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.
Jagan Nath Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All825; 101Ind.Cas.894
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur under Section 438, Criminal P.C., recommending that an order passed by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 137(3), Criminal P.C., be set aside and the learned Magistrate be directed to hold a further enquiry before making his conditional order under Section 133, Criminal P.C., absolute.2. A notice under Section 133(1), Criminal P.C., was issued so far back as the 31st October 1924, calling upon Jagan Nath Prasad to remove a balcony constructed by him, Jagan Nath Prasad appeared and showed cause against the conditional order and that order was made absolute on the 5th January 1925. This order was set aside by this Court and then a fresh conditional order was made, with respect to the same balcony, by the Magistrate concerned on the 29th May 1925 and notice of the same was served on Jagan Nath Prasad. He again appeared and showed cause but the conditional order was for the second time made absol...
Union Indian Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Lal Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All426
Mukerji, J.1. This is a claim against the Union Indian Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., in liquidation, by one Rai Bahadur Brij Lal of Ludhiana and his partner Jagannath, seeking their entry on the schedule of creditors to the amount of Rs. 60,000. They base their claim on a judgment, said to have been passed on foot of a compromise, by the Subordinate Judge of Ludhiana on the 10th of March 1926. The claim was opposed before the official liquidators by Lala Devi Dat, the late managing director of the company. The official liquidators, after examining the claim, allowed it in respect of three sums of money, viz., Rs. 25,000 principal sum, Rs. 1,750 interest and Rs. 500 as 'office expenses'. They disallowed the rest of the claim. Thereupon the claimants filed their application in this Court, asking it to try their claim. The official liquidators have contested it.2. The claim was based briefly on the following facts. On the 26th of December 1923, the firm of Brij Lal was appointed the sole agent of...
(Maulvi) Abdul Ghani Vs. B. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All577
Mukerji, J.1. The question of law raised by this application in revision is whether an acknowledgment of a debt made after the expiration of the three years' period prescribed by Sch. 1 for a suit on a promissory note, but made before a suit on the note was actually barred by limitation, was a good acknowledgment, 2. It appears that the acknowledgment in this case was made while the right of institution of suit was still subsisting owing to holidays hearing come in. The limitation was to expire on 17th of October 1923 on the promissory note on which the suit was brought, but the suit could be instituted on the 23rd as the period between the 17th of October and 22nd of October 1923 was a holiday.3. The Court below has decided against the defendant, hence this application in revision.4. The answer to the question must depend on the correct reading of Section 19 and Section 4 of the Limitation Act. Section 19 says:Where, before the expiration of the period prescribed for a suit or applica...
Faujdar Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All597
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The sole question for decision in the present appeal is, as to whether or not the suit giving rise to the present appeal was barred by limitation. There is no controversy about the facts. In 1888 a 6-pies zemindari share was purchased at an auction-sale by the ancestors of the parties to the present suit. Out of the share purchased by them a 4 1/2 pies share was subject to a usufructuary mortgage held by one Ramphal Singh. After the auction-purchase referred to above the name of one Shamser Singh who was the ancestor of the plaintiffs was alone entered as a mortgagor in respect of the 4 1/2 pies share. This led to an application by some of the defendants' ancestors for correction of the khewat and for an entry of their names along with the names of Shamser Singh as owners of the equity of redemption. This dispute between the parties was compromised, and the names of the parties or of their ancestors were entered in the khewat with respect to the 4 1/2 pies share in 19...
Amolakchand Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All830
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises under the following circumstances: A suit was brought by the decree-holder respondent for recovery of a certain amount of money against Munna Lal and his three sons Radhe Lal, Brij Mohan and Amolak Chand. Amolak Chand is the appellant in the present appeal. Munna Lal, Radhe Lal and Brij Mohan were adjudicated insolvents during the pendency of the suit, and the official receiver, in whom the estate of the above mentioned insolvents had vested, was made a party to the suit. It appears that an objection based on Section 29, Provincial Insolvency Act, was taken before the Court trying the suit but the objection was overruled and the Court observed in the course of its judgment thatof course the plaintiff will take his decree to the insolvency Court and get rateable distribution from the assets of the insolvents along with other creditors.2. A decree for a certain amount was passed against all the defendants. After being armed ...
Jagat Singh and ors. Vs. Jai NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All482; 101Ind.Cas.877
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the dismissal of their suit for redemption of a mortgage. They are the song and grandsons of Bahadur Singh and Tundi Singh who executed the mortgage in suit on 20th April 1877 in favour of Damodar Das for a sum of Rs. 22,000. Under the mortgage two villages Ramnagar Jagatpur and Pasgawan were mortgaged with possession, and half share in Mouza Deothan was hypothecated by way of security for payment of the mortgage money at the time of redemption should the value of the two villages mortgaged with possession prove insufficient to pay the debt. The rate of interest, and the collection charges were fixed by agreement between the parties. The result of the transfer was that Damodar Das took possession as mortgagee of the two villages, and obtained a lien by way of a simple mortgage over the third village. Four days later on 24th April 1877 the mortgagee leased the two villages Ramnagar Jagatpur and Pasgawan to the mortgagors and on the same day th...
Rup NaraIn Singh Vs. Jagrup Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All530; 101Ind.Cas.638
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. I have not troubled the counsel for the respondent as after hearing Dr. Agarwala at length and after going through the judgment of the lower appellate Court, I have come to the conclusion that the decision of the Courts below is perfectly correct and ought to be affirmed.2. The controversy centres round certain land that ha on the findings of the lower appellate Court, been under the control of the Military Authorities for a long time and was first used as a camping ground and later as a rifle range. The land is situated in the district of Benares, It was acquired by the Government for military purposes long ago, and is abundantly clear, from the findings of the lower appellate Court, that the land has never been abandoned by the Military Authorities, and is administered by the Cantonment Authorities acting directly under the control of the Government of India and under the Local Government. It appears that at the time of the acquisition of the land, of which the land...
Muhammad Askari Vs. Rahmatullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All548
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The claim was originally based both on an alleged custom as well as the Mahomedan law. The claim, so far as the custom is concerned, was later on given up. The plaintiff's case was that as the owner of Lal Kothi in Saharanpur situated in the same compound as Malik Hotel, the property sold, he was entitled to pre-empt the sale. The property was sold ultimately under a sale-deed, dated the 22nd of March 1923, ostensibly for Rs. 8,000. The plaintiff alleged that the real sale consideration was only Rs. 5,220. Various defences were raised on behalf of the vendees. They pleaded that the plaintiff had no right of pre-emption under the Mahomedan Law inasmuch as the defendants themselves were co-sharers in the mahal in which the property was situated and were on equal footing with the plaintiff. They further pleaded that the property had in fact been sold on the 18th of March 1923 at a public auction and the plai...
Mohammad Shakur Vs. Mt. Husani Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All772; 101Ind.Cas.816
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 544 on account of mesne profits.2. On the 25th October 1920, a suit for partition of certain house properties was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents against Karim Bakhsh their brother. Karim Bakhsh died during the pendency of that suit leaving as his legal representatives his two sons Mohammad Shakur defendant-appellant and one Chhedi, who were brought upon the record in place of Karim Bakhsh. Chhedi admitted the plaintiff's claim, but Mohammad Shakur appellant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs were not the daughters of Ilahi Bakhsh, father of Karim Bakhsh, and as such were not entitled to a share in the houses in dispute which belonged to Ilahi Bakhsh, and further that Mohammad Shakur and his father Karim Bakhsh had been in adverse possession of the houses in dispute for a period of more than 12 years and as such the suit was time barred. The trial Court held th...
Bhola Nath and anr. Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All833
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs Bhola Nath and Shimbhu Nath, trading as the firm of Banarasi Das, against the E.I. Ry. Co., (and another railway company) for non-delivery of a parcel of sandal wood oil of the value of Rs. 997-9-0. The defence of the railway company was that the company was protected from liability under a risk-note in the form known as risk-note Y and also by the provisions of Section 75, Railways Act.2. The trial Court (Munsif of Kanauj) held that the question whether the railway company was protected from the consequence of the loss of the consignment by the terms of the risk-note or by the language of Section 75, Railways Act, did not arise, because the suit was one for non-delivery and the railway company had failed to prove loss. The Court, however, alternatively held that, if proof of loss be assumed, the railway company was not protected either by the risk-note or by the terms of Section 75, for certain reasons into which it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »