate Court has also found in favour of the plaintiff that there is no fixed rate for sale or mortgage laid down by the wajib-ul-arz of 1262 Fasli, The reference to the rates was merely by way of a suggestion which the transferors and the transferees might, or might not act upon. The lower Appellate Court, however, has rejected this evidence as not proving the custom, because of the preamble in the wajib-ul...
Bhawani Prasad Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All590; 97Ind.Cas.367
Sulaiman, J.1. This application for revision has been pressed on the facts and on one legal ground.2. On the facts the accused has had a careful ferial in two Courts and there is no reason to admit the revision. He is charged with forging an application for a privilege ticket in the name of Mohan Singh, whereas he really got on it the thumb-mark of Janki Prasad whom he wished to take with him to Jagannath. Janki Prasad was examined as an approver, and the learned Judge points out that there is considerable corroboration of his story including this very important fact; to which the Assistant Sessions Judge refers in his judgment, that when Janki Prasad was found travelling with this forged order and gave his name as Mohan Singh, Bhawani Prasad falsely verified his statement that he really was Mohan Singh. The legal point taken is that the pardon given to Janki Prasad under Section 337 was not valid because though at the time when it was given the accused was charged with an offence unde...
Misra Mendai Lal and ors. Vs. Dularey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.249
1. In the lower Court this was a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,427, being 'principal and interest alleged to be due under a mortgage-bond, dated the 23rd of October 1902.2. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that he would have to eliminate all calculation of interest on the principal sum of Rs. 12,000 between the 23rd of October 1902 and the corresponding date in the year 1909, that is to say, for a period of 7 years. He held that in consequence of the special terms of the document the interest between those dates was time-barred. This indeed is the only point in the appeal, and if the appellants are successful they are entitled to have the decree, which was passed for Rs. 24,600 increased by Rs. 7,827.3. The text of the mortgage-deed will be found at page 29 of the record, and the point which arises for consideration is whether the mortgagees were under the circumstances bound to bring a suit for interest within 12 years from the date of the mortgage, or if they failed...
Ram Sahai Vs. Madan Lal Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All346
Walsh, J.1. We have come to the conclusion that this case must go back. We make it quite clear that we are interfering under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the learned Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in hearing this application on the merits, but we desire to point out that so far as the application of Section 115 to this case is concerned, the members of the Court do not take precisely the same view, and the decision which we have arrived at is based on the peculiar circumstances of this case and cannot be regarded as a guide in any other.2. The facts are simple. The present applicant before us, on the 15th December 1924, applied to the execution Court in a suit to which he was not a party alleging that having experienced great difficulty in recovering from one Kanhaiya Lal a sum due to him of Rs. 9,400 odd he had taken from the said Kanhaiya Lal a mortgage or security bond on the 15th November 1924, which bond hypothecated a decree w...
Bhagwat Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All403
ORDERDalal, J1. This revision has been referred be a Bench of two Judges by a learned Judge of this Court for decision as to the powers of an appellate Court under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants were bound over by a Magistrate of the First Class of Benares to keep the peace. They appealed to the Court of Session which directed that the order binding over the applicants should be reversed and that there should be a retrial. The question is whether the appellate Court has the power under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order a re-trial. The authority given to an appellate Court is contained in Clauses (c) and (d). In an appeal from an order the appellate Court may alter or reverse such order and may make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper. Under Clause (b) in an appeal from a conviction the appellate Court is specifically given the power of ordering a re-trial. The distinction exists for a very...
Collector of Bareilly Vs. Sultan Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All689; 95Ind.Cas.150
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the Collector of Bareilly in a land acquisition case. The land acquired was a perpetual revenue free land, and one of the questions raised was at how many years' purchase the value should be assessed. The profits found were Rs. 42 a year and the learned District Judge allowed forty years' purchase.2. The first ground of appeal is that this is too much. We are of opinion that it is not and we are fortified in our view by the judgment of this Court delivered by another Bench in the connected appeal No. 430 of 1922.3. The next point argued is that the 15 per cent, awarded by the learned District Judge should not have been awarded on the value of trees. It is argued that under Section 23, Sub-section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act the 15 per cent, is to be awarded on the market value of the land. But under the definition of the land as given in the Act itself the land would include trees standing thereon. We therefore do not see why the value of the trees ...
Deoki Koeri Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All405; 95Ind.Cas.287
ORDERDaniels, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge has referred this case on the ground that the accused cannot be tried for an offence of illicit possession of opium under Section 9, Opium Act, because he has been previously convicted of theft under the Indian Penal Code in respect of the same opium. The learned Sessions Judge has misunderstood the provisions of Section 403 of the Criminal P.C. The facts necessary to support a conviction for theft are by no means the same as the facts which have to be proved in a trial under Section 9 of the Opium Act. For an offence under Section 379 the essential facts to be proved were that the gunny bags in which the opium was found belonged to some one else and that they were removed by the accused dishonestly without the owner's consent. For a conviction under Section 9 of the Opium Act the essential facts to be proved are that the accused was in possession of the opium and that the opium was crude opium which the accused could not lawfully have in h...
Deonath Singh and ors. Vs. Tilakdhari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All420; 94Ind.Cas.463
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. On a previous occasion DeoriSingh for himself and acting as guardian for his nephew Udai Narain Singh transferred a share in this same village to the present vendees, Tilakdhari Singh and Amrat Singh. The Plaintiff No. 1 and the father of the Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 brought a suit for pre-emption and obtained a decree. In that suit it was found against the vendees that there was a custom of pre-emption in this village under which the vendors were bound to make the offer to the co-sharers in the first instance. About the same time the minor Udai Narain Singh through another next friend, brought a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground of want of legal necessity. The decree in the suit was a conditional decree and the document was to be set aside on payment of a part of the sale consideration. The property having gone back to the family the same has now been sold by Deoraj Singh and Udai Nara...
Hukam Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All474
Daniels, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code of disobeying a subpoena requiring him to attend before the Sub-Inspector in a police inquiry. Section 174 prescribes a punishment for any person who being legally bound to attend at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice order or proclamation issued by a legally competent public servant, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time. The subpoena which was issued to the applicant as issued in this case did not require him to attend at a certain place. It called on him to attend either at Sahail thana or wherever the inspecting officer might happen to be. This is not a legal subpoena, failure to comply with which can be punished under Section 174. If any authority other than the language of the section itself is needed for this proposition it may be found in the case of Empress v. Ram Saran (1883) 5 All 7. As the subpoena did not require the accused to attend, at a defini...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »