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.
Bijai Inder Singh Vs. Charan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All640
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed in execution proceedings against a declared insolvent. It appears that the decree-holder obtained the permission of the insolvency Court under Section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to institute a suit against the insolvent and a decree was obtained against the insolvent on the basis of a promissory note executed on the 5th of September 1920, i.e., some years after the date on which he was adjudged an insolvent. The decree-holder subsequently applied to execute the decree by the attachment of certain moveable property belonging to the insolvent. The judgment-debtor raised an objection that his property was not liable to attachment so long as he remained an undischarged insolvent. Under Section 28(2) the effect of the order of adjudication is to vest the whole of the property of the insolvent in the Court or in the receiver, and under Sub-section 4 any property acquired by the insolvent after the date of the order of the adjudicat...
Munni Lal Vs. Mt. Shyama SonarIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All656; 97Ind.Cas.347
Pullan, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the illegitimate son of a Sonar father and Mallahin woman. He claims restitution of conjugal rights with a woman who is now admitted to be the legitimate daughter of Kasarwani Baniya parents. The only question which we have to decide is whether such a marriage can under Hindu Law, be considered legal. We have been shown several authorities in support of the view that marriage between different sub-castes of Sudras have been held to be legal, but we have seen no case in which it has been held that a legal marriage can be contracted between a Sudra and a Vaish. In this case the girl is undoubtedly a Vaish and the plaintiff is a Sudra. The authority which we follow is that of this High Court in the case of Padam Kumari v. Suraj Kumari (1906) 28 All 458 in which it was held that a Brahmin could not legally marry a Chhattri, and again in Sespuri v. Dwarka Prasad (1912) 10 ALJ 181 where it was held that a fortiori a Thakur man could not legally marr...
Agha Haidar and ors. Vs. City Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All712
1.-Defendants Nos. 9-12 namely, Mohammad Ayub and others were the owners of certain house property in Mussoorie. Certain shares of that house property were put up for sale in execution of a decree and were purchased by Defendants Nos. 1-8 namely, Saiyed Agha Haidar and others, on the 15th May 1918.2. The City Board of Mussoorie brought a suit in 1922 claiming water-tax and house-tax from the auction-purchasers (Defendants Nos. 1-8) in proportion to the shares which they had purchased, for the years 1918-1919, 1919-1920 and 1920-1921. The tax was payable on the 15th September in each year.3. The auction-purchasers contested the claim on the ground (among others) that although they purchased the shares in the house property in May 1918, they did not get possession over the houses until the 16th December 1920, nor did they realize any rent from the tenants during the period in suit. Their contention was that the taxes for the period in suit were recoverable from Defendants Nos. 9-12, who ...
Tejo Bibi Vs. Sri Thakur Murlidhar Raj Rajeshwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All23
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to a certain house situated in Benares city which comprises three sections in which the three deities now figuring as the plaintiffs are installed. The house belonged originally to a Madrasi Brahman named Jaipuran Krishna Aiyar, who had installed these idols in his life time in these sections and allowed the house to be used for the accommodation of pilgrims visiting the place. On the 7th of September 1886 he executed a Will by which he disposed of all his property, moveable and immovable, in Benares and Trichnopoly. A house situated in Benares city, not now in dispute, was bequeathed by him to his nephew Subba Rao, and a house and landed property situated in Trichnopoly were given to his two nephews, Ganpati and Subba Rao, in equal shares. In regard to the house in dispute, known as the Thakurdwara, he declared that his nephews Ganpati and Subba Rao shall as executors arrange to carry on the worship of the deities installed therein, ...
The G.i.P. Railway Company Vs. Musammat Nannhi Bai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.278
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents against the G.I.P. Railway for damages under Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act XDI of 1855. The plaintiffs are Musammat Nannbi Bai, the wife aged 25, and Musammat Shiaman, the daughter, aged 8, of a deceased school master named Brindaban Bihari Saran, who was killed in a Railway accident on the 10th of May 1921 between Jhansi and Manikpur. In this appeal no question is raised except the amount of damages awarded by the lower Court. The lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,500, whereas the appellant claims that a sum of Rs. 4,000 offered originally by the Railway Company should have been deemed sufficient. The Subordinate Judge has taken the following factors into consideration in awarding the sum of Rs. 6,500. The deceased was of 30 years of age, and at the time of his death was earning a salary of Rs. 30 per mensem as a school master and Rs. 15 per mensem by giving private tution. There was evidence that th...
Puran Dass Vs. Duli Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All684
Pullan, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal and for that matter the only question decided by the lower Courts is whether the conduct of the plaintiffs who are respondents before me has amounted to an estoppel or not. Prima facia this is a pure question of law, but I have been asked to consider that there is a definite finding of fact by the lower appellate Court which cannot be reversed on second appeal. The lower appellate Court had made in the course of his judgment the following observation:I think the facts show that they, i.e., the plaintiffs had knowledge of the provisions of the Will, but I do not think that the evidence proves that they agreed to the provisions of the Will or that they made any representation that they would not oppose the Will when it became operative after the death of the testatrix.2. From this point the learned Judge goes on to discuss the question of Law and his ultimate finding is clearly based on his view that the rulings which he cites are conc...
Partap and ors. Vs. Ram Sewak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.304
1. The principal question that arises in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the learned single Judge of this Court was right in allowing an amendment of prayer in the plaint. There was no prayer for amendment of the plaint.2. The respondents here were the plaintiffs in the Court of first instance. They brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to redeem a mortgage, dated the 5th of January, 1872, executed by one Sheodih in favour of one Mohan. The plaintiffs are transferees of Sheodin's heirs. They pleaded that the defendants were-transferees from Mohan's heirs and that, therefore, they, were the mortgagees under the mortgage aforesaid. The defence was that the mortgage of 1872 was paid off by Hira Lal and Ganesh, the predecessors-in-title of the, defendants, under the following circumstances, the sons of Sheodin were minors and their mother was anxious to pay off a simple money-decree standing against the sons. She, accordingly, arranged with Hira Lal and Ganesh that t...
Nazir Khan Vs. Ganesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All687
1. This is a first appeal from an order brought by the father against an order of the District Judge of Agra made, or purporting to be made, under the Guardians and Wards Act. The circumstances are simple; but although the law is clear, they are such as arise from time to time and create difficulty in applying the law. One Nazir Khan applied to the District Judge to be appointed guardian of the person of his minor son who was born in 1912. Of course, the parties are Muhammadans. In December 1912, while the son was only eight months old, the father, the present applicant, handed over his son to one Ganesh, a convert to Muhammadanism, thereby delegating his duty of custody and care and up-bringing of the infant.2. The arrangement was drawn up in a deed which went far beyond what the law recognizes in such matters, namely, it purported to be a sort of transfer of ownership and complete possession and control of the boy from the father to Ganesh, who undertook to bring him up to perform th...
Bindeshri and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All163
Banerji, J.1. The three appellants have been convicted of an offence of dacoity and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. The facts, which led up to their conviction, are as follows:In the village Saleem Garh Bazar a Bania of the name Mahender was dacoited on the night of the 22nd of September 1925, and another person, Ram Govind, living near Mahendra, was also robbed on that night. A report was made at the police station at 5 a.m. on the 23rd, and the Sub-Inspector came and found marks of dacoity and injuries on two of the inmates of Mahender's house. Apparently no trace of the dacoity was found by the Sub-Inspector tuntil he received information from the police of the adjoining district, Chupra. The information was really very peculiar in that a man of the name Bhola, who was accused in this case and had been convicted by the Sessions Judge but has not appealed so far, made a report at the police station in the district of Chupra...
Bhagmal Vs. Sita Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.173
King, J.1. The plaintiff in execution of a decree against Jahangira, defendant No. 1, put up his half share in a house for sale and purchased it himself on the 17th of November, 1905. Formal possession of this undivided share was given to him on the 12th of August, 1906. Before the plaintiff was given formal possession of Jahangira's half share, the latter, sold the whole house on the 15th of March, 1906, to Hansraj, who in turn sold it on the same day to Bhagmal, the son of Jahangira.2. In 1918, the plaintiff brought a suit against Jahangira for possession of his half share in the house by partition and got a decree on the 22nd of February, 1919. When the Amin proceeded to execute the decree, he was resisted by Bhagmal, who claimed ownership of the entire house on the strength of his sale-deed. The Amin made a report to the Civil Court executing the decree, on the 19th of November, 1921. The Court by an order dated 22nd November, 1921, directed that the decree-holder should take whate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »