Allahabad Court May 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.
Kishan Sahai and ors. Vs. Dalip Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All126
1. The dispute in this case arises out of a sale by the defendants to the plaintiffs of a 2 biswas share out of an aggregate of 6 biswas on the 26th of February 1921. The plots in question ware at the time sir and khudkasht plots of the defendants. The defendants-vendors executed at the time of the sale-deed a simultaneous relinquishment of the ex-proprietary rights which arose under it. The plaintiffs took possession of the sir and khudkasht plots, but at the time of mutation of names the defendants pleaded that the relinquishment of ex-proprietary rights was invalid under the Tenancy Act and under the ruling of the Privy Council in Moti Chand v. Ikram-Ullah Khan [1917] 39 All, 173. The matter was fought up to the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue ultimately by two separate judgments, dated the 15th April and 2nd May 1922, upheld the defendants' contention and directed that their ex-proprietary right should be defined by proceedings under Section 36(1) of the U.P. Land Revenu...
In Re: Kekri Press Company Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.753
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application, on behalf of the Kekri Press. Co., Ltd., purporting to have been made under Section 12 of the Companies Act, praying for the confirmation of a resolution by which the Company proposed to locate its registered office at Aligarh instead of, as hitherto, at Beawar.2. At the last hearing of the application I entertained some doubt as to whether I could hear the application. I granted the learned Counsel a week's time. The matter has again been argued to-day. I am not satisfied that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.3. Under Section 12 of the Companies Act of 1913 the alteration of the place of the registered office cannot take place unless the resolution proposing the transfer has been confirmed by 'the Court'. 'The Court' is, according to the definition of the expression given in Section 2 of the Companies Act, the Court having jurisdiction under the Act. Under Section 3, the Court having jurisdiction is the High Court having ju...
Sultan and anr. Vs. Masitu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All749
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. Various pleas were taken by the defendant but they were all overruled and the suit has been decreed. The plaintiffs allegation that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed was inflated has however not been accepted and there is no cross-objection.2. The first plea was that there was no custom of pre-emption in this village at all. In support of the alleged custom of pre-emption the plaintiff relied on an entry in the wajib-ul-arz of the year 1863 as well as an extract from the wajib ul-arz of the year 1325 F. and two judgments. There was no evidence to the contrary. The entry in the first wajib-ul-arz of 1863 was undoubtedly a prima facie evidence of the existence of a custom. The only point urged against this presumption is that it contains the two expressions 'in future' and a provision for reference to arbitration in the case of a dispute as to price. We are of opinion that these two circumst...
Gunna and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All80
Banerji, J 1. This is a revision by Gunna and three others. Gunna has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, in that he on the 13th July 1925, at village Kanwara, dishonestly retained three bullocks belonging to Phuley of village Birjwari, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, including one month's solitary confinement. Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code for stealing the three bullocks from the house of Phuley, a cultivator, residing in mauza Birjwari, Thana Barsana, Muttra district. I will dispose of the case of these three first. They were seen in village Kunwara, one mile from mauza Birjwari, on the evening of the 12th of July. This village lies between Kama and Birjwari. They were seen early on the morning of the 13th July driving the bullocks from the forest of Kunwara towards the abadi of that village...
Harkesh and anr. Vs. Mamraj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.747
1. In this case the plaintiffs-appellants came into Court alleging that they were entitled to a one-third share in an ancestral occupancy holding and claiming joint possession with the defendants to the extent of their share They originally filed their suit in the Revenue Court, and the Revenue Court refused to entertain it and referred them to the Civil Court. They have now filed their suit in the Civil Court, and both the learned Sub-ordinate Judge and the learned District Judge have held that the Civil Court cannot entertain it. The decisions of the Court below are contrary to a long series of rulings of this Court which has with one or two possible exceptions consistently held that a suit between rival claimants to a tenancy to which the landlord is not a party is cognizable by the Civil Court Of the numerous rulings on this point it will be sufficient to refer to Bhup v Ram Lal 11 Ind. Cas. 268 : 33 A. 795 : 8 A.L.J 1009 and Jagar Nath v. Ajudhya Sinqh 17 Ind. Cas. 376 : 35 A. 14 ...
Ghaslawan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All613
Banerji, J.1. The facts, which have led to this petition, are as follows:On the 9th of October 1925, a servant of petitioner, Ghaslawan, raised an alarm that a dacoity was being committed. The chaukidar of the village being informed that there was a dacoity in the Thakurs' quarters, went there not to Ghaslawan's house but to the house of certain other Thakurs. These Thakurs caused a report to be made at the thana that Ghaslawan Singh had made a false alarm of the dacoity. On the other hand, Ghaslawan, without going to the thana or making any report to the police, on the 10th October filed a petition in Court against certain persons, charging them with dacoity. That night, at about 11 p.m., on his return after making this complaint, he made a statement to the police in answer to questions put by the Sub-Inspector, saying that he had filed a complaint in Court and that he had been dacoited by certain persons.2. The police upon investigation found that the complaint was false, and the Dep...
ishwari Prasad Vs. Sheotahal Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All669
1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no Letters Patent appeal lies. It would be necessary to state the facts of the case in order to find whether an appeal lies or not.2. The parties are co-sharers in a village which is subject to the alluvial action of a river. A certain piece of land was thrown up and the finding is that the defendant took possession of the same and was in possession till the date of suit instituted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that he was in possession and that his possession had been disturbed. He said that the land was his khudkasht. On these allegations he brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration of his title and, in the alternative, for recovery if possession. The lower appellate Court found that the possession was with the defendant. There being no question of title at issue (the plaintiff's title was never denied) the suit was dismissed.3. When the appeal came before this Court a learned Judge of this Court he...
Het Ram Vs. Raja Dutt Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All722
1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the costs awarded in execution proceedings to the decree-holder are recoverable personally from the judgment-debtor or must be realized, along with the mortgage-money, by sale of the property mortgaged.2. Briefly the facts are these: A preliminary decree for sale was made on the 4th of March 1910 and the final decree was passed on the 30th of April 1915. In 1917 the decree was put into execution and on the 14th of December 1920, the execution proceedings were struck off as being partially successful. The decree-holder was dissatisfied with this order of striking off of his application and he appealed to this Court. The appeal was successful and this Court awarded to the decree-holder a sum of Rs. 166-8-0 as the costs of appeal. It is this order of costs that is under execution now and the judgment-debtor has come up with the plea that the money should come out of the property mortgaged and not from him personally. The judgment...
Chhotey Lal and ors. Vs. Dharajit and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All744
1. The simple question for consideration in this appeal is whether Chhotey Lal is entitled to the rights of a prior mortgagee as against Dharajit by reason of his having got a decree on that prior mortgage. The first mortgage was made in favour of Mt. Reoti who obtained a decree to which Dharajit was made a party in his capacity as a subsequent mortgagee. In execution of that decree the mortgaged property was put up to sale and purchased by Dharajit, but the sale was subsequently set aside on the mortgagor raising the amount required to pay up that decree by making a usufructuary mortgage in favour of Chhotey Lal. The mortgage deed executed in favour of Chhotey Lal provided that he shall step into the shoes of Mt. Reoti by reason of such payment.2. An attempt is now being made by Dharajit to bring the mortgaged property to sale in execution of his decree obtained on foot of an intermediate mortgage. Mt. Reoti was no party to that decree. Chhotey Lal has been impleaded as a subsequent m...
Babu Ram and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All127
1. We are satisfied that this appeal must succeed. The point appears to be in a sense new, that is to say, our attention has not been called to any previous decision. It is admitted that the claim of the plaintiff is based upon a mortgage-bond of 1910 which was a mere renewal of a previous mortgage-bond of 1882 in respect of which a thousand rupees liability had accrued in 1910. The defendant is a grandson of the mortgagor and according to the settled law is entitled to challenge the transaction even though he was not born in 1882, on the ground of want of legal necessity. The learned Judge has treated the mortgage-debt due under the deed of 1882 as an antecedent debt, but, a renewal of the original transaction cannot be brought within the definition of an antecedent debt as contained in the fourth paragraph of the final summary of the existing law in regard to these matters contained in the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the recent decision of Brij Narain v. Mangl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »