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.
Baddu Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All182; 108Ind.Cas.124
Boys, J.1. The applicant in revision, Baddu Khan, was an accused in a criminal case, and applied to this Court for transfer. In support of that application he filed an affidavit affirmed by himself in which the statement occurred:That one Shib Lal... who is a relation of the complainant (Nand Kishore) owns a shop in Kashipur where the complainant and the trying Magistrate both often come: and sit together.2. The trying Magistrate, Mr. Sadanand in his explanation, replied as follows:(1) It is a fact Lala Shib Lal is some relation of the complainant.(2) It is altogether false that I ever saw the complainant at the ship of Lala Shib and that I had any talk with the complainant.3. Mr. Justice Dalal, in view of this denial, ordered the prosecution of Baddu Khan under Section 199, I.P.C., for having made a, false statement in the affidavit to the effect that the complainant, Nand Kishore, and the Magistrate, Mr. Sadanand often came and sat together at the shop of Shib Lal who is admittedly a...
Rama Nand and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All199
1. This is the plaintiff's appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur, who decided that certain land in the possession of the plaintiffs, situate on the east side of a stream, by name, Jargo, was assessable to revenue. The plaint set out that the stream Jargo flowed between the villages Bagheri and Manikpur, and that each village was permanently settled. Paragraph 5, which was not admitted, ran as follows:That according to custom or usage prevailing in the locality, land cut away by fluvial action from one village and added or accreted to another becomes the property of the proprietors of the village to which such land has been so added and becomes part and parcel of such village.2. Paragraph 6 alleged thataccording to the said custom or usage the proprietors of villages liable to be affected by fluvial action have to bear any detriment or loss or enjoy benefit or gain that may be caused by such fluvial action.3. It was then said that more than 25 years ago the river J...
Emperor Vs. Jhabbar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All222
Mears, C.J.1. This is a Government appeal from the decision of Mr. Joti Sarup, the Additional Sessions Judge of Saharanpur, who, on the 3rd May 1927, acquitted Jhabbar Mal Sharma, Babu Ram Misra and Banarsi Dutt Sharma of offences under Section 500, I.P.C. Jhabbar Mal Sharma was at a material date, 12th February 1926, the editor of a paper called the Hindu Sansar. Babu Ram Misra, on another material date, 24th May 1926, was the editor, and Banarsi Dutt Sharma was throughout the publisher. The learned Magistrate, Mr. Shafi, convicted all the three accused, sentencing the two first named to 12 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 with the addition of a period of three months' simple imprisonment if the fine should not be paid and the third accused, Banarsi Dutt Sharma, to three months' simple imprisonment on each count, ordering, however, that those terms of imprisonment should run concurrently. The Local Government, taking the view that the decision of Mr. Joti Sarup was op...
Ramanand and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.566
1. This is the plaintiffs' appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur, who decided that certain land in the possession of the plaintiffs, situate on the east side of a stream, by name Jargo, was assessable to revenue. The plaint set out that the stream Jargo flowed between the villages Bagheri and Manikpur, and that each village was permanently settled. Paragraph 5, which was not admitted, ran as follows:--'That according to custom or usage prevailing in the locality, land cut away by fluvial action from one village and added or accreted to another becomes the property of the proprietors of the village to which such land has been so added and becomes part and parcel of such village.' Paragraph 6 alleged that 'according to the said custom or usage the proprietors of villages liable to be affected by fluvial action have to bear any detriment or loss or enjoy any benefit or gain that may be caused by such fluvial action.'2. It was then said that more than 25 years ago the...
Phool Chand and anr. Vs. Ram Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All186
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of a property situated in the district of Bundelkhand, which was sold on the 22nd December 1923. The vendor was a member of an agricultural tribe and so were the vendees, but the vendees were not cosharers in the village at all. The pre-emptors, on the other hand, are not members of the same agricultural tribe as the vendor, but are co-sharers not only in the mahal but in the very khata in which the share sold is situated. Before bringing their suit for pre-emption the plaintiffs did obtain the sanction of the Collector under the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act, Section 16 (A), as amended by Act 4 of 1915. The plaintiffs based their claim mainly on the custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of the village. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit and that they had no preferential right as against them. The trial Court came to the conclusion that...
Mohammad Ali Vs. Maktub-un-nissa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All298
Dalal, J.1. I am afraid that this Court must interfere in revision, though it appears on the face of the record, as pointed out by the plaintiff-respondent's learned Counsel, that substantial justice has been done. The plaintiffs were heirs of one of two comortgagors and paid up the entire amount of the decree for sale, obtained on the mortgage. Subsequently they brought the present suit for contribution against the defendant to the extent of his share in the property. The defendant has been held by the two Subordinate Courts to have been one of the mortgagors. Ground of revision No. 2, therefore, has no force. The difficulty arises, however, that the suit was tried regularly and not by a Court of Small Causes. The trial Court referred to Article 42, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, which takes away from the jurisdiction of that Court a suit by one of several joint mortgagors of immovable property for contribution in respect of money paid by him for the redemption of the...
Kirtarath Rai and ors. Vs. Sripat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All307
Ashworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell certain property by the plaintiffs-respondents Sripat Rai and others, the owners of the property.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs on the allegation that Ramsurat Rai had executed an agreement to sell the property in suit on 18th January 1923. The alleged agreement was that the property would be sold within ten days for a consideration of Rs. 5,099 set off against previous debts which the vendee would pay at all events and for Rs. 99-15-9 earnest-money. There is some contradiction in the terms of this agreement, because in one part it is stated that the whole consideration was Rs. 5,099 whereas reading the deed as a whole, it would appear to be Rs. 5,099 plus Rs. 99-15-9 earnest-money. This discrepancy, however, does not appear to me to be of any importance. The plaintiff went on to state that on 28th August 1923, Ramsurat Rai had sold this property and other property to the defendant...
Syed Mohammad Ali Vs. Maktub-un-nissa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1927
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.47
Dalal, J.1. I am afraid that this Court must interfere in revision, though it appears on the face of the record, as pointed out by the plaintiffs-respondents' learned Counsel that substantial justice has been done. The plaintiffs were heirs of one of two co-mortgagors and paid up the entire amount of the decree for sale obtained on the mortgage. Subsequently they brought the present suit for contribution against the defendant to the extent of his share in the property. The defendant has been held by the two subordinate Courts to have been one of the mortgagors. Ground of Revision No. 2, therefore, has no force. The difficulty arises, however, that the suit was tried regularly and not by a Court of Small Causes. The trial Court referred to Article 42, Schedule II, of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which takes away from the jurisdiction of that Court a suit by one of several joint mortgagors of immoveable property for contribution in respect of money paid by him for the redemption...
Majidan Vs. Sabir Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All62
Walsh, J.1. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed. There is no question about the parties in this suit being the same as in the previous suit. There is also no question about the relief claimed in this suit being identical with the relief claimed in the former suit. That is clearly shown by the reliefs shown in parallel columns in the judgment of the Munsif. In a suit of this nature it was necessary for the plaintiffs, first, more as a matter of form than anything else, to prove that the defendant was in possession; further that she was a widow claiming to be in possession by virtue of the dower debt of her deceased husband, and that the plaintiffs were residuary heirs of the deceased husband. It is clear that at the trial of the first suit only one point was decided, namely, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the widow was in possession, and on that ground the suit was dismissed. It may often happen that where as, in these cases, there are three or ...
Nasratyar Khan Vs. Brij Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All119
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff zamindar sued for the ejectment of the defendant in the revenue Court on the ground that the land in suit had lost the character of a grove. Both subordinate Courts have held that this was not so, that some trees still stood on the land and that the defendant was entitled to plant new trees in place of those which he had cut down and should have been given an opportunity of doing so. The defendant had not cultivated the land, expressed his intention of planting new trees and alleged that he was prevented by the plaintiff from doing so. It is argued here that under the wajib-ul-arz the defendant has no right to plant new trees in place of old ones which he had cut. Such, however, is not the meaning of the clause in the wajid-ul-arz. It was read over to me. There all the existing groves, including the one in suit, were described by numbers, and then it was stated that in future no one else shall be entitled to plant a grove without the consent of the zamindar. S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »