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.
Badal and ors. Vs. Saraswati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All687; 103Ind.Cas.329
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants as reversioners for the possession of a six-anna zamindari share in the village of Khero, district Jhansi, against one Mt. Saraswati and against certain transferees under transfers made by Mt. Janki, deceased mother of Mt. Saraswati. The plaintiffs' case was that the property in question belonged to one Girdhari whose estate was after his death held successively by his widow Durgai and his daughter Mt. Janki, that on the death of Mt. Janki, they became entitled to the estate as reversionary heirs both as against the transferees of Mt. Janki and as against Mt Janki's daughter, Mt. Saraswati, inasmuch as the estate according to Hindu law reverted on the death of Mt. Janki.2. The suit was resisted inter alia on the ground that Girdhari had a cousin Ram Baksh who would be a nearer reversioner than the plaintiffs and whose sons and grandsons, if any would be nearer reversioners. It was maintained tha...
Sheo Harakh Upadhya and ors. Vs. Jai Gobind Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All709
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for demolition of a certain baithak by the defendant first party, who is appellant in this appeal, on joint parti (vacant) land. The first Court dismissed the suit on a finding that this piece of land had long been in the exclusive possession of the appellant, and that the plaintiff bad acquiesced in the construction of the building In first appeal the lower appellate Court found that the appellant was established in exclusive possession of the plot although it belonged to both the parties. It found that the construction of the baithak was recent, the land hitherto being occupied by the cattle trough of the defendants. It refused to decree to the plaintiff joint possession of the plot but decreed demolition of the baithak.2. In this appeal it is urged that the lower appellate Court, having found that the appellant was in established exclusive possession, should not have decreed demolition of the ...
Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Sahu Raghunath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All613
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. I am unable to distinguish the present case from the case of Kundan Lal v. Parsadi A.I.R. 1924 All. 744. It is common ground that a suit for ejectment of the plaintiff-appellants from the plot in dispute Was brought by the defendants-respondents in the revenue Court on the allegation that the plot in dispute was' land held for agricultural purposes' and the plaintiff-appellants were tenants from year to year and were liable to ejectment under Section 58(a) of the Agra Tenancy Act (Act 2 of 1901). That suit was contested by the present plaintiffs on the ground that they had the right of the grove-holders in the plot in dispute and the plot in dispute not being held for agricultural purposes was not 'land' as defined by the Agra Tenancy Act and, as such, the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to eject the appellants from the plot in dispute. This contention of the present appellants, who were defendants in the suit filed in the revenue Court, was overruled, and the suit ...
Mt. Uma Devi Vs. Gur Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All694; 103Ind.Cas.349
Dalal, J.1. A suit for profits was instituted in the revenue Court by Mt. Janki Kunwar on the 25th April 1921 against the defendant Chaube Gur Narain. Mt. Janki Kunwar is dead and is now represented by her daughter Mt. Uma Devi. Her suit was dismissed by the revenue Court on the ground that she had no title to the property, but on appeal to the District Judge it was held that the entry of her name in the khewat entitled her to sue. He therefore remitted the suit to the trial Court for decision on the question of the amount of profits due to Mt. Janki Kunwar. The amount was determined to be Rs. 342-12-6, and a decree passed whereupon Gur Narain appealed to the District Court. It so happened that before the hearing of the appeal on 11th September 1924 Gur Narain had obtained a declaration from the civil Court that he was owner and in possession of the property in suit, against which Mt. Janki Kunwar's name had been entered. The exact terms of the declaration were that by virtue of her be...
Mahbub Ali Vs. Mahammad HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All710
1. This case is in a nut-shell. The facts are that two sums of Rs. 125 and Rs. 200 have been received by the defendant under certain special circumstances with the intention that they should be applied to a mortgage-decree which he bad against the plaintiff. It is always troublesome in these cases to give an accurate description of such a payment. The Rs. 200 paid is perhaps an illustration. Defendant 2 paid that to defendant 1 at the request of the plaintiff. If the parties were at ad idem, and the defendant being an honest person, was willing to receive that amount towards his decree, he naturally would agree that amount should be certified to the Court. For good reasons or bad the Code requires that such payment out of Court should be certified, otherwise an execution Court cannot take notice of it. Probably it was thought that it would be better that the execution Court should not have continual suits brought before it whether a payment had been made or not. The plaintiff being adv...
Mt. Mendha Kunwar Vs. Ganga Saran Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All740; 103Ind.Cas.344
Dalal, J.1. The only important ground for decision in this appeal is ground No. 6, the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a second appeal cannot lie under the circumstances of the present case. Such a second appeal would be barred under the provisions of Section 102, Civil P.C., as was held in the case of Harakh v. Ram Sarup [1890] 12 All. 579 In the present case the decree was passed by a Court of Small Causes which transferred it for execution to the Court of a Munsif because the decree-holder applied for sale of immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor, and under Section 7(a)(iii), Civil P. C, a Court of Small Causes cannot execute a decree against immovable property. In the Munsif's Court the judgment-debtor raised an objection, and the objection was decided in favour of the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder appealed and obtained a favourable decision from the Subordinate Judge. From that decision of the Subordinate Judge the present se...
Bansidhar Pande Vs. Chunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All744
Dalal, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, with a request that the order of compensation passed by a Magistrate under Section 250, Criminal P.C. may be set aside. The charge against Chunni Lal brought by complainant Bansidhar, was one raider Section 218, I.P. C, an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. Under Section 250, Criminal P. C, a Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct a complainant to pay compensation only in such cases as are triable by a Magistrate. As the present case was not triable by a Magistrate, the discharge of the accused and the Magistrate's refusal to commit him to the Sessions did not invest the Magistrate with the power of imposing a fine on the complainant under Section 250, Criminal P. C: see Het Ram v. Ganga Sahai [1918] 40 All. 615.2. The Magistrate's order of fine against Bansidhar dated 2nd February 1927, is therefore, set aside, and it is directed that the fine, if any recovered, shall be refunde...
Ram Prasad-shyam Sundar Lal and ors. Vs. Ramji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All795; 103Ind.Cas.218
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for money that is, certain profits on 'khatti' transactions, a sum of money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant, his commission agent, by way of cover or security, and lastly, interest on the above sums. The facts are simple. The plaintiff employed the defendant as his agent to carry on what were admittedly wagering transactions dealing with the nominal purchase and sale of khattis.' We are not concerned with considering the nature of the transactions between the plaintiff and the third party. So far as they were concerned the transactions were admittedly of a wagering nature, The suit is between the plaintiff, principal, and the commission agent, and in view of the decision of their Lordships in Sobhagmal Gianmal v. Mukundchand Balia A.I.R. 1926 P. C 119, it is only with the nature of the transaction as between the plaintiff, principal, and the defendant commission agent, that we are concerned.2. In the Privy Council case...
Narsingh Das Vs. Gokul Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All140
Mears, C.J.1. This was a suit originally instituted to recover the value of ornaments alleged to be worth Rs. 5,993 and to recover Rs. 6,007 which was alleged to have been taken out of Court by the defendants, on the ground that they were accountable in both these respects to the plaintiff.2. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and when this matter came up in argument in first appeal, it became so apparent that complete justice could not be done between the parties if the claim was limited in the manner in which the plaintiff by his plaint had limited it. We, therefore, sent the matter down to the lower Court to consider particularly the state of account in respect of certain zamindari property. It was alleged that a lady, Mt. Chandrowal, the mother of Narsingh Das, owned zamindari property, and that for a period of some eight years, from 1908 to 1916, that zamindari property had been managed by the defendants. The findings have been returned to us and in this Court even w...
Shiam Lal Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All516; 103Ind.Cas.108
Dalal, J.1. Shiam Lal and Lal Bihari have been separately convicted, but their appeals may be disposed of by one judgment. They are brothers, and their houses were searched at the same time and under the same circumstances. A stolen gun and another gun, cartridges, caps, bullets, etc., were found on search in the house of Shiam Lal, and cartridges in the house of Lal Bihari. The objection made by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the search for the seizure of arms was not made in accordance with provisions of Section 25 of the Arms Act under a warrant from a Magistrate. It must, however, be remembered that the searches were being made for recovery of property alleged to have been stolen during several dacoities, and the police officers were justified in making a search under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion, the learned Judge has conceded to the defence much more than it deserved. Though a Sub-Inspector not in charge of a police station entered...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »