Allahabad Court April 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.
(Chaudhri) Baldeo Singh Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All566
Daniels, J.1. These two connected applications relate to proceedings under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code which are pending against the applicants Baldeo Singh and Attar Singh respectively. Baldeo Singh made a report at Budhana thana stating that his bullocks had strayed. He subsequently made a statement to the Superintendent of Police at Muzaffarnagar alleging that they were in the possession of one Bichai Rajput at Saharanpur. This statement is alleged to be false. Attar Singh complained to the Superintendent of Police at Muzaffarnagar that the Sub-Inspector had put pressure on him to file a complaint. This is the statement in respect of which he is being prosecute. The substantial grounds of revision in these cases are two:(1) That the offence, if any, was committed at Muzaffarnagar and therefore under Section 12 of the Code the trial should take place in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar and not of that of Budhana.(2) That there was no complaint as r...
Partab and ors. Vs. Nehal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All676
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of a one-fourth share of the mortgage money due under a mortgage effected by Hira, Naubat and Bakhtawar, sons of Jawahir, and by Makhan, Manphul and Tohi Ram, sons of Nathu, in favour of Sandai, Phulkhan, Azam Ali and Chandi, on the 10th February 1909. The mortgage was effected for a sum of Rs. 3,000, out of which, according to the specification contained in the mortgage deed, three fourths was advanced by Sandal Khan, Phul Khan and Azam Ali, and the remaining one-fourth by Chandi. The mortgagors had agreed to deliver possession of the mortgaged property, but it is admitted that they did not do so. The mortgage-deed contained a condition that if the mortgagees were not given possession over the mortgaged property they would be entitled to recover the mortgage money with interest thereon at 12 per cent, per annum by the sale of the mortgaged property. There was a further ...
Bindeshri Prasad Rao and anr. Vs. Lalji Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All675
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiffs, in support of the alleged custom of pre-emption, produced records of three successive Settlements, viz. of 1833, 1860 and 1292-3 F. corresponding to 1886, in all of which the custom of pre-emption was recorded. As regards the last Settlement, it has been pointed out in several cases that this Settlement took place under the terms contained in the Board's Circular issued on the 24th August 1886, for Gorakhpur and Basti, under which in cases of mahals belonging to persons other than Muhammadans, the Settlement Officer could not make an entry of custom unless the proprietors not only expressly demanded that it should be noted, but also proved conclusively that the custom existed. In view of this provision in the Board's Circular the record of the entry of custom in the year 1886 is of considerable importance and raises a very strong presumption indeed: see Nandan Singh v. Guptar Singh AIR 1924 All 424. ...
Muhammad Inamullah Khan Vs. Aisha Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.765
1. One Samiullah was the owner of certain property, consisting of shares or specific plots, in two villages, namely, Mohiuddinpur and Rajapura.2. On the 10th of January, 1910, he mortgaged the property in both villages for Rs. 3,200 to his daughter, Musammat Aisha, the plaintiff.3. On the 18th of April, 1911, Samiullah mortgaged the same property in both villages to Musammat Munga Kunwar for Rs. 5,000. Out of the consideration a sum of Rs. 3,482-12-3 was left with the mortgagee for payment to Musammat Aisha the prior mortgagee. But Musammat Munga Kunwar, in fact paid nothing to the prior mortgagee.4. On the 6th of June, 1912, Samiullah sold part of the mortgaged property, namely, the properly in Mohiuddinpur to Mansa Ram, the husband of Musammat Munga Kunwar, for Rs. 9,000. Out of the purchase-money a sum of Rs. 7,765 was left with the vendee for payment to Musammat Munga Kunwar, the second mortgagee.5. The principal defendant, Inamullah, brought a suit against Mansa Ram for preemption...
Secretary of State Vs. U.P. Glass Works of Chandausi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All565; 95Ind.Cas.450
Daniels, J.1. This revision raises a question of the liability of a railway company under the new form of risk-note H approved by the Government of India, Tinder Section 72(2)(b) of the Indian Railways Act and published in the Gazette of India, part I, page 651 of the Gazette for 1924. The risk-note B and risk-note H are substantially identical both in the new and in the old form, so that rulings which apply to the one form are applicable to the other also. Risk-note B refers to a particular consignment, risk-note H to all consignments sent by a particular consignor under a common agreement.2. The facts are very simple. The plaintiff consigned fifteen tons of coal under risk-note from Jayramdi No. 3 Colliery siding (Sitarampur station) to Bahjoi (O. & R, Ry.). At destination five tons were found to be short and only ten tons were delivered. The line being a Government line, the plaintiff Company sued the Secretary of State for the value of the shortage. The learned Judge of the Small C...
Debi Chand Vs. Parbhu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All582
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, Debi Chand, for rendition of partnership accounts, and there are cross objections filed by Respondent No. 1, Parbhu Lal, one partner, and by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Chaman Lal and Paras Ram. The ground taken in the plaintiff's appeal is that no final decree should have been pronounced in this case inasmuch as he, the plaintiff, after the framing of a preliminary decree, withdrew his suit for rendition of accounts. This ground we cannot accept. When once there has been a preliminary decree ordering the taking of accounts, if the plaintiff desires to withdraw his original claim for rendition but the defendant desires the case to proceed, the proper course is to transpose the plaintiff to the position of defendant and make the defendant plaintiff. We may refer to the decision of Surampalli Ramamurthi v. Surampali Reddy AIR 1920 Mad 546. This, it is true, was a partition case, but the same principle has been...
Kartar Singh Vs. Nanda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All664; 95Ind.Cas.846
Daniels, J.1. This revision arises out of a suit for the price of a tree alleged to have been wrongly cut down and sold. The suit was originally instituted in the Small Cause Court. The learned Judge of that Court mistakenly held that it was not a suit of Small Cause Court nature and returned the plaint on the objection of the defendant. The plaintiff then filed the suit on the regular side. The defendant then pleaded that the suit was a Small Cause Court suit. The learned Munsif accepted his contention and again returned the plaint. His order has been upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal, and against this order the plaintiff applies in revision. The result of the orders passed by the Court below is that it is impossible for the plaintiff to get his case tried anywhere. It is clearly a case in which this Court in the interests of justice is bound to interfere.2. The case is really one of estoppel. The defendant having successfully pleaded in the Small Cause Court that the ...
Rafi-ullah Khan and ors. Vs. Mt. Mumtaz Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All609
Pullan, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the defendants-respondents have or have not a right to sell a house in an area which has been described as Mauza Ahmadpur Niazpur or as Mohalla Ahmadpur appertaining to the town of Shahjahanpur. The suit has lasted since the year 1917 and the first decision of the learned Munsif in that year was that the area in which this house is situated is, technically speaking, an agricultural village although it has been included in the Municipal area of the town of Shahjahanpur. There is no explicit finding by any Court that this is not the case, although it appears that the lower appellate Court has taken the view that because the Municipalities Act has been extended to this mauza, the zemindar is thereby precluded from claiming those rights over the land on which the houses of the raiyats stand, which are admitted to be the universal rights of the zemindars in this province. We are not prepared to agree with this view of the lea...
Balram Dikshit Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All562; 95Ind.Cas.765
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision on behalf of one Balaram Dikshit, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Shahjahanpur district. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 29 of the Police Act on two charges, viz., that he had wilfully neglected his duty and in spite of the orders of the Superintendent of Police he failed to prosecute under Section 216, I.P.C., Bachche Khan and Abdul Ahad Khan, as ordered by the Superintendent of Police in writing on 25th May 1925; secondly, he wilfully disobeyed the order of the Superintendent of Police in falling to appear before him immediately, as ordered by him on 29th June 1925.2. Balram Dikshit was Station Officer of Police Station Kalan in the Shahjahanpur district. On 29th May 1925, Mr. Crawford, Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, saw him and ordered him to go back to his thana and at once register and send up for trial a case under Section 216 against Bachche Khan and Abdul Ahad Khan in whose house two persons L...
Badri Prasad Vs. Chokhey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All406; 95Ind.Cas.828
Dalal, J.1. This is a difficult matter to settle. It has arisen out of interlocutory orders passed by a Subordinate Judge without proper attention to the rules dealing with procedure as to attachment prior to judgment. In a suit for a recovery of money the plaintiff applied under Order 38, Rule 5 for attachment prior to judgment. The Court passed an ex parte final order of attachment without having any jurisdiction to do so. Under Clause 3 of that rule the Court is given permission to direct a conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of the defendant's property while proceedings are pending regarding the question as to whether the defendant should furnish security for the claim of the plaintiff or not. After the order of attachment no proceedings, such as are directed in Clause 1, were taken by the Court. A pleader of the Court, Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim, was appointed attaching officer and directed to attach the defendant's stall on the 3rd of November 1922, and attached cloth of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »