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.
Firm Sheo Prasad Ram Prasad Vs. Govind Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All292
1. This is a second appeal which raises a very nice point of evidence, or rather the admissibility of evidence, a point which is constantly arising in various forms, and about which there is really a good deal of authority both in the English reports and in the Indian reports.2. The appeal is brought by the defendant, whose defence has in substance bean struck out, on the ground that he has not been allowed to prove his real case, because it has been held against him that his real case consists of evidence which is rendered inadmissible by Section 92 of the Evidence Act. Inasmuch as the learned District Judge, who is now a member of this High Court, followed a reported decision, which seemed to be in point, by two Judges of this High Court which was undoubtedly binding upon him; he naturally decided in the way that he did. We are not making any complaint, and the existing practice is perhaps intelligible, but as a matter of fact it is extremely embarrassing to have to decide the admiss...
Rameshar Lal Vs. Rajdhari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All469
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. impugning an order dated the 30th of October 1926 passed by the District Judge of Ghazipur, The order in question is one purporting to be passed under Section 24 of the Civil P. C. transferring a pending proceeding on an application to the Munsif of Saidpur made under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Munsif should make a complaint against a party to a suit on a charge of forgery. The order directs that the proceeding should be transferred to the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur.2. The applicant contends that Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only contemplates a proceeding under Section 476 being conducted by the Court wherein the forgery was committed or a Court to which appeals from that Court ordinarily lie. It is admitted by the counsel for the opposite party that appeals do not ordinarily lie to the Subordinate Judge from the Munsif, but he urges that under Section ...
Baijnath Pande and anr. Vs. Babban Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All522; 103Ind.Cas.232
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. by the plaintiff in a suit brought in the Court of the Additional Munsif of Deoria.2. The plaintiff sued Baijnath Pande the defendant, opposite party, for possession of certain land by the removal of an erection said to have been unlawfully made thereon by the defendant. His suit was dismissed for failure to prove that the land belonged to him, the Munsif holding that the evidence and maps were inconclusive. On appeal, in the course of argument, the plaintiff-appellant made an oral application to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The order sheet shows the fact of permission being asked, but not the grounds on which it was asked beyond that it was 'by reason of legal defects.' The appellate Court's order fails to set forth the grounds on which permission was given. It is impossible, therefore, for this Court to judge whether the lower Court exercised a judicial discretion in giving the...
Pandey Rajdhari Lal Vs. Rat Sahib Babu Rameshar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.247
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 11.5 of the Civil Procedure Code impugning an order dated the 30th of October 1926 passed by the District Judge of Ghazipur. The order in question is one purporting to be passed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code transferring a pending proceeding on an application to the Munsif of Saidpur made under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Munsif should make a complaint against a party to a suit on a charge of forgery. The order directs that the proceeding should be transferred to the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur.2. The applicant contends that Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only contemplates a proceeding under Section 476 being conducted by the Court wherein the forgery was committed or a Court to which appeals from that Court ordinarily lie. It is admitted by the Counsel for the opposite party that appeals, do not ordinarily lie to the Subordinate Judge from the Munsif but he urges ...
Muhammad Said Khan and ors. Vs. Indarpati Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All315
1. The suit in the lower Court was one for sale on foot of a hypothecation bond, dated the 20th January 1913. The suit was instituted on 20th December 1919, i.e., after the period of limitation for a money-decree. It is important to state this because Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 who have appealed are apprehensive of a money decree being passed against them though they have no interest in the property in suit. They were rightly sued, because their names appear in the village record. As admitted in the lower Court they have no interest in the property, and as no money-decree can be passed on foot of the bond in suit, there is no substance in the sixth ground of appeal. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad on behalf of Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 desired to argue that their interest in the property was independent of the interest of the two executants of the bond, Muhammad Said and Zulfiqar Hasnain. That point, however, does not arise in any of the grounds of appeal, so we did not permit him to proceed with that arg...
Maha Mangal Rai and ors. Vs. Kishun Kandu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All311
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The plaintiffs' case was that the mortgage sought to be redeemed was effected by means of an unregistered deed of mortgage executed 19 years prior to the institution of the suit, that is, in or about the year 1904, by Charan and Nath, the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs, in favour of Maha Mangal, Rai, Defendant No. 1, for a sum of Rs. 200 and that the property mortgaged was an occupancy holding. It was further alleged in the plaint that though the relation between the parties to the suit was that of mortgagor and mortgagee, the plaintiffs had on a former occasion, because of a wrong advice given to them, brought a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the holding in dispute in the revenue Court, but that suit was dismissed on the finding that the defendants were in possession as mortgagees. The plaintiffs alleged that as the defendants refused to take mortgage-money and to ...
Tirkha Ram Vs. Chhotey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All520
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The decision in this appeal must turn on the question as to whether the chaukidara dues claimed by the plaintiff-appellant was house rent due from the defendant-respondent or a cess of the nature contemplated by Section 86 of the Land Revenue Act (3 of 1901). Both the Courts below have differed on the point. The trial Court held that the amount claimed was not a cess and it accordingly passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. The lower appellate Court has held that the amount claimed was a cess and has dismissed the plaintiff's claim.2. The plaintiff's case was that he was entitled to chaukidara dues claimed by him on the basis of a custom obtaining in the village. The documentary evidence relating to the chaukidara dues consisted of the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 prepared by Munshi Mohar Singh and of the wajib-ul-arz of 1870 prepared by Munshi Nisar Ali. Paragraph 9 of the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 runs thus:Two persons, Shadi, son of Kallu and Tula son of Yad Ram, are appoin...
Abdul Haq Vs. Sheo Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All334
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, made by one Abdul Haq against an order of Mr. L.S. White, District Judge of Cawnpore, on the 6th March 1926, allowing an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore who refused to make a complaint under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for the prosecution of the present applicant Abdul Haq on the ground of perjury. The facts are as follows: Three brothers claimed certain property. They had not sufficient means to bring and prosecute a suit for the same. Accordingly they made an arrangement with Abdul Haq that he would finance them. The arrangement was recorded in a sale-deed of a share of the interest of the three brothers in the property claimed. There was a stipulation in this deed that Abdul Haq, in the event of the suit being successful, would not be entitled to any share of any costs that might be awarded by the Civil Court. A decree was passed on the 22nd J...
irshad HusaIn Vs. Makut Manohar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All377
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit Brought by them for a declaration that a certain house situate in the City of Budaun was an Imambara and that the muafi land specified at the foot of the plaint was waqf property, and that neither the house nor the muafi was saleable in execution of a decree for sale obtained by Defendant No. 1 against Defendant No. 2 on the 8th of February 1923. The plaintiffs describe themselves as members of the Muhammedan public in the city of Budaun and alleged that the house and the muafi in dispute being waqf property, Defendant No. 2 had no right to mortgage the same, and as such the property in dispute was not saleable in execution of the decree obtained by Defendant No. 1. The defence to the suit was that the property in dispute was not waqf property but was the personal property of Intizam Ali.2. The defence found favour with the trial Court, and it accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, and the learned District Jud...
L. Madan Lal Vs. Lal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All463
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Kasganj dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit against the defendant-respondent on the basis of a promissory note.2. The plaintiff was admittedly the holder of the promissory note and Section 78 read with. Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 26 of 1881 enacts that such a note can only be discharged by payment made to the holder of the instrument. There can be no doubt that the lower Court should not have allowed evidence to show that the promissory note was not really executed in the plaintiff's favour or evidence that the note had been discharged by payment to the person really interested. This was held in the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court Subba Narayana Vathiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar [1907] 30 Mad. 88. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the decision of the suit by the lower Court was not according to ...