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.
Ganesh Gir and ors. Vs. Sheo Mangal Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All763; 101Ind.Cas.773
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought under Section 102, Tenancy Act (2 of 1901) for recovery of Rs. 162-10-9 principal and interest on account of arrears of rent for the years 1326 to 1329 faslis in respect of certain plots of land situate in mouza Bhatwar. The plaintiffs' case was that they as pattedars (lessees) of the village in question made collections and that the defendants as tenants were liable to pay the rent claimed.2. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiffs were neither the lessees nor they ever collected the rent, and that their names not being entered in the khewat they were not competent to sue It was further pleaded in the written statement that Janki Misir, the lessor of the plaintiffs, was the holder of a four-annas share in the zemindari in which the holding in question was situate and thathe was also a co-sharer, vendee and mortgagee of the cultivatory holding in question.3. On the pleadings of the parties the follo...
Hari Lal Vs. Parmeshari Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All386
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of Mr. Plowden, District Judge of Bareilly, refusing to review a judgment of his predecessor. The facts of the case are follows:The present applicant owed money to the opposite party who brought a suit and obtained a decree. Some property of the applicant was attached and put up, for sale and, knocked down to the opposite party, i.e., the decree-holder. Before the sale was confirmed the judgment-debtor got some money from a third party by agreeing to sell that property to that third party. He then applied to the Court to set aside the sale on deposit of the whole amount plus 5 per cent under Order 21, Rule 89. That application was rejected by the Munsif on the ground that the Allahabad High Court decisions were against allowing a judgment-debtor to make a deposit under Order 21, Rule 89. An appeal was filed before the then District Judge Mr. Neave who dismissed the appeal on the same ground on the 14th August, 1925. An ...
Mt. Nazir-un-nisa Vs. Mt. Asifa Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All341
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage, dated the 7th of October, 1911. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent held a prior usufructuary mortgage over the property which was mortgaged under the mortgage-deed in suit. One of the pleas taken in defence was that as the plaintiff held a prior usufructuary mortgage with respect to the property mortgaged under the deed of simple mortgage now put into suit 'the suit for the sale of the equity of redemption was not maintainable'.2. This plea found favour with the trial Court and it accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the lower appellate Court has overruled the defendants plea noted above and has passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. 3. The sole ground taken in appeal before me is that the lower appellate Court was wrong in granting a decree to the plaintiff-respondent for sale of the mortgaged property subject to the usufructuary mortgage of the p...
Abdul Karim Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All384
ORDERBanerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of Pandit Raghunandan Upadhiya, Deputy Magistrate, First Class, ordering the applicant to vacate a certain plot of land. The notice was sent to the applicant on the 4th August for the 12th August. On that day the applicant stated that he was a perjotdar of Girdhari Lal for the plot in suit. The lower Court without going into evidence but relying on fine report of the Tahsildar made his order absolute. No notice was sent to Girdhari Lal. I am of opinion that the lower Court should have gone further into the matter and not passed an order in such a summary fashion. I have been referred to Hingu v. Emperor [1909] 31 All. 453, Ismail v. Bunda A.I.R. 1922 All. 265. and also Jassi v. Emperor A.I.R. 1922 All. 335. On the analogy of the rulings I would recommend that the absolute order of the lower Court be set aside and that he should be directed to proceed in accordance with Section 137, Criminal P.C. The lower Court is a...
King-emperor Vs. Phakkar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All472
Sulaiman, J.1. Phakkar had been ordered to execute a bond with two sureties for maintaining good behaviour under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This order was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, but the accused failed to comply with the said order The Magistrate accordingly directed that he should be kept in prison to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years including three months solitary confinement unless and until he executed the bond and furnished the sureties asked for.2. The order directing the accused to undergo solitary confinement is obviously without jurisdiction. The power to impose solitary confinement is conferred by Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code, but that section applies only where a person has been convicted of an offence under the Indian Penal Code and is not applicable to convictions tinder other laws, unless expressly made so. The order passed against the accused was under the Code of Criminal Procedure which does not permit a solitary confinement...
Siwan Rai and anr. Vs. Lachmi Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All733
Sulaiman, J.1. The only point raised in this case is that a certain award relied upon by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs was illegal and ineffectual inasmuch as no application for riling it had been made. The appeal in my opinion has no force whatsoever. It is not necessary for the validity of an award that it must be filed in Court. Under the old Code it was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Muhammad Newaz Khan v. Alam Khan [1891] 18 Cal. 414 that mere refusal to file an award did not vitiate it, but merely left it to have its ordinary legal effect. The same principle was followed in the case of Kunji Lal v. Durga Prashad [1910] 32 All. 484. Even under the new Code it has been held by this Court that a party wishing to avail himself of an award in an arbitration effected without the intervention of a Court is not bound to apply to a Court to file the award Harakh Ram Jani v. Lakshmi Ram Jani A.I.R. 1921 All 384. Rule 20, Sch. 2 merely uses the wo...
Sham Saran Das and ors. Vs. Harbans and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All777
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit filed in the revenue Court under Section 102, Agra Tenancy Act, for recovery of Rs. 294-4-0 with interest thereon from defendants 1 to 8. The plaintiffs' case was that the said defendants purchased from the plaintiffs and their co-owners the produce of grove No. 259 for three years, viz., 1331 to 1333 faslis, for a sura of Rs. 1,100 and that the plaintiffs' share was to the extent of six-annas in the grove. The claim was with respect to 1331 and 1332 faslis.2. The defence to the suit was that there was no contract between the plaintiffs and the contesting defendants for payment of rent or for payment of the price of the produce of the grove, and that the contesting defendants had purchased the produce of the grove from one Chaudhari Gumani Singh, who was the sarbarakar of one Mt. Ram Dei and had paid the price of the produce to him, and as such the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought by them.3. The tr...
Musammat Nazirun-nisa Vs. Musammat Asifa Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.577
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage, dated the 7th of October, 1911. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent held a prior usufructuary mortgage over the property which was mortgaged under the mortgage-deed in suit. One of the pleas is taken in defence was that as the plaintiff held a prior usufructuary mortgage with respect to the property mortgaged under the deed of simple mortgage now put into suit ''the suit for the sale of the equity of redemption was not maintainable.'2. This plea found favour with the trial Court and it accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. On appeal by the plaintiff the lower Appellate Court has overruled the defendant's plea noted above and has passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour.4. The sole ground taken in appeal before me is that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in granting a decree to the plaintiff-respondent for sale of the mortgaged property subject to the usufructuary mortgage of...
Emperor Vs. Phakkar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1927
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.342
Sulaiman, J.1. Phakkar had been ordered to execute a bond with two sureties for maintaining good behaviour under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This order was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, but the accused failed to comply with the said order. The Magistrate accordingly directed that he should be kept in prison to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years including three months' solitary confinement unless and until he executed the bond and furnished the sureties asked for.2. The order directing the accused to undergo solitary confinement is obviously without jurisdiction. The power to impose solitary confinement is conferred by Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code, but that section applies only where a person has been convicted of an offence under the Indian Penal Code and is not applicable to convictions under other laws, unless expressly made so. The order passed against the accused was under the Code of Criminal Procedure which does not permit a solitary confinemen...
Ganga Prasad and anr. Vs. Madhuri Saran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All352
1. This is an application against the conviction and sentence under the Insolvency Act by the District Judge of Budaun for offences committed under Section 69 of that Act. It is really a criminal case, pure and simple, relating to special offences created by special legislation, and it has been quite rightly expedited on that ground by an order of a Judge of this Court. The charges were of three kinds, but also included general conduct, indicating a fraudulent attempt by a father, now deceased, and his two sons, who carried on business together, to defeat and delay their creditors. The District Judge was obviously very angry with them, and discussed their conduct as having been scandalous. We agree with that description.2. But some of these offences under the Insolvency Act are in their nature special, and directed against offences specially committed with a view to defeat the objects of the Act, and require to be dealt with some care.3. The first charge is that these insolvents, in De...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›