Allahabad Court January 1927 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.
Ram Singh Vs. Man Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All654
Lindsay, J.1. The question in this case is the correct interpretation of Section 44 Sub-section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act. This sub-section was pleaded as a bar to the suit in the Court below. The Judge of the Small Cause Court overruled the objection and held that Sub-section (3) to Section 44 was not a bar. In my opinion the decision is erroneous. The section has not been correctly interpreted by the Court below. The facts are quite clear. The plaintiff Man Singh held a mortgage from the defendant Ram Singh dated the 11th November 1922. He put that mortgage in suit, and while the case was pending it was discovered that there was a deficiency of stamp duty. Nobody denies that Ram Singh the mortgagor was the person who was liable for this deficiency.2. The plaintiff having paid the deficiency in order to make the instrument regular and in order to get a decree has brought this suit for the recovery of the money paid by him. He apparently did not make any application to the Court which ...
Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Roshan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All776
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a house and for recovery of damages on the allegation that the house belonged to the plaintiff-appellants, and that the defendants had taken unlawful possession of the same and having demolished a portion of the house were constructing a new house.2. The defence to the suit was that the defendants were building a house on an aftada piece of land that belonged to the zemindar with the latter's permission, and that there was no house of the plaintiffs on that piece of land at the time that the defendants were permitted by the zemindar to build a house. The defence found favour with the trial Court and it dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, and the decree of the trial Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.3. When the appeal was called on for hearing, a preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that, because of the omission of the plaintiffs-appellants to b...
Jawala Sahai Vs. Bhim Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All827
1. Now that we have been able to arrive at the facts of this case the matter for decision is simple. It is a judgment-debtor's appeal. A decree was obtained on 31st July 1919. The first application for execution was made on 4th April 1922. On the 22nd June 1922, this application was dismissed. On 15th August 1925, a further application was made. It is clear that, unless some cause had been shown to prevent this, that application was barred by time, and the Court ought, unless for some good reason, to have proceeded forthwith to dismiss it as barred by time. It is unnecessary, therefore, to detail all the further proceedings that took place until the order of the Court on that application has been considered. For the respondent-decree-holder here reliance is placed on the fact that certain payments are set out in that application for execution as having been made within the period of limitation dating that period from 22nd June 1922, and the judgment-debtor was given credit for the alle...
Kamta Prasad Misir Vs. Bhulai Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.527
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of possession of certain zemindari property by cancellation of a deed of gift dated the 15th of July, 1920, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff's case was that before, at the time, and ever since the date of the execution of the deed of gift the plaintiff was of unsound mind, and the defendant taking advantage of the plaintiff's unsoundness of mind fraudulently got the deed executed in his favour. The suit was brought by the plaintiff through his wife Musammat Pato as next friend of the plaintiff.2. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiff was not of unsound mind and that the deed of gift was executed by the plaintiff while he was in full possession of his faculties and that the claim was barred by Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court did not believe the allegation as to the plaintiff's unsoundness of mind and ...
Ganga Prasad and anr. Vs. Sukhdeo Sahu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All344
Mukerji, J.1. The facts involved in this second appeal are very simple. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, let out two shops to the respondent on foot of a kabuliyat executed by the respondent on the 10th of April, 1922, The term fixed was two years. The respondent gave a notice to the appellants, saying that he was vacating the premises and left them. He paid a portion of the rent. The plaintiffs claim rent for the entire two years after giving credit for the rent actually paid. 2. The respondent pleaded that he was hot liable to pay the rent after he vacated the premises and he offered to pay the balance due by him, up to the date of his leaving.3. The first Court decreed the suit in its entirety. But the lower appellate Court dismissed it, except for the amount admitted and held that the respondent could not be forced to pay the rent for the entire period of two years. The learned Judge relied on the case of Kedar Nath v. Shankar Lal : AIR1934All514 .4. In this Court ...
Secretary of State Vs. Manak Chand and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All393
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The application is made by the Secretary of State for India through the Agents, East Indian Railway and Great Indian Peninsula Railway. The opposite party is a firm, Manak Chand & Sons, carrying on business at Agra.2. It is not the practice of this Court to interfere in cases under the Small Cause Courts Act with findings of fact, but in the present case I am satisfied after a perusal of the record and hearing counsel that the judgment here is absolutely perverse and ought not to be maintained. It would be a gross injustice to the applicant here to allow this judgment to stand. The facts are very simple. A Bombay firm sent a large parcel of goods to this firm of Manak Chand & Sons, and apparently, when the parcel arrived at Agra it was found that it had been tampered with. The plaintiff firm, as they were entitled to do, applied to the Railway for open delivery, and it is common ground that the parcel ...
Prahlad Prasad and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All677
1. The plaintiff-appellant here had advanced certain moneys to the defendant, In accordance with the common practice he sent to the defendant, on the 29th September 1922, a statement of account, which is Ex. 2 in the case, in which he showed that Rs. 2,366-2-6 were due to him from the defendant. This is the last account which was sent in to the defendant. On that account the defendant endorsed an acknowledgment that Rs. 2,366-2-6 remained due from him to the plaintiff and added the words 'interest at annas 12 per cent. per mensem.' A reference to this memorandum signed by the defendant is made in para. 3 of the plaint, and in para. 5 of the plaint the plaintiff further states that the correctness of the statement of account is supported by his account books. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate Court held that this document (Ex. 2) was merely an acknowledgment of the amount due from the defendant and that it came within Article 1, Stamp Act, and that as suc...
Kalyan Vs. Mt. Desrani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All361
Lindsay, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits for pre-emption, the plaintiff in each case being Mt. Desrani, and the defendants being Kalyan and Paras Ram. In order to understand the situation of the parties at the time these suits were brought, it is necessary to set out the following facts.2. The second defendant to these suits, Paras Ram, had two cousins named respectively Parmanand and Pahalwan. When Parmanad and Pahalwan died they were succeeded by their respective widows and it is made to appear that these widows during their lifetime alienated the property of their husbands by sale in favour of certain third parties. When Parmanand and Pahalwan died, Paras Ram, the second defendant here, was the nearest reversioner. He was anxious to recover possession of the properties which had been alienated as above stated by the widows of Parmanand but he had not the funds necessary to institute the suits which had to be brought in order to enable him to recover possession.3. In these ...
Sudaman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All475
Ashworth, J.1. This case has been reported by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the proceedings of the Magistrate in convicting the accused were illegal by reason of non-compliance with Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, The Sessions Judge has further expressed the opinion that he was not justified in interfering with the Magistrate's finding of fact but that, if he had been so justified, there were reasons for holding that the conviction was improper. The illegality in procedure complained of is this.: The case was a warrant case. The law permits the Court after the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses or some of the prosecution witnesses to examine the accused. The examination of the accused at this stage is obviously from the context, an examination intended to enable the Court to decide whether it should frame a charge (Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code). There may be cases where the Magistrate sees an e...
idris Vs. East Indian Railway Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All348
1. In this case three bales of piece goods weighing five maunds each were stolen from a sealed wagon in the Howrah goods yard. The theft was discovered at 11 o'clock on the night of the 6th of April 1921. It presumably, therefore, took place between dark and that hour. The goods had been entrusted to the Railway by the plaintiff under the Risk Note Form B and in this particular case it was necessary for the plaintiff to show either wilful neglect by the Railway Co., or that there was theft, or connivance at theft by a Railway servant or servants. Nothing is known, other than those facts which we have stated, of the circumstances under which the bales disappeared, except that it must be a matter of common knowledge that the goods yard is large in its extent, being the goods yard of Howrah, also, of course there is evidence and it must be a matter of common knowledge, that the public is not ordinarily allowed free access thereto. The Court of first instance, for reasons which it gave, ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »