Allahabad Court January 1928 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.
Mohan Lal Vs. Ram Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All213; 108Ind.Cas.690
Dalal, J.1. Notices issued to the opposite side have not been received back, but the Assistant Government Advocate is present, so I have proceeded with the hearing of the application. One Mohan Lal, a Lohar, complained against the opposite parties, under Section 499, I.P.C., on the ground that at the time of a feast of the brotherhood the accused persons declared that the complainant had been outcasted and was not one fit to sit down at the feast with the other members of the brotherhood. The Magistrate of the trial Court, who appears from the manner in which his order is recorded, to have been too much in a hurry, dismissed the case. There is no such expression in the Criminal Procedure Code as the dismissal of a case. If the Magistrate had been in less hurry and better cognizant of his responsible duty as a Magistrate, he would possibly have said that he dismissed the complaint. It is astonishing to me that a Hindu Magistrate, who must be well acquainted with the terrors of caste, sh...
Chedu Singh Vs. Jagan Nath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All297; 108Ind.Cas.912
Dalal, J.1. It is apparent that the attention of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes was not drawn to a Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Ramsarup v. Dasoda Kunwar [1911] 94 All. 158 The learned Judge appears to have held the wrong view that a plaintiff can fall back upon a claim for money lent only where a promissory note was taken subsequent to the advancement of the money, The case-law enjoins no such reservation. Where a debt may be proved independently of the promissory note, that is, without the assistance of the promissory note in evidence, the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to produce such proof, and on his satisfying the Court as to the loan he will be entitled to a decree.2. The learned Judge decided the case on a wrong view of law. I, therefore, set aside the decree passed by him and remit the suit to that Court for a trial on the merits in accordance with principles of law enunciated above. Costs here and heretofore shall a bide the result....
Ganeshi Lal and ors. Vs. Rohni Rukumdhuj Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All311; 108Ind.Cas.570
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaiU270496ntiffs appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of a simple mortgage dated 22nd January 1922, executed by the plaintiffs' predecessor in favour of Mitangdhwaj Prasad Singh, the deceased father of the original defendants. It is not necessary to give the particulars of this mortgage, because the only point in dispute was whether in consequence of a deposit having been made under Section 83, T.P. Act, interest ceased to run from that date.2. On 18th July 1923, the original mortgagee, Mitangdhwaj Prasad Singh, was dead and he had left two sons and a, widow. On that date the plaintiffs deposited an amount which was admittedly sufficient to cover the principal and interest up to that date to the credit of the two sons of Mitangdhwaj Prasad Singh who were both described as minors. On that date the plaintiffs also filed an application to the Court, praying that the mother of the minors should be appointed their guardian ad litem and this application was s...
Dau Dayal Vs. Pearey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All236; 108Ind.Cas.694
Mukerji, J.1. The appellant before this Court is one of the six defendants in the Court below. The plaintiffs' case was this. They, with defendant 6, Ram Gopal, constituted a firm of commission agents carrying on business under the name and style of Ram Gopal Pearey Lal, at Bareilly. Defendants 1 to 5 (the 5th being the appellant here) were a firm of dealers in grain under the name and style of Har Charan Lal Peare Lal. Before the defendant firm started business with the plaintiffs and Ram Gopal, there was a firm, Kanthi Ram Banwari Lal, owned by the first two defendants, who were residents of Budhaun. The firm of Kanthi Ram Banwari Lal employed the plaintiffs as commission agents. Later on, defendants 3 to 5 joined the aforesaid defendants 1 and 2 and constituted themselves into the firm of Har Charan Lal Peare Lal, as is stated above, in order to carry on business at Bareilly. The plaintiffs were employed as commission agents and it was agreed that if and when occasion arose, the pla...
Bisheshar Dayal Vs. Dasinat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All415; 117Ind.Cas.818
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for arrears of rent. In the plaint it was asserted that the defendant-appellant was a tenant of the holding in question at a certain rate of rent which was entered in the village papers. The defendant's name appeared as tenant in these papers. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he was the proprietor of the land in question. During the progress of the suit the defendant changed his defence, and claimed that he was ex-proprietary tenant of the holding and could not be liable for rent as none had been fixed by the Collector at the time when he lost proprietary rights in the mahal.2. The trial Court decided that the name of the father of the defendant had been entered as the sole zamindar of the mahal up to six years ago, but previous to the death of the defendant's father the defendant and his brother (the plaintiff) had anticipated their succes...
Joti Prasad Vs. Harkesh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.574
1. The applicant in this case is one Joti Prasad, and he, on the 18th October, 1927, obtained a certificate from this Court giving him leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It was his duty to deposit Rs. 4,000 in cash, or Government securities, by January 3, 1928, at the latest. It was also his duty to deposit the sum of Rs. 289 7-0 being the costs, of translation and printing, and that amount had also to be deposited by the 3rd of January, 1928, and not later. On or about the 20th of December, 1927, Joti Prasad obtained a banker's draft from the Saharanpur branch of the Imperial Bank. The Bank made it out in the name of Chaudhri Joti Prasad. 'Chaudhri', as put upon the face of the draft, happened to be not a name but a title of courtesy, such as 'Munshi', 'Pandit' or 'Mister'. Joti Prasad endorsed the draft in his proper full name of 'Joti Prasad,' and then endorsed the draft in favour of the Registrar. This he did on the 22nd of December, 1927. The Registrar presented the draft ...
Ruchcha Saithwar and anr. Vs. Hansrani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All220; 108Ind.Cas.238
Mears, C.J.1. This is an application under Order 45, Rule 2, Civil P.C. for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a decree of this Court passed in second appeal on 23rd June 1927. The valuation of the subject-matter of the suit and of the appeal is less than Rs. 10,000, being in fact Rs. 2,800 only. The ground on which the leave to appeal is sought is that it involvesa substantial question of law of general importance and is otherwise fit for appeal, as the plaintiffs have been deprived of a valuable right secured to them by the decree of the appellate Court.2. It is conceded by the learned Counsel for the appellant that leave to appeal can be given only if the case should fall within Clause (c) Section 109, Civil P.C.3. It appears that the applicants were the plaintiffs in the Court of first instance. They sued for recovery of certain properties on the allegation that they were joint with one Chikuri who left him surviving a wife and three daughters, all four of whom were the...
Sahu Munna Lal and ors. Vs. Mahtab and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All360
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of a certain sale-deed executed by one party of the defendants in favour of another party of the defendants and for possession of the grove which formed the subject-matter of the sale-deed. Both the lower Courts allowed cancellation of the sale-deed in so far as it purported to sell the land of the grove but rejected the rest of the suit. The appellant comes in second appeal saying that the deed should have been cancelled in toto and possession given to him.2. I may point out that the decree for cancellation of the sale-deed in so far as it purported to sell the land of the grove was not a proper one. A written instrument under Section 40, Specific Relief Act, can be cancelled in part, but that is not what has been done here.3. What in effect is intended is that the deed shall be declared not to be operative against the plaintiff so far as it purports to transfer the right of ab...
Mathura Rai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All671
Dalal, J.1. Both the Subordinate Courts have gone out of the way to make out a criminal charge against the two applicants Mathura Rai and Sukhdeo Rai. These men are zemindars of a particular field which had been mortgaged to one Raghunath Prasad. During the period of the mortgage, the complainant Ram Prasad was in cultivating possession of the land. When the mortgage was redeemed, the applicants desired to obtain through the revenue Court cultivating possession of this land, but their application was rejected as they had been out of possession for over 12 years. Ram Prasad continued to be the tenant of the land. He complained to the criminal Court under Sections 417 and 426 on the following alleged facts:2. That on 21st July 1927, soon after sun-rise, he happened to go to another field of his when he noticed the applicants uprooting parwar crop growing in this particular field 125/2. He went up and protested, whereupon the applicants threatened to beat him. His allegations did make out...
Harihar Prasad and ors. Vs. Harendra Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All302
Mukerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. He brought the suit out of which it has arisen, on foot of a promissory note executed on 13th August 1923, by the respondent. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance and was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The ground for the dismissal by the lower appellate Court was that the execution of the document by the respondent who is a ward of the Court, was prohibited by Section 37, Court of Wards Act, being Act 4 of 1912.2. It appears that the respondent's estate was taken over by the Court of Wards for management, at the respondent's own request made under Section 10, United Provinces Court of Wards Act. Under Section 37, same Act,A ward shall not be competent... to enter into any contract which may involve him in pecuniary liability.3. The Court of first instance found on the basis of certain copies of khataunis and khewats, that the respondent was still recorded as in possession of certain sir lands and that his name was reco...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »