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.
Kamta Singh Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All98
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Munsif of Jaunpur allowing the non-applicant to withdraw his suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit The order of the Munsif is impugned before us on the ground that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to permit the withdrawal of the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit unless and until he had decided that there was a formal defect in the suit or some other sufficient ground. The order of the Munsif fails to mention the reason why he granted the plaintiff permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. It is permissible, however, in this circumstance to refer to the application of the non-applicant. In that application two grounds were sat out. One was that the success of the suit depended upon proof of a fact which could only be proved by production of a certain cash book, whereas the applicant had only produced a ledger. The second ground was that there were other persons who were necessary pa...
Gainda and anr. Vs. Hazari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All96; 108Ind.Cas.704
Dalal, J.1. There is no reason for interference. It appears that the Additional Subordinate Judge who decided the appeal was a Munsif when the suit was filed and had charge of the suit up to the point of the framing of issues. It is urged here that he was, therefore, disqualified from hearing the appeal. There is no such rule of law. A Judge of an appellate Court is prohibited from trying an appeal against a decree or order passed by himself as the presiding Judge of a Court in another capacity under Section 38, Civil Courts Act (Local No. 12 of 1887). In the present case, however, no decree or order has been passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge. The attention of that Judge does not appear to have been called to the fact that he had charge of the proceedings up to the framing of issues, nor was any objection made to his hearing the appeal. Under the circumstances there is no ground for a revision and I dismiss this application with costs....
Balmukund and anr. Vs. Tula Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All720; 113Ind.Cas.242
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit brought to recover a sum of money alleged to be due to the plaintiffs on a theka given by them to the defendants for the collection of offerings to a certain deity installed in a temple, and for the cancellation of that theka, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of making the collections themselves.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to 13/48th share of the offerings made at the temple and that, on 24th August 1918, they leased out the said right to defendants 1 to 3, who executed a qabuliat in favour of the plaintiffs on the same date, at an annual sum of Rs. 900 for a period of five years viz., from the beginning of August 1918 to 31st July 1923. The present suit was with respect to the amount to which the plaintiffs claimed to be entitled for the years 1921 and 1922. The plaintiffs' case was that defendant 4 was a member of a joint Hindu family wit...
Mangu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All22
Mears, C.J.1. On the 1st October 1926, a mare belonging to one Bhagwant Singh of mauza Patti Tek Chand disappeared and on the same night a mare belonging to one Budhu, Jat, also disappeared from an adjoining mauza, Mauza Chhajaura. Although there is no evidence that these animals were stolen, we propose for the purpose of this case to assume that they were stolen. The identity of the thief, or thieves, was not known, but one Mangu was suspected. He is the respondent to a Government appeal to-day, he having been charged, in the events which we shall set out in a few moments, with having committed an offence under Section 215, I.P.C. He was tried for that offence by a Bench of first class Magistrates of Bijnor and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. From that conviction he appealed, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the 18th February 1927, allowed the jail appeal of Mangu and directed his acquittal. The Local Government, believing that acquittal to have been a misc...
Mt. Beti and anr. Vs. Sikhdar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All39; 108Ind.Cas.721
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of certain property.2. The plaintiffs are the daughters of one Madho Singh and their case was, that Madho Singh was the sole owner of the property in dispute and died as a separated Hindu, in 1888, and on his death his widow, the mother of the plaintiffs became entitled to the property in dispute by right of inheritance, but the ancestors of the defendants, who were the collaterals of Madho Singh, by exercising undue influence on the mother of the plaintiffs, persuaded her to enter into a compromise, by virtue of which she surrendered possession of the property in dispute to those collaterals on being allowed to remain in possession of the sir land appertaining to the zemindari share that belonged to Madho Singh. The plaintiffs impugned the validity of the compromise and maintained that compromise was ineffectual to adversely affect their rights to the property in dispute, that came into existence on the death of t...
Sripat NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Gahbar Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All724a; 106Ind.Cas.680
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of a Magistrate of the First Class of Ghazipur, dated the 4th October 1926, convicting the applicant of an offence under Section 427, I.P.C., and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 10. The application in revision is based on the ground that the Deputy Magistrate, before convicting the applicant of the offence of mischief, was bound to find that the property in respect of which the mischief was alleged to be committed belonged to the complainant.2. The matter has already been in revision before this Court on a reference from the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur. It appears that when the matter was up before me on the reference from the Sessions Judge a vakalatnama had been filed by Mr. Pandey. Mr. Pandey was not called upon by me to argue or appear in the case. It is possible that I was not even aware of any pleader having been engaged by the applicant. The reference by the Sessions Judge impugned the order of the Magistrate on pre...
Ganga Sahai and anr. Vs. Nihal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All846
Dalal, J.1. Two plaintiffs, Ganga Sahai and Chandi Prasad, sued in the revenue Court Babu Nihal Singh for recovery of arrears of profits under Section 165, Tenancy Act. Nine other persons were made pro forma defendants because their names also existed in the khewat. The plaintiffs' case was that in the khewat consisting of 18 biswas of land the plaintiffs, along with nine defendants other than Babu Nihal Singh, were recorded as cosharers of one-half and Babu Nihal Singh of the other half, that by a partition of certain properties between the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants the half-share in this khewat had been allotted to the plaintiffs alone, that the plaintiffs cultivated 5 biswas of land while Nihal Singh cultivated 13 biswas and that on account of this difference Babu Nihal Singh had collected more than his share of profits and, therefore, was liable to pay to the plaintiff's their share of excess profits recovered by Nihal Singh. Though there had been partition, as is all...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›