Allahabad Court June 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.
Skippers and Co. Vs. E.V. David and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All132
Ashworth, J.1. These cross-appeals arise out of a suit brought by Skippers Company Limited, Calcutta (now in liquidation) through the liquidator, William Duchatel Woellworth, against Mr. E.V. David, Official Receiver, Cawnpore, Mr. Frank Skippers and one Jairam Das. Up to July 1922, Skippers & Co., Ltd., a Calcutta firm, owned a business in Calcutta with a branch at Cawnpore. The Cawnpore branch was managed by Mr. Frank Skippers, Defendant No. 2. ON the 6th July 1922 a sale-deed was drawn up whereby Skippers & Co., Ltd., sold the assets of the firm at Cawnpore to Mr. Frank Skippers. John Skippers and M. Skippers were made parties to the sale-deed as vendors, but this fact has not been considered of any importance in the present litigation. The sale-deed purported to convey the business at Cawnpore of Skippers & Co., Ltd., Calcutta, and was to include not only the branch known as the Civil Lines branch, but also a branch known as the Cawnpore Motor Company situated on the Mall, Cawnpore...
Allah Bakhsh Vs. Karim Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All95
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision tinder the following circumstances:2. A suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 168 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge invested with the powers of a Judge of Small Causes on the 18th September 1924. It was transferred to the file of the first Munsif of Bulandshahr by the order of the District Judge on the 29th September 1924. The transfer was made under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit remained as a suit of the nature of Small. Causes. On the 28th January 1925, the first Munsif of Bulandshahr, in whose Court the suit was pending, was transferred and another Munsif took over charge, who had no Small Cause powers. On the same date, the District Judge passed an order that all Small Cause suits pending in the first Munsif's Court will be transferred and disposed of as follows:.(3) All the rest will be tried by the first Munsif as regular suits.3. On the 4th of February, when the suit was put up before the learned fi...
Ram Sahai Singh Vs. Debi Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All617; 97Ind.Cas.455
Walsh, J.1. The question referred to this Bench is really whether the decision of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Lindsay, in Bishanath v. Bharosa Mis Case No. 634 of 1925 decided on 26th November 1925 is right. The point of law, or rather of interpretation, arises under Section 9 of the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act. In this case a suit has been brought by a mortgagee of an agricultural tribe, against a mortgagor of the same tribe, that is to say it is a mortgage which is not within the mischief of Section 6. Section 6 forbids a mortgage between a member of an agricultural tribe, where the mortgagee is not a member of the same tribe, or where the mortgagor and mortgagee are not both members of the agricultural tribe, unless it; is in one of the forms prescribed by that section. Section 9(3) provides for the jurisdiction of the Collector in a case of a suit instituted in any civil Court on a mortgage to which Sub-section 1 of Section 9 applies. Sub-section 1 of Section 9 applies to...
Sita Ram and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All52
Banerji, J.1. This is pre-eminently a case for decision by the civil Court and not by the Criminal Court and although the learned Magistrate who heard the appeal, has taken upon himself the duty, of congratulating Mr. Toder Mal on the judgment', I am unable to congratulate either the District Magistrate on his judgment or the Bench of the Magistrates on their judgment.2. The accused in this case are the daughter, son-in-law and the daughter's son of one Mt. Budhia. who was one of the wives of one Bhairon. 'Bhairon had lent money to some one, and in execution, of the decree obtained by Bhairon the house, which is the subject, of the dispute, was purchased by Budhia, and her name appeared in the sale certificate. Mr. Todar Mal and his colleague Mr. J.C. Kapur with reference to the dakhalnamah have said 'as the original is' not produced we need make no comment upon it. This on the face of it is ridiculous. It has been held by a Bench of this Court in Satnarain Dube V. Narain Bargah [1915]...
Laiq Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All62
Mears, C.J.1. This was a suit brought by Laiq Singh against one Jagdish Singh and Mt. Gori Dulahin, widow of one Hamir Singh. The points that had to be decided in the case were mainly whether one Hamir Singh had been adopted by Baldeo Singh, but the most important question of all was whether on the 4th November 1919 Hamir Singh in his last illness bad made a Will in favour of Jagdish Singh. The Will bears the date, 4th November 1.919, and in the plaint it was definitely stated that the Will was a forgery, and that was the issue on which this matter was fought out. The evidence was very conflicting. There has been printed evidence in support of the theory that Hamir Singh was so ill for five or possibly more days before his death that he was not in a physical or mental condition in which to make a Will. There has been printed the evidence of the vaid, Munnu Lal, who attended him and the evidence of three or four witnesses who were round his bedside, and they all concur in saying that fo...
Jugal Kishore and ors. Vs. Khuda Bux and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All96
Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal of five Vaishes of Moradabad, who instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen against the Secretary of State for India and five Mohamedan shop-keepers of Chowmukha Pal, Moradabad.2. The cause of action of these five Vaishes of Moradabad, as set out in the plaint, is that without any reasonable and lawful ground, Maulvi Shams ud-din, the Tahsildar of Moradabad, prohibited and interfered with the bathing of the public and drawing water in a lota from the well and with the drawing of the water by the chamars, and on the report of the Tahsildar the Collector passed an order prohibiting the public from bathing, and the said order was contrary to the rights of the plaintiffs and the other parsons entitled and is prejudicial to them. With reference to the five Mahomedan shopkeepers, who are impleaded as defendants, the plaintiffs alleged:On the strength of their party and religious bigotry they hinder and obstruct the plaintiffs, the other Hindus an...
Sheo Prasad Vs. Balwant Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All150
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage, dated the 9th of April 1918, executed by Balwant Singh, Defendant No. 1, in favour of the plaintiff Sheo Prasad and his father Tota Ram, since deceased. Among the defendants are the mortgagor's grandson Malhan Singh and a number of subsequent transferees. The mortgage-deed in question was executed for a sum of Rs. 7,000. The bulk of the consideration was set off against the amounts due on three previous mortgage-deeds, dated the 6th of February 1901, the 17th January 1906, and the 19th of November 1907, in favour of the plaintiff's family. Rs. 60 were taken for purchasing stamp paper and meeting the expenses of the execution and registration, and Rs. 125 were taken professedly for payment of Government revenue. The defendants denied the validity of this mortgage-deed. It is not now disputed that the property covered by this mortgage was joint ancestral property and that the mortgage d...
Nihal and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All759
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by six parsons named Nihal, Shama, Ghubbar, Mukhtar, Meda and Bhoja, who were bound over to be of good behaviour by a Magistrate of the First Class of Bijnor. The procedure adopted in this case was this. On the 2nd of December 1925, the Station Officer of Chandpur arrested under Section 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedures number of men. They were put up before a Magistrate on the 8th who directed a case to be registered and put up the next day. On the 9th of September, the Magistrate first recorded an order purporting to be one under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows:Whereas It is brought to my notice that you the aforesaid are habitual thieves, burglars, cattle lifters, and you associate with bad characters, you are hereby directed to show cause why you should not be directed to enter into a bond of Rs. 100 each with two sureties of Rs. 200 each to be of good behaviour for one year.2. Thereafter the case began ...
Dwarka Singh and ors. Vs. Sheo Shankar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All168
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. There were three plaintiffs, Dwarka Singh, Plaintiff No. 1, being the lambardar and the other two plaintiffs co-sharers in the same thok in which the property sold is situated. The suit related to two taluqas, each of which is a separate mahal called Dodhwa Asli and Surauja Asli. The plaintiff did not admit that the consideration mentioned in the sale-deed was the true consideration. The defendants maintained that the consideration mentioned in the deed was the true consideration and denied the existence of a custom of pre-emption and also pleaded an acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs. The copy of the wajib-ul-arz produced by the plaintiffs was at places illegible and the Court ordered the original to be sent for. When the original arrived and the language of the wajib-ul-arz was clearly understood, the defendants took a further legal plea that even if the alleged custom never existed they could sue for pre-...
Faqir Julaha Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All711
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This is an application by Faqir Julaha from an order of a First Class Magistrate convicting him of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25. The facts of the case are very simple. The case started on a complaint made by one Sheikh Mohar Ali to the effect that he was invited by the applicant to a feast at the latter's house along with a large number of biradari people but that when he sat down to dinner be was asked by the applicant to leave the place and was thus disgraced. The applicant's defence was that the complainant came uninvited and was, therefore at the instance of some biradari people asked to leave the place. On the evidence produced before him the learned Magistrate found that the complainant had in fact been invited by the applicant and considering it sufficient for the purpose of establishing a charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code recorded a conviction, as mentioned above. Hence the pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »