Allahabad Court November 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.
Bansi Kurmi and ors. Vs. Sukh Mangal Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All125; 114Ind.Cas.41
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs zamindar sued for the demolition of a certain construction made by the defendant-tenants on a plot of land in front of their house. This plot of land No. 149, is a court-yard (sahan) of the defendants. The defence was that an old cattle-shed existed on the land, and that the present construction was made in place of the old construction. The old construction, it was alleged, was a cattle-shed. The lower appellate Court held as a finding of fact that no old construction existed there, that the land was used by the defendant-tenants as their sahan (court-yard), and that the present construction in dispute was entirely a new building constructed on an open plot of land. The claim was for demolition of the building, and, rightly, not for the possession of the land on which the construction is made. The zamindar is prepared to permit the defendants to use the land as heretofore as their court-yard.2. It was argued that granting that the piece of land was the court...
Parshadi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All160
1. The facts of this case are set out in the judgment of Mr. Ardagh, the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur, very clearly and there is only one comment in regard to the views expressed by him that we shall have to make.2. The facts are very clear, and if there is any point apparently established by the evidence for the prosecution which does not in fact represent the truth the accused have only themselves to blame for it. They have set up foolish defences of alibi, in one case supported by evidence that is most probably fabricated. We have therefore no assistance from them to enable us to determine exactly what happened. It is clearly established by the evidence for the prosecution that certain residents of village Gour went to fish in a tank within the limits of 'village Sherapur. While they were fishing they were deliberately attacked by certain of the villagers of Sherapur who pretended to think that they had a grievance against the Gaur villagers for fishing in the tank and who were de...
Chhotkan Kurmi Vs. Ram Deo. Sahu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All76
Mukerji, J.1. The respondents instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen against the appellant on the ground that they have erected a building on a piece of vacant land within the zamindari of the plaintiffs and without their permission. The prayer was that the plaintiffs should be restored to possession after demolition of the constructions. The defence, as usual in these cases, was that the construction was very old and the plaintiffs were estopped from maintaining the suit, evidently on the ground that the building was old. There is also a plea that the land was appurtenant to the holding. Both the Courts have decreed the suit. They have, however, found that the land, being in front of the defendant's house, was used by him for agricultural purposes, e.g., tying of cattle and so forth. In this Court it has been contended that the land being a part of the holding the defendant was entitled to improve it by erecting buildings, as provided by Clause (12), Sub-clause (d), S...
Shiam Lal and anr. Vs. Mt. Hukum Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All100; 113Ind.Cas.832
Mukerji, J.1. Two points have been argued in this appeal. One is one of limitation and the other as to the nature of possession held by the defendant-appellants. The fourth ground of appeal could not be explained to me and it must therefore be taken that it was abandoned. The admitted facts are very briefly these: Certain persons, who occupied the position of co-mortgagors, and who were seven in number, sought the redemption of an ancient mortgage, made sometime in 1868. The suit succeeded and it was ordered that on payment of the mortgage money, the then plaintiffs would be put in possession of the property and in case of their failure to pay, the suit would stand dismissed. It so happened that only four out of the seven plaintiffs deposited the entire mortgage-money. The result was that those four plaintiffs, who deposited the mortgage-money, came into possession of the entire property mortgaged in 1868. It is admitted before me, with respect to a portion of the property redeemed, th...
Bhagat Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All114
1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Moradabad. We are now at 26th November 1928, and these proceedings have dragged along from 22nd December 1925, very nearly three years. This has been almost entirely due to the fact that the Joint Magistrate of Moradabad in February 1926, passed at the outset an order directing the opposite party to cease excavating and burning bricks and to fill up the existing pits, without taking the trouble to read the section under which he had to proceed. The result was that this Court set aside the proceedings, and a fresh notice had to issue. This notice was issued on the 1st April 1926, by Mr. Sayid Abu Mohamad, again a Magistrate of the First Class who did not take the trouble to see that the notice he issued conformed to the terms of one or other of the paragraphs in Section 133. The result of this omission of both Courts to be precise as to the law under which they were proceeding has led to much waste of time and trouble, and has also made ...
Kali Prasad Tewari Vs. Parmeshwar Prasad Marwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All127; 113Ind.Cas.767
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The suit had been adjourned on several occasions on account of the nonpayment of process-fee by the plaintiff. On 7th December 1927, the Court dismissed the suit for the plaintiff's default of the payment of the process fee. The expression used by the learned Judge was 'thrown out for plaintiff's default.' On 13th February 1928, the plaintiff applied under Order 9, Rule 4, Civil P.C., for the setting aside of the dismissal. The report of the office also indicated that the suit had been dismissed on account of the nonpayment of the process-fee. On 24th February 1928, the suit was restored to its original number on the file and on that date the process fee was paid by the plaintiff. Although the language used by the Judge of Small Cause Court was not explicit there is no doubt that the suit was dismissed on account of the nonpayment of the process fee. The plaintiff himself treat...
Chhotkan Kutmi Vs. Ram Deo Sahu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.756
Mukerji, J.1. The respondents instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen against the appellant on the ground that they have erected a building on a piece of vacant land within the zemindari of the plaintiffs and without their permission The prayer was that the plaintiffs should be restored to possession after demolition of the constructions.2. The defence, as usual in these cases, was that the construction was very old and the plaintiffs were estopped from maintaining the suit evidently on the ground that the building was old. There is also a plea that the land was appurtenant to the holding. Both the Courts have decreed the suit. They have however, found that the land, being in front of the defendant's house, was used by him for agricultural purposes, e.g., tying of cattle and so forth.3. In this Court it has been contended that the land being a part of the holding the defendant was entitled to improve it by erecting buildings, as provided by Clause (12), Sub-clause (d), ...
Ganga Dihal Rai Vs. Ram Oudh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All79; 113Ind.Cas.760
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings which were objected to by the judgment-debtor. The appellant Ganga Dihal had obtained a decree for costs against Ram Oudh and others jointly. He applied for execution of this decree principally against Ram Oudh the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor filed an objection to the application for execution pleading that the decree had been adjusted out of Court, and in that very objection prayed that the payment of the decree may be caused to be certified by the decree-holder. The Court below has held that the objection can be entertained and has found in favour of the objector and dismissed the application.2. The first point raised before me is that the prayer for adjustment should have been made before the application for execution was filed and that the payment ought to have been certified and recorded in a separate proceeding previous to the execution application. Strong reliance is placed on the case of Baijn...
(Sahu) Munna Lal Vs. Tara and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All83
Dalal, J.1. The trial Court of the Assistant Collector purported to dismiss a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21. The suit was undefended but the Court directed the plaintiff to produce his account-books. This order was presumably passed under the provisions of Rule 14, which makes it lawful for a Court at any time during the pendency of any suit to order the production by any party thereto upon oath of such of the documents in his possession as the Court shall think right. There was no application by the defendants that the account-books were wanted for inspection. Apart from other reasons which I shall state presently the order of the Assistant Collector was beyond his jurisdiction because the provisions of Rule 21 imply action to be taken by a defendant. The penalty is not imposed on disobedience of an order of a Court because the penalty follows, on the party who seeks this remedy applying to the Court for an order to dismiss a suit o...
Sahu Munnalal Vs. Tara and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.464
Dalal, J.1. The trial Court of the Assistant Collector purported to dismiss a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent under the provisions of Order XI, Rule 21. The suit was undefended but the Court directed the plaintiff to produce his account-books. This order was presumably passed under the provisions of Rule 14, which makes it lawful for a Court at any time during the pendency of any suit to order the production by any party thereto upon oath of such of the documents in his possession as the Court shall think right. There was no application by the defendants that the account-books were wanted for inspection. Apart from other reasons which I shall state presently the order of the Assistant Collector was beyond his jurisdiction because the provisions of Rule 21 imply action to be taken by a defendant. The penalty is not imposed on disobedience of an order of a Court because the penalty follows on the party who seeks this remedy applying to the Court for an order to dismiss a suit or...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »