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.
Ram Lagan Bhagat Vs. Phakkar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All343; 118Ind.Cas.171
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff sued in the civil Court for the ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was a licensee of a certain grove under certain conditions and that the plaintiff desired to eject him because, according to the conditions of the license, the license had now terminated. Both the subordinate civil Courts held that, by reason of previous litigation between the parties, the civil Court was debarred from arriving at any adjudication of the matter presented to it by the plaintiff. In second appeal the correctness of this view is challenged.2. In the former suit the plaintiff declared the defendant to be his non-occupancy tenant and desired his ejectment under Section 58. The Assistant Collector went into the facts of the case and held that the defendant was not an occupancy tenant, but held the grove under such conditions that he could not be ejected under Section 58. His view further was that in the alternative the defendant would be a rent-free grantee o...
In the Matter of the Sonardih Coal Co., Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Parm ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1928
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.451
Ashworth, J. 1. In this case one Permanand Gir who has been entered in the list of contributories by the Official Liquid dators of the Sonardih Goal Company, Limited (in liquidation) has applied that his name should be removed from the list of contributories as ha is not liable for the debts of the Company or to pay up the shares against his name. He is represented by Mr. A Sanyal who has addressed the Court.2. Mr. Sanyal has stated that he is prepared to show that there was an agreement between his client and certain other Directors that he should be made one of the firm of managing agents to be constituted for managing the Company, and that it was on this understanding that he signed the memorandum of association and the prospectus. He says that a draft deed of partnership between certain persons and himself as managing agents was drawn up and signed by himself and the other four persons, and that it was well understood that the memorandum of association which he signed as a promoter...
Emperor Vs. Shera and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All207; 108Ind.Cas.225
Walsh, J.1. The following question has been referred by a Bench of two Judges, who were considering a reference under Section 307, Criminal P.C., where the Sessions Judge had referred the matter because he disagreed with the verdict of acquittal by the jury:Where a jury has given its verdict on the facts of the case, is it open to this Court to revise that verdict on a reference by the trial Judge made under Section 307, Criminal P.C., where it is not alleged that there has been any misdirection by the Judge or any misunderstanding by the jury of the law as laid down by the Judge.2. The reason for the appointment of the Full Bench constituted to answer that question is given in the opinion delivered by the two Judges. They felt a difficulty owing to the presence of the word 'subject thereto' in Section 307, Criminal P.C., referring, as these words undoubtedly do, to the powers which a High Court, may exercise on an appeal. Finding that in hearing an appeal, an appellate Court is govern...
Lala Singh Vs. Raghubir NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All366
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for the ejectment of the defendant in the civil Court on the ground that the defendant was a trespasser. The defence was that he was a tenant of the plaintiff. In para. 13 of the written statement it was further submitted that a suit was pending at the time in the revenue Court as between the parties to determine their relative position with respect to the land and that, therefore, the civil suit should he stayed under Section 10, Civil P.C. The Court granted this request and trial was proceeded with after the defendant's suit was finally rejected by the revenue Court. The defendant had sued in the revenue Court for a declaration that he was an occupancy tenant of the land in suit.2. Both the Subordinate Courts decreed the suit and granted damages for crops of two seasons reaped by the defendant. In the grounds of appeal no question is raised that the trial Court ought to have taken proceedings under Section 202, Tenancy Act. This argument was advanced f...
Mohan Singh and ors. Vs. Jagat Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All299
Dalal, J.1. The question to be decided here is whether limitation of an application for execution filed in the Court of Small Causes on 13th February 1925, was saved or not by action taken by the decree-holder in earlier years. That Court passed the money decree on 2nd June 1920. The first execution application was presented by the original decree-holder on 16th November 1921, and the application was transferred to the Court of the regular Munsif of Fatehabad on 17th November 1921. During the pendency of proceedings in the Fatehabad Court the decree-holder died and his successors-in-interest, Durga Prasad and others, applied to that Court on 18th February 1922, for substitution of their names in place of that of the original decree-holder and for continuation of execution proceedings. They deposited process fee for service of notices on the judgment-debtors on 21st March 1922, and notices were issued. On 16th April 1922, the Fatehabad Court directed substitution of names and amended th...
Bhaja Vs. Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All310
Banerji, J.1. The first point raised in this revision is that the acknowledgment of the liability, which is based on a statement in a criminal Court made on 6th April, was a valid acknowledgment in law. Section 19, Lim. Act, makes it perfectly clear that an acknowledgment must be signed by a person making it. The original record of the criminal case is not before me. The finding of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes is that this acknowledgment does not bear the signature of the defendant. My attention has been drawn to the case reported in (1891) P.R. 16. That case is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the deposition bore a mark of a clerk of the Court as the mark of the defendant, who was an illiterate man. The Court held that the clerk was a duly authorized agent, and such an acknowledgment was considered a good acknowledgment. I am, therefore, of opinion that there is no force in the contention of the learned vakil for the petitioner.2. With regard to the t...
Jai NaraIn Rai and anr. Vs. Baijnath Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All419a; 108Ind.Cas.449
Mukerji, J.1. The appellants in this appeal were the plaintiffs in the Court below. The pedigree at p. 11 of the printed record will show that the sons of Baldeo Rai are the plaintiffs. The son of Akalu Rai, who is a descendant of Tirlok Rai, the plaintiffs' paternal uncle, is the defendant first party. The defendants second party are two ladies. One Mt. Bartana Kunwar, who has at some places been described as Mt. Birta Kunwar, is the widow of Nakchhedi Rai, who represented the first branch of Fateh Narain Rai's descendants. Mt. Sheodasi, defendant 2 in the second party is the widow of Deo Narain Rai who was a brother of Akalu Rai.2. The plaintiffs' case was that they and defendant 1 formed a joint Hindu family and the defendants second party were ladies of the joint family and as such had no Interest in the joint family property. According to the custom of the country and for the consolation of their own, the names of the ladies were entered in the revenue papers. Some people who want...
Bohra Tula Ram Vs. Bohra Dwarka Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All248
Ashworth, J.1. This is a reference by the taxing officer for a decision as to the proper Court-fee to be paid in a suit out of which has arisen F.A. No. 322 of 1925. According to the plaint the plaintiff and his nephew were coparceners in respect of certain property. On 15th September 1913 the nephew, Roshan Lal, executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of defendant 1. On the death of Roshan Lal, some eight 'or nine months later, the mortgagee brought a suit for foreclosurs against Mt. Kausilya, widow of Roshan Lal, and got a decree. The plaintiff asks for a declaration that the mortgage-deed was void and ineffectual as Roshan Lal had no right to transfer the family property. There is no statement in the plaint whether Roshan Lal was the manager or not of the family. The second relief claimed possession of the property.2. Now in a suit for possession it is not necessary for the plaintiff to sue for a declaration as to his title. At any rate in a suit of this nature for possession it ...
Bibi Ahmadi Begam Vs. Dhan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All365
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal and the connected appeals, Nos. 1008-1014, are very similar in facts. The plaintiff-appellant is the same. The defendants-respondents are different. The appeals have arisen from suits for recovery of arrears of rent instituted by the plaintiff-appellant, against the several defendants-respondents. The point to be decided is the same in all these cases and the judgment in this case will govern the remaining, appeals.2. It appears that the plaintiff-appellant is the landholder under whom the several defendants-respondents held land under leases for a term of seven years. The terms were to expire with 1325 Fasli. Settlement operations began in the village and these were to come into effect from 1326 Fasli. During the course of the settlement operations in the year 1323 Fasli tenants were brought in to examine the entries that were being made in the record-of-rights and to attest the same in case they had no objection to offer. In the course of these proceedings t...
Mt. Deoki and ors. Vs. Jwala Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All679; 113Ind.Cas.737
Sulaiman, J.1. This is aU270496n application for an amendment of our decree. It appears that in a partition suit the claim was decreed and in its judgment the Court below directed that mesne profits should be ascertained in the execution department. This direction was not incorporated in the decree which was prepared by the Court below. The defendants appealed to the High Court but the plaintiffs did not file any cross-objection. On the date when the appeal came up for hearing the defendants withdrew their appeal without liberty to institute a fresh appeal. They were made to pay the costs of the opposite party. An oral request was made at that time for the amendment of the decree of the Court below which we declined to entertain at that stage.2. In our opinion when the appeal was withdrawn the order which we passed on that occasion granting permission to withdraw the appeal under Order 23, Rule 1. was not a decree so as to supersede the decree of the Court below. When an appellate Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »