Allahabad Court November 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.
Collector of Cawnpore and ors. Vs. Jugal Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All355
Ashworth, J.1. This first appeal arises out of a suit brought by Babu Jugal Kishore, plaintiff, against Thakur Raghuraj Singh, defendant, on the basis of a hundi for Rs. 8,000. The defendant received this money and covenanted to pay the amount after 90 days. The defence was that the contract embodied in the hundi was beyond the competence of the defendant because at the time he was a ward: see Section 37(a), U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912. Another defence was that the suit against the ward personally was barred by Section 55 of the said Act, which provides that no ward shall be sued nor shall any proceedings be taken in the civil Court otherwise than in the name of the Collector in charge of his property or such other persons as the Court of Wards may appoint in this behalf.2. The suit was instituted on 5th March 1921, and apparently 24th April 1924 was fixed for framing the issues. At any rate on that date the defendant was examined as a ward, and the general attorney of the plaintiff ...
The Collector of Cawnpore in Charge of the Estate Known as Gyan Singh' ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.578
Ashworth, J.1. This first appeal arises out of a suit brought by Babu Jugal Kishore plaintiff against Thakur Raghuraj Singh defendant on the basis of a hundi for Rs. 8,000. The defendant received this money and covenanted to pay the amount after 90 days. The defence was that the contract embodied in the hundi was beyond the competence of the defendant because at the time he was a ward, see Section 37(a) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act of 1912. Another defence was that tha suit against the ward personally was barred by Section 55 of the said Act, which provides that no ward shall be sued nor shall any proceedings be taken in the Civil Court otherwise than in the name of the Collector in charge of his property or such other persons as the Court of Wards may appoint in this behalf.2. The suit was instituted on the 5th of March, 1924, and apparently the 24th of April, 1924, was fixed for framing the issues. At any rate on that date the defendant was examined as a ward, and the general attor...
James Peter Sherring Vs. Shahzadi Sherring Jackson and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All338; 108Ind.Cas.117
Walsh, J.1. This is a husband's petition for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery in which a decree nisi was granted by the District Judge in September 1926. It comes before this Court for confirmation of the decree for the second time. On the first occasion, in May 1927, this Court's attention was drawn to the fact that the petitioner admitted that he had contracted syphilis during his married life, and a Bench of this Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, remitted the case to the District Judge's Court for a decision, without fresh evidence, whether this fact did not constitute a discretionary bar. The matter remitted was disposed of by another District Judge in July of this year, who held that the discretion might be suitably exercised in the petitioner's favour because the husband's record, though not spotless, was not so bad as his wife's and it did not appear thatany useful purpose could be served by refusing to dissolve a bond that had ceased to perform any useful f...
Kashi Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All280
1. This is an appeal by seven persons, namely Kashi Ram, Chhotey Lal, Anant Ram, Banna Jat, Shib Sahai, Shib Dayal and Ram Charan who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Fatehgarh of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C., and have been sentenced each to transportation for life.2. The facts of the case are given in detail in the excellent and comprehensive judgment written by the learned Sessions Judge. The judgment requires hardly anything to be added to it. The facts as found by him, and so far as they do not relate directly to the guilt or otherwise of the appellants, are as follows: The correctness of the findings which we are presently going to mention has not been questioned by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. Indeed, the only points that have been discussed in the appeal have been the questions whether each and every one of the appellants have taken part in the commission of the offence. One of the pleas in the memorandum of...
Khazan Singh and ors. Vs. Bikram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.574
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 3lst of October, 1917, executed by Mohar Singh and Ajab Singh in favour of the plaintiffs Khazan Singh and others. It appears that on the 18th of September, 19l7, an application for execution of a money decree was filed by Karan Singh against Mohar Singh and Ajab Singh, his judgment-debtors, with a prayer that their property should be attached. An attachment was duly effected on the 28th of September, 1917, and the mortgage deed in suit covered the property so attached. It is not disputed in this case that on the date when the mortgage-deed was executed by the judgment-debtors the attachment in execution of the decree of Karan Singh was actually in force. Karan Singh subsequently executed his application and got the property sold and purchased it himself. The present suit is against the mortgagors as well as the heirs of Karan Singh. The Court below has held that the mortgage-deed ...
Baijnath and anr. Vs. Chhote Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All58
1. This case has been very ably argued by Dr. Kailash Nath Katju, but notwithstanding his able arguments we remained unconvinced.2. The suit of the plaintiff-appellants for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that the partnership, the dissolution of which was prayed for by the plaintiffs, had been dissolved more than three years prior to the institution of the suit giving rise to the present appeal, and as such the suit was time barred. The trial Court after pointing out thatno partnership business was done,after 25th January 1920, on which date the servants of the firm were dismissed, and the rent of the shops in which the partnership business was carried on was paid, and accounts were finally closed, and that on 20th March 1920every thing was finally disposed of, and the pressing machine had also been removed,and after pointing out the other facts that led to the conclusion that the partners had decided to disc...
B. Sarju Singh Vs. B. Harakh Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All143
1. This is a reference made by the District Judge of Azamgarh under Section 267 (Clause 2), Agra Tenancy Act, Act 3 of 1926. The facts are as follows:2. A suit was brought by the opposite-party, Babu Harakh Chand and others against Babu Sarju Singh for arrears of rent in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the first class when the old Tenancy Act; viz., 2 of 1901, was in force. The suit was valued at Rs. 109. The defendants did not appear to contest the suit, and the plaintiffs' suit was decreed ex parte. This was prior to the coming into force of the new Agra Tenancy Act. It is clear that on the date the ex parte decree was passed an appeal against the decision of the Assistant Collector could lie only in the Court of the District Judge. Sarju Singh did not appeal against that decree. He filed an application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree, and for the restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. That application was rejected by the learned Assistant Coll...
Parbhu Narayan Singh Vs. Jai Mangal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All144
Boys, J.1. In this case an appeal was filed in the Court of the Commissioner. When filed it was within time. It was returned for presentation to the proper Court, and was presented in the Court of the District Judge promptly. The appeal was there dismissed on the ground of limitation, and the plaintiff has come up here in second appeal. I am loath to engraft on to Section 5, Lim. Act, restrictions which do not appear in that section. That section only requires that the Court should be satisfied that the applicant 'had sufficient cause' for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. It is quite easy to refer to certain of the pleas and the issues in the judgment of the trial Court and to certain phrases in the judgment itself, and on those passages to say that it is quite clear that a question of proprietary rights arose.2. On the other hand, the suit was one primarily under Section 150, and with reference to Section 159 and group C of the Schedule I do not think that an...
Najaf Ali Khan Vs. Muhammad Fazal Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All255
Ashworth, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents against the defendant-appellants on the basis of a bond, dated 23rd January 1917.2. On one and the same day the defendant, Najaf Ali Khan, signed what purports to be a zarpeshgi lease in his favour executed by Narain Das, defendant second party, in respect of the zamindari rights in certain land. The lease I construe to be a lease of the property in consideration of the execution by the lessee of the bond now sued upon. The bond has not been printed, but both the lease and the bond show that the transaction effected by both the deeds was that the lessee was regarded as having discharged before occupation the total rent due for the whole period of occupation by means of his execution of the bond now sued upon. That bond has not been printed, but was consistent with this interpretation.3. The lower Court was asked to hold that the two documents, in effect, resulted merely in a lease, and not a zarpeshgi o...
Sukhai Ahir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All593; 114Ind.Cas.721
1. This case has been referred to two Judges of this Court by another member of the Court who was dealing with a reference by the Sessions Judge. The reference raises the broad question where there are strictly speaking, two cases for riot which are practically one controversy, how far a Magistrate, who tries both, whether as separate oases or simultaneously at one hearing may treat the evidence given in the first case in order of date, which has not been repeated in the second case and has not been formally transferred to the record, as evidence in the second case, as though it had been solemnly-repeated all over again by the witnesses or had been read over to them and acknowledged by them as part of the evidence in the second case. We think that all these cases, which are not of uncommon occurrence, and the difficulties which occasionally arise in the procedure, must be judged, each by its own particular circumstances.2. As has been said in one case, and as the learned Judge referrin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »