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.
Sitara Shahjahan Begam and anr. Vs. Munna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All342
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of two houses by ejectment of the defendants and for Rs. 17 on account of arrears of rent. The plaintiffs' case was that the houses in dispute belonged to them, that the defendants were in possession of the same as the plaintiffs' tenants and that the tenancy was determined by means of a notice sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants which notice the defendants refused to accept. The defence to the suit was that the houses in dispute belonged to the defendants, that they were not the plaintiffs tenants and that they were in adverse possession of the house in dispute and the site for more than 12 years.2. The trial Court held that though the site of the houses in dispute belonged to the plaintiffs, the houses were built by the predecessors-in-title of the defendants, and that from the circumstances of the case, it was reasonable to presume that the tenure is permanent and that the plaintiffs are not e...
Debi Sahai Vs. Daulat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All346
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a Reference by the learned Munsif of Meerut under Section 267 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act III of 1926) and arises out of a suit filed in the Civil Court for possession of, and damages with respect to an agricultural holding.2. It appears that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and a suit for his ejectment was brought in the Revenue Court (under Section 58 of Act II of 1901) by the plaintiff and was decreed. The plaintiff's case was that notwithstanding his ejectment by the Revenue Court, the defendant forcibly took possession of the land in dispute and as such was liable to ejectment and to pay the damages claimed. The defence to the suit was that the defendant, after his ejectment from the Revenue Court, was again readmitted as a tenant of the holding in dispute by the plaintiff and was not in possession as a trespasser, and as such the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court.3. The suit was admittedly filed after the new Tenancy Act came i...
Mrs. F.M. Torpey Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All375; 101Ind.Cas.671
Dalal, J.1. Mrs. Torpey, manager of a local hotel, has applied in revision from a conviction under Section 341, I.P.C. Apart from anything else interference would be necessary, because the order of the lower Court is contrary to law. She was convicted of two offences under Sections 379 and 341 and a sentence of fine was imposed. The appellate Court set aside the conviction under Section 379, but still upheld the same order of fine. This amounted to an enhancement of the sentence imposed by the trial Court and was contrary to the provisions of Section 423(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The point taken by Mr. Saila Nath is that the offence under Section 341 was compounded. It appears that the complainant, Mr. Barkar, was considered by the applicant to be an unprofitable visitor at her hotel, and she desired that; he should depart. As an amicable settlement was not arrived at, on the afternoon of the 28th she put a lock on his room and directed her servants to prevent his ent...
Janki Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All383
Dalal, J.1. This is an application in revision from the judgment of a learned Sessions Judge upholding the applicant's conviction under Section 199, I.P.C. The facts are admitted, as they must be, here by the applicant's learned Counsel, Dr. Agarwala. He raised a point of law that on those facts no offence was committed under Section 199.2. In a suit for sale against a Hindu father and his sons the father filed a written statement to the effect that the money was borrowed for the benefit of the plaintiff's father, who was a brother of the applicant. The written Statement was verified as required by the provisions of Order 6, Rule 15, but the Court had not ordered proof of the statements made therein by affidavit as it had power to do under Order 19, Rule 1. Under the circumstances, the question before this Court is whether the written statement falls within the terms of Section 199 which makes punishable any declaration which any Court of justice is bound or authorized by law to receiv...
Secy. of State Vs. Anant Ram Chopra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All400
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal, and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that a rule, recently introduced by the authorities of the East Indian Railway, providing that a consignment of locks of less than one maund in weight can only be booked at Railway risk, if it is packed in a inch thick wooden box, with two wooden battons on each of the four sides and further if the box is also secured with wire bands of which the center one is sealed by the despatcher is illegal, ultra vires and unenforceable, and that the defendant Railway has no right to refuse to book at Railway risk consignments of, looks packed securely in an iron box or otherwise. The plaintiff also prayed for an injunction restraining the Railway Company from enforcing the rule noted above.2. The plaintiff's case was that he and other Aligarh lock merchants used to despatch consignments of locks of less than a maund in weight packed in iron boxes, and that the mode of pa...
Jagannath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All754a
Dalal, J.1. The applicant Jagannath was discharged of an offence under Section 60, Excise Act, of being in possession of cocaine by the trial Court of a Magistrate. The District Magistrate took the case up in revision and disagreeing with the estimate of the evidence made by the first Court has directed further enquiry to be made in the applicant's case. Such a reason for a fresh enquiry under Section 435 is not sufficient. This has been held in a large number of rulings of this Court since 1910. In 1910 in the case of Chandan v. Kallu [1911] 8 A. L. J. 45, a learned Judge of this Court laid down that where the nature of the case is such that Courts are liable to take different views of the evidence and of the probabilities, the case is not one which calls for any further enquiry. That opinion was based on the Full Bench ruling of Queen Empress v. Chotu [1886] 9 All. 52. There are recent single Judge rulings to the same effect of 1920 and 1922, Bindesri Dube v. Emperor [1920] 18 A. L. ...
Sher Singh Vs. Mt. Amir Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All291; 101Ind.Cas.670
Ashworth, J.1. This case arises out of a reference by the Sessions Judge of Agra under Section 435, Criminal P.C., asking this Court to interfere in exercise of its power under Section 439, Criminal P.C., with an order of a Magistrate of the First Class of Agra, dated the 6th of September 1926, requiring one Sher Singh (applicant before the Judge) to pay Rs. 75 per mensem as maintenance to Mt. Amir Kunwari (opposite-party before the Judge).2. The facts are as follows: The parties are husband and wife. Up to March 1925 they lived at Bhatgaon, Rohtak, Punjab. In that month they came to Jarauli in the Agra district on a visit to the father of Sher Singh's daughter-in-law. They stayed here for a period of two months, during which period Sher Singh occasionally visited his home in Bhatgaon. At the end of these two months Sher Singh deserted his wife and returned to the Punjab.3. The Magistrate, on an application by the wife under Section 488, Criminal P.C., has ordered Sher Singh to pay her...
Onkar Mal Vs. Ashiq Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All318
1. The plaintiff sued to have a certain compromise, which he entered into during partition proceedings in the revenue Court on 22nd July 1921, cancelled. His other reliefs were not granted, so it is not necessary in this Court to consider them. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but it was decreed by the lower appellate Court. The defendant Onkar Mal has come here in second appeal.2. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim in the plaint was that he was induced to enter into the compromise by undue influence, because at the time of the compromise a criminal charge brought by a servant of Onkar Mal was pending against the plaintiff's servants and Onkar Mal offered the inducement of withdrawing that complaint. It is a fact that a criminal prosecution on some petty theft was pending in the criminal Court and the case was withdrawn on the day that the compromise was entered into. The fact that the case was withdrawn indicates that the charge of theft must be of a trifling nature. The only ...
Tirkha and anr. Vs. Nanak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All350
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the order of a Magistrate of the First Class, dated the 1st of November 1926, by which he made absolute a conditional order under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the removal of a portion of a certain chabutra be set aside, and the case be sent back for trial according to law.2. The case was started on the complaint of the opposite party. The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioners had built the chabutra complained of and that the chabutra obstructed a certain pathway and caused inconvenience to people using the pathway and might lead to the falling of the neighbouring house during the monsoons.3. The complaint was filed on the 8th of May 1926, and it was not until the 23rd of September 1926, that an enquiry into the case commenced. On that date the petitioners appeared and denied that they had blocked th...
Mt. Basanti Vs. Sirdar Mal-hardit Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All802
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal and arises under the following circumstances:2. The decree now under execution was obtained by the decree-holder firm on the 11th January 1915. An application for execution, before the application giving rise to the present appeal, was filed on the 27th February 1918, and it is admitted on all hands that application was issued to the judgment-debtor but was not served on her, and on the 14th March 1918, the execution Court directed the decree-holder to take appropriate steps for the service of notice on the judgment-debtor till the 19th March 1918. This was not done by the decree-holder within the time allowed. The case was put up before the Court on the 19th March 1918. On that date the judgment-debtor, though not served with a notice of the application for execution, appeared and filed an application to the effect that she had paid the entire decretal amount. On that date the execution Court ordered the execution c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »