Allahabad Court March 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.
Municipal Board of Benares Vs. Mahadeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All618
ORDERBanerji, J.1. Certain cattle were found tied on a Municipal lane and the owner of the same was prosecuted. There is no plea on behalf of the owner that the lane belongs to him. The onus is on him to prove that the area is not part of the Municipal lane but his private property. In the absence of any such plea being noted in the printed form of summary trial I fail to see how the learned Bench Magistrate threw out the case and called upon the Municipal Board to have its claims adjudicated in the civil Court. The other party alleged before me that it was never given any opportunity to prove that the area in question on which the cattle were tethered belonged to its ownership. Evidently a fresh trial is called for.2. I therefore move the Honourable High Court to quash the decision which has been arrived at without evidence brought on the record and to order a fresh trial. The lower Court can furnish any explanation it likes to be forwarded to the Honourable High Court.Banerji, J.3. I...
Harkesh Singh Vs. Mt. Hardevi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All454
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of property. The plaintiff's case was that he and his uncle, Shib Sahai, were members of a joint Hindu family even after the death of the plaintiff's grandfather, Kunwar Singh, and that the entire property in dispute in the case was either ancestral property which devolved upon them from Kunwar Singh or was such as had been acquired in the name of Shib Sahai out of the income of suit property. The plaintiff alleged that up to 1919, when Shib Sahai died, the family was joint and he is entitled to the estate by the right of survivorship. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed that even if he was not entitled to any share by right of survivorship, he had a half share in the entire estate which was joint and undivided. The plaintiff's name is recorded over half shares in some properties over which he is admittedly in possession. That property is accordingly not included in his claim. The plaintif...
Tota Ram Vs. Makhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All578
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The parties to this appeal are brothers. The plaintiff-respondent claimed joint possession of two plots of land on the allegation that the parties were the joint tenants of these plots, and that the defendant had, contrary to his rights, taken exclusive possession of the same. The defence to the suit was that there had been a partition between the parties and that the plots in dispute had been allotted solely to the defendant by that partition. Both the Courts below have found that the partition set up by the defendant has not been proved. This finding of the lower appellate Court is a finding of fact based on evidence and must be accepted in second appeal.2. But an ingenious argument based on an observation, to be presently noted, contained in the judgment of the lower appellate Court is advanced by Mr. Panna Lal on behalf of the appellant. The lower appellate Court has observed thatit is possible that for the proper enjoyment of the joint holding the parties might b...
Matbar Singh and ors. Vs. Abhai Nandan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All543
Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal under the following circumstances:Nine persons instituted a suit to preempt a sale in favour of the respondent in this appeal, Rai Bahadur Abhai Nandan Prasad. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit and thereupon the-nine plaintiffs filed an appeal to this Court. One of the appellants was Girdhari Singh. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the Court below and remanded the suit. The case was then finally decided by the Subordinate Judge. An application for execution having been filed by eight of the original plaintiffs and two persons who alleged themselves to be the heirs of Girdhari Singh, objections were raised by Abhai Nandan Prasad on the ground that the decree was a nullity inasmuch as Girdhari Singh had died during the pendency of the first appeal in this Court and his heirs not having been brought on the record, no steps could be taken by the persons who had applied for the execution of the decree for preemption. The ...
Loknath Misir and ors. Vs. Sheo Saran Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All816
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises under the following circumstances: An appeal was presented in the lower appellate Court by one Babu Sarat Chandra Roy, vakil, On behalf of the defendants-appellants. The memorandum of appeal was accompanied by a vakalatnama which bore the signature of the above mentioned vakil in token of the fact that he had consented to act as a vakil on behalf of the appellants; but the name of the vakil did not appear in the body of the vakalatnama. When the appeal was put up for hearing before the lower appellate Court, on the 30th July 1924, an objection was raised on behalf, of the respondent that the appeal was not presented by a person duly authorized to present the same on behalf of the appellants and as such ought to be rejected. This contention was given effect to by the lower appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed.2. In view of a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported as Mohammad Ali Khan v. Jasram [1914] 36 All. 46, I m...
King-emperor Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All478; 101Ind.Cas.668
Ashworth, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Etawah submitted through the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri.2. A Magistrate issued a notice to the driver of a motor vehicle to produce his license and fined him Rs. 15 for not doing so. The District Magistrate is of the opinion that the notice was illegal as it was not delivered by the Magistrate to the driver on the road, but was an order requiring the driver to attend the Magistrate's house or Court with his license. The Magistrate pleads that the order was permissible under Rule 21 of the Motor Rules. This rule has nothing to do with the matter and the following Rule 22 must be intended. The rule runs:The issue of a license to drive motor vehicles in the United Provinces shall not be necessary in the case of a person duly licensed to drive in any other province: provided that such person shall produce his license when so required by any Magistrate or police officer in the United Provinces.3. It appears that the Superinten...
Baij Nath Vs. Kali Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All531
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. For the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge I accept the reference, set aside the order passed by the Bench of Magistrates at Orai under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, and direct that the amount of compensation, if already paid, be refunded to Baij Nath....
Ram Prasad Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All571
Ashworth, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Benares calling attention to the illegality of an order of the District Magistrate of Benares, dated the 20th of October 1926, wherein he purports to order the withdrawal of a complaint made by a special Magistrate against certain persons of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code (false charge) committed in his Court. For the reasons stated by the Sessions Judge the District Magistrate could not order the withdrawal of a complaint made by a Court under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of an offence falling under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code as such a complaint is not referred to in Section 195(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code which gives the Magistrate the power of withdrawal. But I find from the record that there has been no complaint made by the special Magistrate. What is treated as a complaint by the. District Magistrate is an order dated the 30th September 1926, for the institu...
Ram Charan Lal and anr. Vs. Basdeo Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All731
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The two appeals Nos. 1379 and 1380 of 1924, arise out of two suits for possession of certain plots of land.2. The facts giving rise to the two suits are shortly these:One Debi Sahai was the owner of a 2 biswas share in mahal Gulabi, of village Jalib Nagla. On the 15th June 1915, he mortgaged that share to his sister, Mt. Hanga Dei, for Rs. 1,000. He again by a subsequent mortgage dated 16th August 1915, mortgaged the same share to Shadi Lal husband of Mt. Ganga Dei for Rs. 2,000. By that time, Debi Sahai had become finally embarrassed and it is alleged that he then commenced to make fictitious transfers of his property with a view to defraud his creditors and possible subsequent bona fide transferees for value of his property. On the 17th August 1915, he executed a deed of gift of the entire 2 biswas share in favour of his son Manmohan Sahai. In December 1916 he executed a deed of gift in favour of Jaggannath Prasad of all the plots in dispute in the suits giving rise...
Bhagirat Vs. Khetpal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All791a
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for profits (from 1327 to 1329 faslis). filed in the revenue Court under Section 165, Agra Tenancy Act (2 of 1901).2. The plaintiffs own a one-third share and the defendants a two-thirds share in the patti with respect to which profits were claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that, by a mutual arrangement the parties collected rent from every tenant in the patti in proportion to their respective shares, and that both the parties had made collections in (excess of their shares from certain tenants in the years in question. The plaintiffs claimed a decree for their share of the rent that had been realised by the defendant from certain tenants, after deducting therefrom the rent collected by the plaintiffs in excess of their share from other tenants. The plaintiffs further maintained that in the settlement of accounts the land in cultivation of the parties should be taken into account. The suit was res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »