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.
Chunni Singh Vs. Lakshpat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All468; 94Ind.Cas.320
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. By one document, dated 29th January 1924, nine items of properties were sold to nine different vendees for different amounts of considerations; but there was only one document executed and registered, as the entire properties belonged to one set of vendors. Among these vendees was one Kanchan Singh, who admittedly was a cosharer in the property purchased by him. The plaintiff has brought a suit for pre-emption against the appellant Chunni Singh only in respect of the item of the property purchased by him under the sale-deed. This property was separately ear-marked as property having been purchased by Chunni Singh, a separate amount of the sale consideration was mentioned and the other vendees had no joint interest in this property at all. The first Court dismissed the claim on the ground that this was a case of partial pre-emption which disqualified the pre-emptor from obtaining a decree. The appellate C...
Shaukat Ali Vs. Mt. Shakila Bano
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All492; 94Ind.Cas.78
1. We are of opinion that no appeal lies in this case. On the 3rd of March 1925 the learned Subordinate Judge of Budaun reviewed an order of his passed a month earlier. An application was made by a lady to sue as a pauper, and by the first order the lower Court dismissed the application. Subsequently there was an application for review in which it was pointed out that there had been a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The lower appellate Court accepted this view of the matter, revised its previous order, granted the application for review, and allowed the applicant to sue as a pauper. Under Order 47 an appeal is strictly limited under Rule 7. An order granting an application for review may be objected to only on the ground that it was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 2 or in contravention of the provisions of Rule 4. There is a third ground of appeal regarding limitation with which we are not concerned here. The provisions of Rule 2 relate to the Court to whom appli...
Ram Chandra Naick and ors. Vs. Syed Nazar Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.390
1. Having heard 'Counsel for the appellants in this case we are satisfied that the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court is correct.2. The question raised is one of limitation. A decree was passed on the 23rd of April 1918 against a number of persons including the appellants here. That was a decree for costs. This decree was afterwards transferred by the decree-holder to one Saiyid Nazar Ali who figures as the respondent here.3. An appeal was brought to this Court against the decree of the Subordinate Judge dated the 23rd of April 1918, and on the 10th of February 1920, the Counsel for the appellants filed an application in this Court, saying that he desired, to withdraw the appeal. He asked the leave of the Court to withdraw it. Notice was ordered to issue and by reason of failure to secure service of notice the matter did not come up before this Court till the 8th November 1920. On that date an order was passed in the following terms:On the application of Mr. Muhammad Yusif, th...
Maru Vs. Hanso and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All413; 95Ind.Cas.543
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a deed of gift, dated the 28th March 1916, executed by Mt. Hanso, Defendant 1 (who has died during the pendency of the appeal) in respect of a moiety share of the property left by Ghasita, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, as also the transfer of the other half by mutation of names, were not binding on the reversioners. Ghasita was admittedly the last owner of the property and he died leaving three daughters. One daughter dies first. On her death names of the two surviving daughters, Mt. Sundar and Mt. Hanso, were recorded in the revenue papers in equal shares. Mt. Sundar died about 1897 and on her death it is admitted in the plaint that Mt. Hanso caused the name of Sundar's son Bhartu to be entered in the revenue papers in place of her name as against the half share in her possession. Later on Mt. Hanso executed a deed of gift in 1916 with regard to the remaining half share in favour of B...
Narender Singh and anr. Vs. Chatrapal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All437; 94Ind.Cas.340
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that a decree obtained by the respondents against the plaintiff under the guardianship of their mother, Mt. Mahindra Kunwar, is not binding on them. It appears that the plaintiffs' father, Niranjan Singh, executed a mortgage-deed on the 12th of October 1912, hypothecating certain properties. A suit was brought on the 15th March 1921, on the basis of this mortgage deed against the father and his sons, the present plaintiffs. The interest of the father who had transferred the property, being adverse to the minors, the plaintiffs very properly applied that the minor's mother should be appointed their guardian. Notice was issued to her and she did not object. She appeared through a vakil on the 2nd June 1921 and accepted the appointment of herself as guardian. Subsequently, on the 11th July 1921, she filed a written statement, in which she denied the existence of any legal necessity and put the mortgagees to proof of the...
Kunj Behari Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All461
Daniels, J.1. This an application in revision against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore directing further inquiry into the case of certain accused who have been discharged. The order for further inquiry was not made on the ground that on the merits there was reason for thinking that the accused had been wrongly discharged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge expressly says that he is far from suggesting that the complainant has got a good case. His order is based on the ground that the discharge order passed by the Magistrate was illegal. In order to see whether this is so it will be necessary to state some facts.2. The case was under Sections 147 and 426 against fourteen accused. The case was instituted on 2nd June 1925. Before issuing process against the accused the Magistrate ordered the complainant to produce his witnesses under Section 202 of the Criminal P.C. The hearing took place on 16th June, and process was issued against the accused. On the very date on...
Bohra Natha Mal Vs. Jhunai Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.180
1. The appeal is frivolous. In execution of a mortgage-decree obtained by Jhunai Lal against Madan Lal certain property was proclaimed for sale. Madan Lal had two brothers Onkar Das and Murli Dhar, out of whom Onkar Das had 'been adopted in another family and Murli Dhar had died leaving a son Natha, who is a minor. On the death of Madan Lal Onkar Das and Natha were impleaded as his legal representatives in the execution proceeding. Onkar Das filed an objection claiming that as his adoption was found to be invalid he reverted to his natural family and continued to live jointly with Madan Lal and that the mortgages made by Madan Lal, on foot of which the decree in execution had been obtained, were not binding on him. That objection was disallowed. A regular suit was then filed by him for a declaration of his title to the disputed property, which was dismissed on the 9th February 1923 on the ground that it was barred by time and that Onkar Das had failed to establish that he was the owner...
Hub Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All402
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision of an order of the Collector of Etawah directing the prosecution of the applicant Lala Hub Lal for offences tinder Sections 193, 209 and 210, Indian Penal Code, in respect of two applications dated 28th July 1924 and 30th October 1924 which were for the execution of an alleged distraint decree. I have first of all two legal objections to consider. The applications were made to the Tahsildar as an Assistant Collector of the Second Class. He refused to order the prosecution of the applicant. An appeal was then made to the District Magistrate. The same officer was both District Magistrate and Collector. He held, and rightly that the appeal lay to him in his character as Collector and not in his character as District Magistrate. He considered however that the defective form of the application was no bar to his directing a prosecution in his character of Collector. The applicant treating this as an order passed by the Collector as an original...
Mata Ghulam Singh Vs. Chhatar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All422
1. This is a first appeal from order. We will assume that an appeal lies, because if it does not, it is clearly one of those cases in which we ought to interfere in revision. The whole case has been misunderstood, and the points decided are purely academic without any issues of fact having been determined. It is a curious claim in a way. The plaintiff says in the plaint that he became a tenant of a certain plot from Baldeo Singh and others, who were mortgagees, at an annual rent of Rs. 55. He then goes on to say that in consequence of an arrangement between himself and the defendant, the defendant cultivated the plot jointly with the plaintiff, and agreed to pay half the rent. The plaintiff's pleader was misguided to describe the defendant as a sub-tenant. which possibly caused half the trouble. But, as a matter of fact, a little care would have shown that the description of sub-tenant applied to the joint arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and in no sense to the rela...
Taj Bahadur Vs. Narayan Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All439
1. The suit of the plaintiff Narain Prasad was dismissed by the trial Court of the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was barred by the principle of res judicata. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge disagreed with this finding and remanded the suit for trial on the merits. This appeal is filed from the order of remand.2. One Chhotey Lal had two sons and the widow of one of them, Mt. Ganeshi by name, made certain transfers in favour of the defendant of this suit, Raj Bahadur. Mt. Ganeshi had a daughter, Mt. Katori, who was an heir to the property on the death of her mother, the lifeholder. She instituted a suit in 1917 (Suit No. 116 of 1917) for a declaration that the transfers were beyond the power of a Hindu widow and sought a declaration that they were not binding on her. During the pendency of the suit she died on 12th November 1917. The plaintiff of this suit, Narain Prasad, applied to the Court to be brought on the record as representative in interest of Mt. Kator...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »