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.
King-emperor Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All577
Daniels, J.1. This is an application by the Crown through the Government Advocate for revision of an order of the District Judge of Meerut upholding in appeal an order of the Munsif of Baghpat refusing to file a complains under Sections 195 and 476 of the Criminal P.C. against the opposite party, Ram Narain, in respect of a pro-note alleged to be forged.2. In the suit on the pro-note the plaintiff agreed to abide by the oath of the defendant. The defendant went into the witness-box and swore that the claim was false; and the suit was dismissed. The defendant subsequently applied to the Munsif to prosecute the plaintiff Ram Narain. The Munsif, on the application of the accused Ram Rikh and others, summoned witnesses whom they desired to examine to prove that the suit was false; but on the actual date of hearing the Munsif did not hear the witnesses and refused to make a complaint on the ground that it was not proper to grant sanction in a case which was, as he puts it, decided 'by conse...
Hukum Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.889
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 being legally bound to attend at a curtain 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 sub-poena 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 of India v. Ram Saran 5 A. 7 : A.W.N. (1882) 145 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.). As the subpoena did not re...
Shanker Ban Vs. Ram Deo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All446; 94Ind.Cas.484
Walsh, J.1. In this case the applicant in revision has been refused leave to sue as a pauper and he applies to this Court to review that order in revision. In our opinion we have no power to do so. The refusal to sue as a pauper does not determine anything in the suit. It is merely the decision of a preliminary issue arising in or anterior to the suit. It determines nothing except that the plaintiff cannot sue as a pauper. He can sue in the ordinary way like anybody else, and to my mind the case is indistinguishable from the case of Buddhoo Lal v. Mewa Ram AIR 1921 All 1 in which a Full Bench of this Court finally endeavoured to set at rest a point upon which there had been considerable controversy. The question there was whether a preliminary issue on a question of jurisdiction was a case decided within the meaning of Section 115. That issue, if decided in the negative, determined the proceedings in that Court. But it is after all only a preliminary issue arising in a suit. Although t...
Ranjit Singh Vs. Bhagwati Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All467; 94Ind.Cas.397
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The lower appellate Court has found that when this sale-deed was executed the plaintiff was present there all along; that in fact he took an active part in obtaining the sale-deed, and that his own nephew, who is a member of a joint Hindu family with him, is one of the vendees under this sale-deed.2. It has further found impossible to believe that when the sale was advertised in the whole village, and a large number of villagers took steps to raise large sums of money in order to acquire the property, the plaintiff remained uninformed as he professed to be. On these findings it has held that the plaintiff's claim for pre-emption is barred by estoppel.3. There can be no doubt that having regard to the findings arrived at, there is a clear estoppel against the plaintiff. Having himself taken an active part in procuring the sale-deed covering the property in dispute, he cannot now turn round and claim that ...
Gopal Ram and ors. Vs. Lachmi Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All549; 95Ind.Cas.138
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption in respect of a lease dated 9th October 1917, which was presented for registration on the 21st of December 1917, and was actually registered on the 22nd of December 1917. The suit was brought on the 20th of December 1923. Thus the suit was within six years of the date of registration, but beyond six years from the date of the execution of the lease. Both the Courts below have held that the present suit is barred by limitation and have relied on a case of this Court: Bindeshri v. Somanath Bhadry AIR 1916 All 199.2. Admittedly, the present suit is not governed by Article 10 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as the transfer in the present case is not a sale. It is conceded that it is governed by Article 120 instead. The main question to consider, therefore, is whether the suit was brought within six years of the date when the right to sue accrued. No doubt, it is true in a sense that before the actual registration, the pl...
Collector of Moradabad Vs. Mohammad Hidayat Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All449; 94Ind.Cas.505
1. The dispute has arisen in the execution of a decree for sale on foot of a mortgage. The property is situated in village Jalalabad. On 27th August 1901 two mortgage deeds of 8 biswas property out of 20 biswas was executed by the owner in favour of Sahu Ganpat Rai and subsequently in 1909 the entire village was mortgaged to Sahu Parshadi Lal whose estate is now under the Court of Wards. Subsequently in 1912 twelve biswas out of the village was again mortgaged to Ganpat Rai.2. In 1913 Ganpat Rai obtained two decrees for sale on foot of the two mortgages in his favour Parshadi Lal was made a party to the suit but on objection as to notice being raised by the Court of Wards, Parshadi Lal and the Court of Wards ware exempted from the suit and the decree for sale was not passed against them. The decree resulted in a sale in favour of the objector Hidayat Ali Khan in 1916.3. In 1914 the Court of Wards sued the mortgagor for sale on foot of the mortgage of 1909 in favour of Parshadi Lal. Gan...
Ganga Bakhsh Singh and ors. Vs. Chhinggi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All469
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must be decreed. The facts are very simple. The lower appellate Court finds that the respondent and the appellants agreed to buy and sell respectively certain lands in two villages adjoining the town of Cawnpore, at a certain rate per bigha. The agreement was put into writing on the 22nd of August 1919 and a sum of Rs. 450 was advanced by the respondent to the appellants by way of earnest-money. One of the appellants was a minor and it was agreed that permission to sell would be obtained from the District Judge. Such permission was actually obtained in August 1920. The plaintiff-respondent brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, on the 18th of August 1922. two years after the sanction to sell had been obtained, on the allegation that in January 1920 the Improvement Trust notified their intention to acquire the lands agreed to be sold, and thereupon he asked the appellants to refund the earnest-money, but they refused to do so.2. In the plaint a ...
Ram Chand Vs. Shiama and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All682
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises a question of law, viz,, whether a decision of a Record Officer given between two contending parties, each claiming to be a sir-holder of the same land, is binding upon them when the same question is raised in an ejectment suit.2. The facts of the case are all admitted and are briefly these; The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance, is recorded as the sir-holder of the lands in suit. His father, Khubi Ram, is recorded as the plaintiff's tenant of the sir lands for a period of 33 years. The defendants, who are the respondents in this appeal, are recorded as dar-shikmi or sub-tenants holding under Khubi Ram for a period of 24 years. The rent payable by Khubi Ram is recorded as Rs. 22 and the rant payable by the defendants is recorded as Rs. 12. The plaintiff sued for the ejectment of the defendants, viz., his own father and the respondents, Shiama and Charan Singh, on the allegation that the plaintiff did not like to have the de...
Baldeo Vs. Nabi Ahmed Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All754
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil P.C., on the ground that the learned District Judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law. The case is one of an application to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. The Munsif dismissed it on the ground that the deposit was not made within thirty days. The learned District Judge has dismissed it on the ground that there was an application under Order 21, Rule 90, pending which under Sub-clause (2) of Rule 89 barred the present application. The application alleged to be under Order 21, Rule 90, was filed on the 3rd July 1925 on which date the sale had not been concluded. The sale was held on 21st July, but the sale officer refused to accept the highest bid and conclude the sale, holding that the highest bid offered was insufficient. He, therefore, submitted the papers to the civil Court for orders without concluding the sale. It was while this reference was pending that t...
Radha Kishen and anr. Vs. Master Sital Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.465
1. This second civil appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent on the basis of two hundis, both executed on the 6th July 1920, one for Rs. 400 and one for Rs. 200. The defendant-appellant pleaded in defence that the hundis were without consideration and were executed in order to induce the plaintiff to stifle a prosecution pending against him for embezzlement. This defence was accepted by the Court of first instance. On appeal the District Judge of Muttra, remanded the case to determine whether at the date of the execution of the hundis there was any liability on the part of the defendant to pay the sum secured by the hundis to the plaintiff, and secondly whether the hundis were executed to induce the plaintiff to abstain from prosecution of the embezzlement case. The first Court found both these issues in favour of the defendant but the Additional Subordinate Judge has decided that there was existing a liability on the part of the defendant which served as consid...