Allahabad Court July 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.
Jaswant Rai Vs. J. Luck and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All746
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against some military officers for rent of a bungalow in the Agra Cantonment. The bungalow was occupied by the defendants as a mess house from the 15th August 1920. They did not find it necessary to apply to the Cantonment authority in order to get possession, but having occupied the house they wrote to the plaintiff informing him that they had done so and proposed to pay the registered rent of Rs. 60 a month. It was open to the plaintiff to reply that he was not willing for them to enter upon the house at that rent and that any occupation by the defendants was without his consent. Instead of doing this he merely protested that the registered rant was too low and did nothing further. Subsequently the defendants complained to the plaintiff of the state of repairs of the house and ultimately they moved the Cantonment authority to issue a notice to the plaintiff under Section 19(1), Cantonments House Accommodation Act....
Jagadish Prasad and ors. Vs. Sri Dhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All60; 97Ind.Cas.503
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff is the adopted son of Dwarka Prasad, and seeks to impugn the validity of two sale-deeds, purporting to have been executed by Dwarka Prasad in respect of certain joint ancestral property belonging to the family. One of the sale-deeds was executed on the 12th July 1911, for a consideration of Rs. 1,500, and the other was executed on the 24th July 1924, for a consideration of Rs. 70. The allegation of the plaintiff was that some differences had arisen between the plaintiff and his adoptive father while he was a minor, and some litigation had taken place between them, the effect of which was that the adoption of the plaintiff was upheld and he was declared to be the owner of a half share in the disputed property. He challenges the right of Dwarka Prasad to sell the share belonging to him.2. Both the sales were effected in favour of Jagdish Prasad, whose defence was that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of Dwarka Prasad and had no right to the property ...
Sheo Dayal Niranjan Lal Vs. Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.474
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the original suit, who sought the recovery of the value of goods lost, the amount of a certain overcharge alleged to have been paid and damages against the respondent G.I.P. Railway Company.2. The suit was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on the sole ground that no notice as required by Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, was given by the plaintiffs.3. The facts involved are briefly these:--On the 26th of January 1920, the plaintiffs' agent, who was impleaded as the defendant No. 2 and against whom no relief was, claimed, despatched 58 bags of raw sugar,. 32bags of wheat and 11 bags of refined sugar to the plaintiffs in the District of Banda. The consignment was sent from Hapur. Strange though it may sound, it is a fact, that the goods did not reach their destination till the 29th of October, 1920. On this, date, it was discovered that the consignment was short by 17 bags made up of different kinds of the commodity. The plaintiffs gave...
Seth Jaswant Rai Vs. Major J. Luck and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.71
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against some military officers for rent of a bungalow in the Agra Cantonment The bungalow was occupied by the defendants as a mess house from the 5th August, 1920. They did not find it necessary to apply to the Cantonment Authority in order to get possession, but having occupied the house they wrote to the plaintiff informing him that they had done so and proposed to pay the registered rent of Rs. 60 a month. It was open to the plaintiff to reply that he was not willing for them to enter upon the house at that rent and that any occupation by the defendants was without his consent. Instead of doing this he merely protested that the registered rent was too low and did nothing further. Subsequently the defendants complained to the plaintiff of the state of repairs of the house and ultimately they moved the Cantonment Authority to issue a notice to the plaintiff under Section 19(1) of the Cantonments (House Accommodatio...
Abdul Aziz Vs. Mt. Mariyam Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All710; 97Ind.Cas.176
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of part of the property sold and for pre-emption of the rest. The vendor was Mt. Maryam Bibi, the widow of Ali Raza. The property sold is admittedly what originally belonged to Ali Raza. The plaintiff claimed to be an 'asba' (a residuary) of Ali Raza and entitled to a three-fourths share in his estate. The widow however transferred the entire property. On 31st March 1924, the vendee Akbar Ali was examined by the Court under Order 10, Rule 1.2. He made a clear statement that the plaintiff was the uncle of the deceased husband of Mt. Maryam Bibi and was removed by four degrees, and that after Ali Raza's death he began to make collections for a year, and it was in consequence of her not being able to get the profits that she transferred the property to him. This was undoubtedly an admission of the plaintiff's allegation that he was a relation within four degrees of the deceased Ali Raza. This admission ought ...
Lal Behari Misra and anr. Vs. Equeen Mohammad Hajjam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All722a; 97Ind.Cas.340
1. This is an appeal by two plaintiffs arising out of a pre-emption suit. The ostensible sale consideration entered in the sale-deed was Rs 793 7-8. The Court of first instance found this consideration proved. The defendant-vendee had taken the plea that the Plaintiff No. 1 had acquiesced in the sale and was estopped by his conduct from claiming it and further that in consequence Plaintiff No. 2 also was disqualified. This contention was not accepted and the suit was decreed. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the true consideration was not Rs. 793-7-8 but that out of it a sum of Rs. 184-8-0 was not genuine but fictitious. He has, however, held that Lal Behari plaintiff agreed to the sale-deed in question and was present at the time of its registration and accepted the amount which was left with the vendee for payment to him. He has therefore held that Lal Behari was estopped from claiming pre-emption. He has then gone on to hold that under Section 21 of the Agra Pre-emp...
Mangalia Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All119
1. The appellant Mangalia alias Mangali has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to transportation for life.2. The case for the prosecution was briefly this: On the morning of 7th February 1926, at about 9 a.m., people collected at the house of the appellant on hearing an alarm raised by the deceased, the wife of the appellant. People entered into the house of the appellant and found his wife lying murdered in a pool of blood and the accused with a sickle in his hand. The accused admitted before the witnesses examined in the case that he had killed his wife.3. A report was made at the thana and the case was investigated and sent up. The appellant throughout stuck to the story which he had told on the first occasion he was questioned and it was this. He had gone away to purchase some corn and came back earlier than was expected; on arrival at his house he found, inside his own room, on a cha...
Madho Singh Vs. Pancham Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All211; 101Ind.Cas.409
Mukerji, J.1. We have got two appeals before us, viz., No. 660 of 1924 and No. 957 of 1924 and also a cross-objection in the former appeal. The cross-objection is easily disposed of. For, there is a deficiency in Court-fee, and the learned Counsel, Dr. Katju, has declined to take time to make good the deficiency. The cross-objection went to the Toot of the suit and prayed that the suit should be dismissed. Evidently, therefore, the Court-fee had to be paid either on the valuation of the suit or at least on the value of the property sought to be exempted. In any case there is a deficiency and as Dr. Katju does not want any time to make good the deficiency, the cross-objection in Appeal No. 660 of 1924 must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs.2. Both the appeals arise out of the same suit and the claim is briefly this: Mt. Sahodra, who is described in the plaint as the Defendant No. 1, executed two mortgages, one in favour of Ranjit Singh, on the 9th May 1904 and the other in favour ...
Lachhmi NaraIn Sahu and ors. Vs. Bindra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All753; 97Ind.Cas.184
King, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised in this case that no second appeal lies, because the suit is of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the subject-matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 500. It is admitted that the subject-matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 500; and the only question is whether the suit is of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. This suit was for the recovery of money on a hundi executed by Defendant No. 1, who was the manager of the joint family represented by himself and his son. Defendant No. 2, and his brother, Defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 borrowed the money for starting a shop, which was to be run for the benefit of the family-and not specially by or for Defendant No. 1 personally. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover the money, which was less than Rs. 500 from Defendant No. 1 personally and from the property of all three defendants.2. It has been argued for the appellant that a suit of this nature would n...
Gulab Vs. Dalip and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All26
Mukerji, J.1. This is an ex-parte appeal. But Mr. Sandal has put the Court in possession of cases deciding both in favour of the view contended for by him and in favour of the view against his contention, and I have, therefore, no difficulty in deciding the case.2. The facts established are these: The respondent obtained a written lease from an occupancy tenant on the 1st of May 1921, it having been agreed that he would be put in possession on the 1st of July 1921. The occupancy tenant, however, did not put the respondent in possession, but, instead, put the appellant in possession. Thereupon the respondent brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, claiming possession and mesne profits.3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that it was cognizable by the revenue Court alone and was, further, barred by six months' rule of limitation. The appellate Court has decreed the suit, hence the appeal. The contention for the appellant is that the respondent ought to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »