Allahabad Court June 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.
Mohammad Sher Khan and ors. Vs. Bharat Indu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All59
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents. They sued for possession of a certain site in the abadi. The abadi is the unpartitioned property of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. Some years ago, 'defendants 1 to 3, who along with one Afzal-un-nissa Begum were at the time in sole possession and occupation of the land, built two shops on it. The plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of joint possession on the ground that the building by their co-owners was unlawful. Their suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal, however, they obtained a decree against defendant 1, 2 and 3, but failed to join as respondent Afzal-un-nisa Begum. The consequence was that they never succeeded in executing the decree.2. In the present suit their failure to execute that decree was pleaded as somehow barring the plaintiffs from bringing the present suit. The trial Court allowed this objection. The lower appellate Court has rejected it and given the pl...
Peare Mohan Prasad Vs. Raghunath Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All55a
Mukerji, J.1. This is a decree-holder's second appeal against a judgment by which the execution application has been declared as time barred.2. The facts briefly are these: The decree-holder obtained the decree in question on the 29th October 1919. The first application for execution was made on the 18th March 1922. The second application was made on the 12th October 1925, that is to say, more than three years after the date of the first application. On the face of it, the application would be time barred. The decree-holder however, alleged in the application for execution that between the 14th May 1923 and the 22nd September 1925, he received several payments towards interest, and his case is that these payments save limitation. The Court refused to execute the decree for want of a certificate of payment on behalf of the decree-holder. Thereupon, on the 14th October 1925, the decree-holder made an application certifying the payments the judgment-debtor appeared (it appears without any...
Aziz Ahmad Vs. Nazir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All504; 103Ind.Cas.897
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption on the basis of Mahomedan Law. The plaintiffs' claim is based on an alleged right as a shafi khalit. The property sold consists of undivided shares in a plot of land adjacent to the house of Nazir Ahmad, plaintiff. There is also a tamarind tree standing in the compound of Nazir Ahmad which overhangs its branches on the spot in question. This plot is divided into two portions by what is called a kucha public road, but the plot appears to be one plot and there has been no partition of the shares of the co-sharers.2. The learned Judge has held that Nazir Ahmad has no right to claim to be a shafi khalit, because his tree spreads branches over the neighbouring land. He has relied on the case of Hari Krishna Joshi v. Shankar Vithal [1895] 19 Bom. 420, as authority for the proposition that the overhanging branches confer no right of easement to the owner of the tree. It also appears to us that this circumstance does not giv...
B.N.W. Railway Vs. Baij Nath Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All837
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by the B.N.-W. Ry. Co., arising out of a suit brought for damages by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that they had come to Deoria station to celebrate the marriage of a relation and for their return journey required a reserved third class bogie for the marriage party from Deoria to Cawnpore. The railway company agreed to supply the reserved accommodation required provided it was engaged from Bhatni. They then went on to allege that as the arrangement of reserved accommodation was necessary the plaintiffs agreed to pay the additional charge from Bhatni to Deoria, and it was finally settled between the plaintiffs and the defendant that a third class bogie would be attached to 1 Up passenger train from Bhatni. In accordance with this alleged arrangement the plaintiffs sent their servant to Bhatni to purchase 92 third class tickets and asked the station staff to attach the reserved carriage to the train. It is suggested that the station staff were ...
Asharfi Lal Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All647
ORDERAshworth, J.1. This is an application in revision by Mr. Asharfi Lal, Pleader of Agra, in respect of his conviction by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 108, Railways Act 9 of 1890. The applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. He applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, but his application was rejected on the ground that no question of law was involved, the Magistrate's decision that the applicant had pulled the communication record in a railway carriage without reasonable and sufficient cause being merely a finding of fact. 2. The facts of the case have to be gathered from the statement of the applicant. This statement was not challenged by any cross-examination or rebutted by any evidence. On the face of it the statement appears to be a straightforward and honest exposition of the facts that occurred. They were briefly as follows: The applicant arrived with a companion at Marehra railway station between 9 and 10 p.m. in the evening. The station is...
Sheoraj Singh Vs. Kunj Behari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All720
Ashworth, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for ejectment of the defendants from two plots in the village. These plots had been originally in the abadi, but since the current settlement they have been included in the plaintiff's mahal. It was also in evidence that they are cultivated. The defence was that the plaintiff could not sue without joining other co-sharers, as the plots in suit were situated in the abadi which belonged to all the co-sharers in common. This plea was rejected by the trial Court, as it was found that according to the last settlement the abadi had been partitioned and the portion of the abadi containing the plots assigned to the plaintiff. There is no cross-appeal calling in question this finding. The trial Court found that the plots had of recent years been cultivated and were consequently land within the meaning of the definition of that word as used in the Tenancy Act. It further held that under Section 34, Tenancy Act, the plaintiff could treat the defendan...
Suraj Prasad and anr. Vs. Baldeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All111; 108Ind.Cas.464
Dalal, J.1. A decree was passed by a Court of Small Causes at Farrukhabad, on 8th December 1926, and was transferred for execution to the Court of the Munsif of Tilhar in the Shahjahanpur District. The judgment-debtor Baldeo was arrested in execution of the decree and in the Tilhar Court he gave security of a third person for his appearance in the Tilhar Court on 30th April 1927. Subsequently, on 9th March 1927, he applied to the Farrukhabad Court for rehearing, but at that time did not deposit in Court the amount due from him under the decree, nor gave security for the performance of the decree. His petition of rehearing was granted on 29th March 1927, the Farrukhabad Court holding that sufficient security was given on 4th March 1927, and there was no necessity for the filing of fresh security. In this opinion the lower Court was mistaken, because the security given in the Tilhar Court was not for the satisfaction of the decree, but for the appearance of the defendant in that Court on...
Ashrafi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.679
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision by Mr. Ashrafi Lal Pleader of Agra in respect of his conviction by a Magistrate of an offence under s J08 of the Railways Act IX of 1890. The applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. He applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, but his application was rejected on the ground that no question of law was involved, the Magistrate's decision that the applicant had pulled the communication chord in a Railway carriage without reasonable and sufficient cause being merely a finding of fact.2. The facts of the case have to be gathered from the statement of the applicant. This statement was not challenged by any cross-examination or rebutted by any evidence. On the face of it the statement appears to be a straightforward and honest exposition of the facts that occurred. They were briefly as follows: The applicant arrived with a companion at Marehra Railway Station between 9 and 10 P.M. in the evening. The station is a small...
Bishen Datt and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All705
Walsh, J.1. In this case, which is an appeal by two men who have been condemned to death under Section 302, I.P.C., a serious question arises as to the admissibility, for the purpose of proving facts against the accused, of certain statements, which were undoubtedly admissible for the purpose of impeaching the credit of some of the witnesses who were called. The matter is of importance and not free from difficulty, and there appears to be no decisive authority in this High Court. It is absolutely necessary for us to decide the point as a point of law, because if, as is the case, we are of opinion that these statements ought not to be used as evidence of the facts contained in them against the accused, we shall have to decide the appeal upon the other evidence in the case, the learned Sessions Judge having taken these statements into account in deciding to convict the appellants.2. The matter arises in this way. A witness was called at Sessions by the prosecution for the purpose of prov...
Parshadi Lal and ors. Vs. Sukh Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All759
Dalal, J.1. At a partition in the revenue Court two plots of land Nos. 196 and 197 in village Sehroi were allotted to the defendants. The defendants were recorded as owners of the grove. The plaintiffs thereupon brought the present suit in the civil Court that the defendants' names were wrongly entered to the prejudice of the plaintiffs' title against the grove numbers, and the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs.2. It may be declared by the Court that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of groves Nos. 196 and 197, and that the defendants have no concern with the aforesaid groves. It will be noticed that in the plaint there was no distinction made between the land and the trees standing on the land. The trial Court in a confused judgment decreed the suit. On appeal the suit was rightly dismissed. It is argued here that what the plaintiffs desired was that they should be declared as owners of the trees. The argument here was in entire conflict with the plaint allegations. It...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »