Allahabad Court May 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.
Bindeshri Upadhya and ors. Vs. Sital Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All702
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a certain mortgage-deed executed on 22nd May 1915 by their father, defendant 1, in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is invalid on the ground that their father executed the deed without legal necessity and that the property being an occupancy holding could not be transferred under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Amongst other pleas the defendants took up the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court applied Article 126, Limitation Act, and found that the suit was maintainable as it was brought within 12 years of the date of the alienation impugned. In first appeal the District Judge hold that Article 126, Limitation Act, was not applicable inasmuch as the plaintiffs were not asking for possession but only for a declaration. It has been explained to us that the plaintiffs could not ask for possession inasmuch as, even if the deed in suit be set aside, the defendants are in posses...
Murli Pathak Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All707
Dalal, J.1. The only ground worth considering in this application for revision is ground 3, that the alleged defamatory statement having been made by the applicant as an accused person in his defence cannot form the subject-matter of a prosecution for defamation. The applicant Murli Pathak was prosecuted by Bhukkal on a charge under Section 426, I.P.C. In the ordinary course, during the trial, the applicant Murli Pathak was examined by the Court under Section 342, Criminal P.C. Questions were put to him by the Court, and he answered them At the end, one question was:Why the charge was brought against him by Bhukkaland he replied that this was owing to enmity. The next question was whether he had anything more to say, and in answer be gave reason for the enmity. His answer was that he and Bhukkal were not on dining terms because Bhukkal's daughter-in-law was in the keeping of a Lohar. Bhukkal thereupon prosecuted Murli Pathak under Section 499, I.P.C., for defamation, and Murli was puni...
Ganga Charan and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All33
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of certain property that was dedicated to a certain deity by one Pandit Manni Ram by a deed of endowment, dated the 10th January 1899. By that deed. Manni Ram appointed himself and one Gulab Shankar as sarbarakars of the endowed property. Manni Ram died in or about the year 1900 and Gulab Shankar alone continued to act as sarbarakar of the endowed property.2. By a deed styled as a deed of gift dated the 17th December 1912, Gulab Shankar appointed the defendant-appellant as trustee and manager in his place. About three months prior to the institution of the suit giving rise to the present appeal Gulab Shankar died. Udho Ram, the heir of Manni Ram, on the 15th December 1922, executed a document in favour of the plaintiff by which he appointed the plaintiff as trustee and sarbarakar of the endowed property.3. The plaintiff's case was that Gulab Shankar had no right to nominate a successor of his own, or...
Kali Charan Sharma Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All654a
Dalal, J.1. This is an application by Pandit Kali Charan Sharma, author of a Hindi book entitled 'Vichitra Jiwan' He was convicted by the District Magistrate of Agra of an offence under Section 153-A, I.P.C., and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Agra. The sentence imposed on him is of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, or six months' further rigorous imprisonment in default. The ground of revision is that the District Magistrate shut out cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the production of defence witnesses, and therefore the trial being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 251, Criminal P. C., was void, and the conviction passed on such a trial untenable.2. It so happened that after the evidence of twenty prosecution witnesses had been recorded in September 1926, the local Government prescribed the book under Section 99-A, Criminal P. C., on the 27th October 1926. The notification ran as follows:In exercise of the pow...
Rati Ram Vs. Hardewa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All676; 103Ind.Cas.348
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 700 on the basis of a pro-note dated the 19th June 1921, alleged to have been executed by the defendant-respondent in favour of the plaintiff.2. The defence to the suit was that the defendant never borrowed any money from the plaintiff nor executed the pro-note in dispute and that the pro-note was not supported by consideration.3. On the date fixed for the hearing of the suit the parties agreed to abide by the statement on oath of one Khem Chand alias Khimma. Khimma's statement was recorded by the Court. He did not make any statement on his own personal knowledge and stated that he had settled the dispute between the parties and had decided that the defendant should pay to Rati Ram the sum of Rs. 450 in nine monthly instalments of Rs. 50. He was shown the pro-note in dispute and was asked to state whether or not the pro-note in dispute was genuine. In reply to this question he stated that he could make no stat...
G.i.P. Ry. Vs. Ram AdhIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All762
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Banda under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 13 of 1855. The plaintiffs in the case were the father, mother widow and minor child of one Ganpat Lal who was killed on the G.I.P. Railway in a Railway accident on the 10th May 1921.2. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 10,000 damages. The defendant railway company put into Court Rs. 4,500 stating that was an adequate amount of compensation. The Court below after examining witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs gave a decree for Rs. 10,000. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the family, the earnings of the deceased man, the fact that he was only 23 years of age at the time of his death and his prospects of success in life, the amount claimed was not excessive. Rupees 4,500 having been paid into Court he made an order for payment by the defendant railway company of the balance of Rs. 5,500.3. In his jud...
Rup Kishor Vs. Patrani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All818
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a share in villages Lilhar and Karanpur Pindri, by avoidance of a deed of relinquishment and a deed of transfer, dated 7th May 1911, executed on behalf of the plaintiff, when he was a minor, by his natural father Damodar Das.2. The plaintiff's case briefly put is as follows: Brij Kishor was the original owner of this property and had no child. Shortly before his death he gave an oral permission to his wife, Mt. Durga Dei, to adopt a son, and then died in 1878. In 1905 Mt. Durga Dei, acting on this permission, adopted the plaintiff, and a deed of adoption was duly executed by her on 11th March 1905. The plaintiff alleged that in a suit brought by Jivan Das and others, claiming to be the collaterals of Brij Kishor against the present plaintiff Rup Kishore, a compromise was arrived at under which the estate was divided in the ratio of 6 annas and 10 annas between the claimants and the present p...
Great Indian Peninsula Railway Vs. Ram AdhIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.297
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Banda under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act XIII of 1855. The plaintiffs in the case were the father, mother, widow and minor child of one Ganpat Lal who was killed on the G.I.P. Railway in a Railway accident on the 10th of May, 1921.2. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 10,000 damages. The defendant Railway Company put into Court Rs. 4,500 stating that that was an adequate amount of compensation. The Court below after examining witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs gave a decree for Rs. 10,000. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the family, the earnings of the deceased man, the fact that he was only 23 years of age at the time of his death and his prospects of success in life, the amount claimed was not excessive. Rupees 4,500 having been paid into Court he made an order for payment by the defendant Railway Company of the balance of Rs. 5,500.3....
Ganesh and anr. Vs. Dasso and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All669; 103Ind.Cas.428
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal must fail. It is well settled that possessory title is good against everybody except the true owner and in the case of a wrongful ouster, a plaintiff is entitled to succeed upon the strength of previous possession, if the defendant fails to prove a better title. Against a mere trespasser prior possession is itself a title inasmuch as possession raises a presumption of title. Possession in law is a subsisting right which the law protects and which can be enforced against any person who does not prove a better title. Accordingly in a suit for ejectment against a trespasser based on the plaintiff's title, if the plaintiff fails in proving title in himself but proves that he was in peaceful possession of the property in suit at the time of his wrongful ouster by the defendant, he is entitled to a decree for possession as against the trespasser. In short, in a suit for possession if the plaintiff proves that he was in peaceful possession at the time of disposse...
Narsingh Das Vs. B. Shakambari Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All697; 103Ind.Cas.376
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The property sought to be pre-empted was sold under a deed executed on the 22nd February 1924, and registered on the 26th. The suit was instituted on the 26th February 1925. During the pendency of the suit in the Court of first instance the defendant-vendee became a co-sharer in the village by virtue of a deed of exchange dated the 20th April 1925. The case is governed by the Agra Pre-emption Act, 1922 and it is not disputed before us that a custom must be presumed to exist in this village and that the consideration is Rs. 7,000.2. The only point which was in dispute in the Court below and is in dispute before us is whether the defendant-vendee can defeat the claim for pre-emption on the strength of his having become a co-sharer after the institution of the suit and before the decree. The learned Subordinate Judge has discussed the point at some length and come to the conclusion that his acquisition of a share in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »