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.
Shankar Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All201
Dalal, J.1. Reference should be made to my order dated 15th October last. At that time I was impressed by the point made by the District Magistrate that the notifications of 1872 and 1877 were not rescinded by the Municipal Board of Moradabad which cancelled all its bye-laws relating to religious processions in 1927. The Superintendent of Police of Moradabad issued an order under Section 30, Act 5 of 1861, during the Holi of this year on 3rd March 1928 that no crowds attended by music shall pass within the inhabited parts of the city. There is a finding of fact that the large number of applicants whose case is before me in revision did pass through a locality in the Moradabad City known as katghar during the Holi in a procession accompanied with music. The applicants have been convicted and fined under Section 188, I.P.C. for disobeying an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order. The lawful authority of the Superintendent of Police in Moradabad...
Ganga DIn and anr. Vs. Piyare
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All63; 113Ind.Cas.767
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They purchased certain zamindari rights and also mesne profits admittedly payable by defendant 1, to the plaintiffs' vendors. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit succeeded in the Court of first instance. On appeal the learned District Judge dismissed the suit, so far as it claimed mesne profits, on the ground that transfer of mesne profits was a transfer of a 'mere rights to sue' and was therefore invalid in law, having regard to the provisions of Section 6, T.P. Act.2. With all respects to the learned Judges who decided the case of K. Seetamma v. P. Venkatramanayya [1913] 38 Mad. 308, I am unable to hold that a right to claim mesne profits is a mere right to sue within the meaning of Section 6, T.P. Act. I may point out that in the Madras High Court itself the soundness of this decision has been doubted in Venkatara...
Banarsi Das and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All84; 113Ind.Cas.764
ORDERDalal, J.1. An Indian, a police constable was complainant in this case and one of the accused was a European of the name of Mr. Marshall. In the first complaint Mr. Marshall was made the principal offender. On an application by him the Magistrate recorded a finding under Section 443(1), Criminal P.C., that the case was one which ought to be tried under the provisions of Chap. 33. Subsequently the Magistrate by an exceedingly summary order discharged Mr. Marshall on 18th September, and assumed jurisdiction himself to try the Indians who were prosecuted along with Mr. Marshall. Under Section 446, Criminal P.C., where a Magistrate decides under Section 443, that a case ought to be tried under the provisions of Chap. 33, and the case is a warrant case, the Magistrate enquiring into the case shall if he does not discharge the accused under Section 209 or Section 253, commit the case for trial to the Court of sessions whether the case is or is not exclusively triable by that Court. The ...
Darshan Singh and ors. Vs. Wali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All102
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. The estate originally belonged to one Rai Singh who died in the year 1876. Some time before his death he had made a will, the contents of which are to be found in an application made by him on 7th October 1876, to the revenue Court. Under that will he left his moveable and immovable properties including, village Mainakot which is in dispute in this appeal to his widows and after the death of the surviving widow to one Ram Lal whom he had brought up as a son. He declared that Ram Lal would be the owner of the property after his death. He then went on to provide that he who is Ram Lal's son would be the owner of the estate after Ram Lal; and if there be no son to Ram Lal, Dilsukh Singh, Hori Lal, Lachhman Singh, Lal Singh and the widow of Dilsukh Singh would be the heirs and owners of the estate Ram Lal appears to have died about the years 1897-1898 without there having been any son born to him. By that tim...
Tripathi Anand Nath Tewari and ors. Vs. Jokhu Kurmi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.757
Mukerji, J.1. These are two connected appeals and arise out of two different suits instituted by the appellants in one case and the respondents in the other under the following circumstances:2. The Original Suit No. 103 of 1925 was instituted on 2nd February, 1925, by Jokhu Kurmi and out of this the Appeal No. 1113 of 1926 arises. Suit No. 345 of 1925 was instituted by the appellants in Second Appeal No. 1120 of 1926. The memorandum of appeal however, is incorrectly drawn up and it describes the appellants as the defendants. The learned Counsel for the appellants has been permitted to correct that memorandum of appeal. The office will accordingly correct the first page of the paper-book and also the eatrie3 in the register of appeals.3. The plaintiff in the earlier suit Jokhu Kurmi brought his suit on certain allegations which were subsequently changed. His original allegation was that he was in possession of a certain site and certain buildings thereon, adversely to the defendants in ...
Bansi Ram and ors. Vs. B.N.W. Ry. Co., and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All124; 113Ind.Cas.752
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is a revision from a decree of Court of Small Causes dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for damages against the defendant railway company. A consignment consisting of three bundles of corrugated iron sheets was despatched from Calcutta to Deoria. Its weight as noted at Calcutta was 8 maunds 4 seers. The consignment when weighed at its place of destination was found to be 2 maunds 7 seers short in weight. The plaintiffs took delivery under protest.2. The Court below has dismissed the claim holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove wilful negligence of the defendant or misconduct of the servants of the defendant.3. The risk-note which has to be considered is in form A, as recently amended. It is used when articles are tendered for carriage which are either already in bad condition or so defectively packed as to be liable to damage, leakage or wastage in transit. The consignor admitted that the goods were in such condition and agreed to hold the railway compan...
Mt. Sarwari Begam Vs. Mt. Razia Khatun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All158
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption under the Mahomedan law. Four items of properties were sold under the sale-deed. The plaintiff's evidence was that she made the two preliminary:,demands in respect of the properties sold but the vendee refused to give the properties to her. At the time of the institution of the suit she left out one item and half of another item on the allegation that she herself was their owner and she asked for a declaration to that effect. The first Court dismissed her claim for preemption on the ground that it was not proved that the demands necessary under the Mahomedan law were made. He granted her a decree as regards the portion claimed by her as her own property. The lower appellate Court has upheld the finding that she was the owner of that portion of the properties which had been excluded from the suit and has further held that she made the two necessary demands. So far as the finding that the demands were actually made is ...
Ram Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. Muhammad Salim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All339
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council by certain persons, who were defendants, in a suit instituted by one Mohammad Salim, for a declaration that he had a certain right with respect to the sacrifice of cows in a certain village and for injunctions. The suit failed in the Court of first instance but has succeeded in this Court. The Court granted a declaration with certain safeguards and the injunctions prayed for.2. As already stated, the defendants have made this application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The question is whether that leave should be granted. It is conceded that the valuation of the suit was below Rs. 10,000 and, therefore, it is impossible to say that the subject-matter involves directly or indirectly property of the value of Rs. 10,000. Mr. Banerji, who appears for the applicants, has contented himself with putting the case under Clause (c), Section 109, Civil P.C. His contention is that the matter is of gen...
Mohammad Ali HusaIn Khan Vs. Rameshwar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.746
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of lambardari dues under Section 159 of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1901. The Court of first instance relying upon two cases of this Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. The learned Additional District Judge has reversed that decree. He has in no way tried to refer to the cases or to distinguish them.2. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is the lambardar in this mohal duly appointed by the Board of Revenue. Under the Rules made by the Board of Revenue--paras. 22 and 23--if there is no amount of remuneration fixed by agreement, the lambardar is entitled to get 5 per cent. upon the land revenue payable by the co-sharers. The learned Judge has referred to an entry in the old wajib ul-arz of 1285 Fasli (1878) which according to him is at least not very clear. As proof of any existing agreement between the co-sharers that entry is worthless as the period of the settlement has expired. There is n...
Ram Saran Das Vs. Bhagwat Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All53; 113Ind.Cas.442
Boys, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:Whether on a true interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 the defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption, which undoubtedly existed at the date of the institution of the suit, by acquisition of an interest equal or superior to plaintiff's in the mahal after the institution of the suit but prior to the passing of the decree by the first Court2. The reference to Section 19 in the question is inserted in manuscript after the referring order was typed. This subsequent insertion we note only because the discussion of the question in the referring order is confined to the effect of Section 20 of the Act, and no opinion has been expressed in that referring order in regard to the effect of Section 19.3. We have, however, manifestly to consider both sections. In the present case the facts are that Ramsarup on 26th March 1924, sold a zamindari house to the defendant Ramsaran Das ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »