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.
Sukhnandan Lal Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All719
Walsh, J.1. I am surprised at the judgment which the learned Sessions Judge has permitted himself to deliver in this case. In the first place, it is not disputed that the applicant before me is a public official charged by Government in the public interest to preserve permanent records of the rights, and positions of parties and interest in land, in order that people may not be injured by false claims, and that there always may be a reliable record available for Courts of justice; and whether or not he bad any ulterior motive, nobody in this world can say, he did what he knew was wrong, and a breach of his duty to the Government-conduct which is constantly complained of in the case of patwaris, and which causes untold trouble to poor people who are compelled to lose their rights because of the uncertainty and difficulty of establishing clear evidence. To my mind any official, however humble, who deliberately tampers with official records and issues false copies, whatever his motives, d...
Mt. Nawasi Begam and anr. Vs. Mt. Dilfaroz Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All39
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain immovable property together with mesne profits. The property belonged to one Afzal Shah, who died on the 9th of October 1881, leaving as his heirs a nephew Mansur Shah and a widow Zamani Begam. The former was entitled to three-quarters of the property and the latter to one-quarter. The widow retained, possession of the whole property in lieu of her dower-debt. The nephew assigned half of his share to, Muhammad Zaman Khan and Usman Shah, and then, together with his transferees, instituted a suit against Zamani Begam on the 20th of April 1892, for possession of his share. Zamani Begam asserted her right to retain possession until her dower-debt had been discharged. The amount of the dower-debt and of the profits received by the widow were disputed, but by the decree of the High Court, dated the 2nd of June 1896, it was finally decided that the amount of dower-debt was Rs. 50,000, and after making allowance for the prof...
Hashmat HussaIn and ors. Vs. Siddiq Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All128
1. There is a mosque known as the Shahjahani mosque situated in Saharanpur City. It was built, according to an inscription on the building, by Zulfiqar Khan in Hijri 1017 corresponding with 1636 A.D. According to Beala's Oriental Biographical Dictionary, Zulfiqar Khan was a nobleman of the reign of the emperor, Shahjahan. The plaintiffs are Shias and claim that he belonged to the Shia persuasion and that the mosque had been in the exclusive use and management of the Shia community from the time it was built. The defendants, on the other hand, contend that Zulfiqar Khan was a Sunni and that the mosque had been in the exclusive use and management of the Sunnis and that the Shias had no right to say prayers in the mosque or keep tazias in it.2. On the 11th September 1920, thirteen persons, describing themselves as the representatives of the Shia community, entered into an agreement of reference to arbitration in regard to that mosque and appointed Mr. W.A. Silberrad, the then Collector of...
Lalta Prashad Vs. Jagdish NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All137
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This was a suit for the specific performance of a contract of sale in respect of a house situated in Bareilly, and the main question for consideration is whether the persons who entered into the contract of sale had a subsisting right in the property which they could have conveyed to the plaintiff.2. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the house belonged to the defendants Jagdish Narain and Gopal Narain and their father Hirdey Narain; that on the 24th of July 1920, they agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for Rs. 10,000, out of which Rs. 9,265 were to be paid to the defendant Ganesh Prashad on account of the money said to have been due on a prior mortgage; Rs. 500 were paid to Raja Lalta Prashad on account of another mortgage; Rs. 200 are said to have been paid as earnest money and the balance was to be paid at the time of registration. The plaintiff also alleged that in pursuance of the said contract he had paid Rs. 500 to Raja Lalta Prashad through the ve...
Balwant Singh Vs. Har Jas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All27
King, J.1. One Balwant Singh, decree-holder in execution of his decree against Nawal Singh and others, attached the crops of the judgment-debtors and the crops were made over to Harjas, the plaintiff-respondent as Supraddar. When the amin went to sell the crops it was found that they had been made over to the judgment-debtors. The execution Court then took proceedings against Harjas as Supraddar for misconduct in permitting the attached property to be made over to the judgment-debtors without the order of the Court. The execution Court finding that Harjas had acted improperly in allowing the attached property to be made over to the judgment-debtors ordered him to deposit Rs. 75 in Court.2. Harjas then filed a suit to recover Rs. 75 which he had been made to deposit under the orders of the Court against the judgment-debtors primarily, but he also impleaded the decree-holder and asked that the relief should be given against whichever defendant the Court thought fit. The Court found that ...
The Swadeshi Mills Co. Vs. Juggi Lal, Kamlapat Cotton Spinning and Wea ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All81
Mears, C.J.1. This suit was filed originally in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. By consent it was transferred to this Court, partly on the ground of expedition but mainly because the case was stated to be one of great general importance to the manufacturing community. The plaintiffs, Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd., are manufacturers of various kinds of cotton goods and the undertaking is managed by the well-known firm of Messrs. Tata & Co. The original defendant was a firm known as Messrs. Juggi Lal Kamlapat. After the suit was filed, it was discovered that the business had been incorporated as a private company and, therefore, the company was added as the second defendant.2. The plaintiffs' case, as disclosed in the plaint and put forward by counsel when the issues were framed, was that they had been, since 1888, manufacturing cotton goods of various kinds and used from the very first a lotus flower as their characteristic trade-mark. It was stated that since 1909 their prin...
Sardar Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Bal Kuer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All145
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the plaintiffs-appellants against the defendants in respect of the years 1328, 1329 and part of 1330 F. The following facts were established. The plaintiffs are four of the co-sharers of the mahal in which the holding in suit is situated. There are several other such co-sharers, and they include three persons who are lambardars, namely, Ajaib Singh, etc. For the three years preceding the years in suit the present plaintiffs brought a suit against the present defendants, and obtained a decree for arrears of rent. There is no evidence on the file to show that the plaintiffs alone out of the body of the co-sharers were entitled to collect the whole rent of the holding, nor is there any evidence to show that there is any custom or agreement whereby the lambardars collected rents or whereby by different co-sharers collected the whole rent in respect of separate holdings. The defence in this suit was that t...
Ram Sundar Tiwari and anr. Vs. Ram Khelawan Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All708
Walsh, J.1. In this case a suit was brought for a declaration for possession in relation to a widow's claim to a fixed rate tenancy. The merits have not been decided. It is clear that some Court has jurisdiction to decide them. The District Judge says: 'The plaintiff-appellant has of course, his remedy in the proper Court' but he does not say what it is; I presume he means the civil Court which having regard to the valuation, would be the Munsif. The Assistant Collector has set out the facts in his judgment. The record shows that evidence was taken and it is clear that he might, if he liked have disposed of the other issues; but he held that the suit was not triable by the revenue Court and, adding that it was no use his trying the other issues, he dismissed the suit with costs. The District Judge upheld this decision and dismissed the appeal, and therefore the suit with costs, holding that the plaintiff had his remedy in the proper Court.2. To my mind, the District Judge made a mistak...
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. Fateh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All747
Walsh, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The learned Judge has misunderstood the case. The authority of the revenue Court is not impugned and it was not necessary for the learned Judge to intervene in order to uphold it. Nor is the term 'trespasser' a definition of a status or an absence of status. A person who derives title from another, granted for the other's life, finds that on that person's death his title has come to an end. He has nothing left. He is a mere trespasser. This is not straining language. It is merely defining law. It does not mean that he is a trespasser in the sense in which the Penal Code treats a trespasser.2. I have not succeeded in discovering on what ground the learned Judge really thinks that this suit could have been entertained by a revenue Court. As I have had occasion to say scores of times, in order to decide in what Court a suit should be brought the first thing to examine is the plaint. Of course, if the plaint is mala fide and a mere cloak to hide the...
Jaunpur Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Upper India Rice Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All173
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application by the liquidators of the Jaunpur Sugar Factory Limited in liquidation against the liquidator of the Upper India Rice Mills, Limited in liquidation for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,514-0-10 on the following allegations. The two Companies now in liquidation were managed by one and the same firm of agents who described themselves as Messrs. Behari & Co. While the two Companies were under the same management, from time to time, the Managing Agents borrowed moneys from the Jaunpur Sugar Factory Limited, for the use of the Upper India. Rice Mills Limited. The total sums thus borrowed amounted to Rs. 7,093-10-9 after giving credit for the sums paid in from time to time. The Jaunpur Sugar Factory went into liquidation on the 28th of March 1924, and the Upper India. Rice Mills went into liquidation on the 26th of October 1924. On the 24th of January 1925, the present claimants put forward their claim before the liquidators of the Upper India Rice Mills but th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »