Allahabad Court May 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.
Debi Singh Vs. Ramcharan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All419; 113Ind.Cas.768
ORDER1. This is an application by a complainant in a criminal case asking for an enhancement of the sentence of an accused person who was convicted and whose conviction was upheld in the appellate Court. The appellate Court has pointed out that no fine has been inflicted, with the result that the complainant could get no compensation, and was apparently also of opinion that the sentence of imprisonment was inadequate. On the face of it, it appears one of those disgraceful agency swindles of confidence trick type which are so common in this country. That being prima facie the case we think that the sentence is wholly inadequate, and moreover that a heavy sentence of fine might well have been inflicted and the complainant given some liberal compensation therefrom. There is at this stage no longer any question of any argument being possible that it was a civil matter. It has been tried out in both the lower Courts and it has been found that the accused did commit a crime. Let notice issue...
Sher Singh and ors. Vs. Basdeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All612; 110Ind.Cas.712
Weir, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit brought to recover one-half of the property of one Durjansal Singh. On the death of the survivor of Durjansal Singh's widow and daughters his two nearest relations were a nephew, the plaintiff, son of Maharaj Singh, (who was the elder brother of Durjansal Singh) and a grand-nephew, the defendant, son of Pokhpal Singh, (a younger son of Maharaj Singh). The plaintiff and defendant are entered in the khewat as equal owners of Durjansal Singh's zamindari property. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to the whole of Durjansal Singh's property as the nearer sapinda, but counsel for the defendant contends that since the plaintiff and the defendant are in the same group, or class, of sapindas [see Buddhu Singh v. Laltu Singh A.I.R. 1915 P.C. 70] the principle of representation applies, and the defendant is entitled to the share which would have gone to his father, Pokhpal Singh, if the latter had been alive when the inheritance opened.2. Counse...
Puttu Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All667; 110Ind.Cas.407
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff has filed cross-objections as regards costs. There is only one point that arises in this case, namely, whether the Court below was justified in deducting from the amount of the pre-emption money interest on a sum which was left in the hands of the appellants for payment of a prior mortgage. It appears that on the 5th December 1923, there was a mortgage executed by the vendors in favour of the appellants and others. Subsequently on the 16th February 1924, the sale-deed in question was executed by the mortgagors in favour of the defendants and other people for a sum of Rs. 9,500. The deed contained a specification that the present appellants would acquire only one-fourth of the property transferred. Rupees 1,680-15-0 which represented half the amount due on the mortgage of 1923, were left in the hands of the present appellants for discharge of the previous mortgage. As they themselves were the mortgagees...
Badri Pandey Vs. Parsotam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All697; 110Ind.Cas.869
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. A sale-deed was executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant 3 was a recorded cosharer. Defendant 2 is his brother, but not recorded as a cosharer. Perhaps to avoid future complication defendant 2 executed a deed of sale of his interest in favour of defendant 3. This was prior to the institution of the present suit.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, holding that at the time the suit was brought the plaintiff had no preferential right as against defendant 3, who had by that time acquired the entire interest.3. The lower appellate Court has reversed that decree, holding that defendant 3, a cosharer, having joined with him a person who was not a cosharer, has irrevocably lost his right to resist the claim. We are unable to accept this view.4. Section 20, which re-affirms the previous rule, makes it quite clear that if on the date the suit was brought the property has been transferr...
Boulton Bros. and Co. Ltd (India) Delhi Vs. New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All87
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant Messrs. Boulton Bros. & Co. (India) Ltd., against the defendant, The New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd., for certain reliefs on the basis of a contract of agency entered into by the parties, under which the plaintiff company were made the managing agents of the defendant company.2. The plaintiff company came into existence early in 1921 with its office at No. 10 Alipore Road, Delhi. Although it was a separate legal entity having been incorporated in India (as its name indicates) under the Indian Companies Act of 1918 it may be regarded as an Indian branch of the English Company, Messrs. 'Boulton Bros. Ltd.' which was considered a few years before as a premier business concern with a well-established reputation in high commercial circles. The Memorandum of Association issued by the plaintiff company advertised as one of its objects the carrying on ofall kinds of agency business in relation to the investment of money, the sa...
Boulation Bro thers and Co. Ltd., (India) Delhi Vs. the New Victoria M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.837
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant Messis. Boulton Brothers & Company (India) Ltd., against the defendant The New 'Victoria Mills Company Ltd., for certain reliefs on the basis of a contract of agency entered into by the parties under which the plaintiff Company were made the Managing Agents of the defendant Comply.2. The plaintiff Company came into existence early in 1921 with it's office et No. 10, Alipore Road Delhi. Although it was a separate legal entity having been incorporated in India (as its name indicates) under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 it may be regarded as an Indian branch of the English Company, Messrs. 'Boulton Brothers Ltd.' which was considered a few years before as a premier business concern with a well-established reputation in high commercial circles. The Memorandum of Association issued by the plaintiff Company advertised as one of its objects the carrying on of 'all kinds of agency business in relation to the investment o...
Emperor Vs. Dukhu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All321
1. This is an application under Section 339(3), Criminal P.C. by the Public Prosecutor for sanction for the prosecution of one Dukhu or Dukha to whom pardon was tendered by a Magistrate and against whom the Public Prosecutor now desires to bring a charge of giving false evidence in respect of two contradictory statements. The first argument that was advanced by the learned Counsel for Dukhu was to the effect that the pardon was irregular because the Magistrate did not record his reasons for granting the pardon under Section 337(1)(a), Criminal P.C. The Magistrate has recorded reasons to the following effect in his order dated 10th November 1927:The accused Dukhu an under-trial in this case has stated before me that if he is to be given a pardon he would make a full and correct disclosure of the facts of the case as they happened. The Court, therefore, in exercise of its powers under Section 337, Criminal P.C. tenders a pardon to the said Dukhu on condition etc.2. The reason has been fa...
Dharam Prakash Vs. Mt. Kalawati Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All459; 110Ind.Cas.665
1. This is an appeal by one Dharam Prakash, minor under the guardianship of his natural mother Mt. Chandrawati, against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, dated 21st May 1925, decreeing the claim of the plaintiff Srimati Kalawati Devi for a declaration that Dharam Prakash, the defendant, was not the adopted son of the plaintiff and that his adoption was invalid.2. Lala Ram Saran Das owned considerable property, moveable and immovable. He died in December 1896 leaving two widows, Mt. Basanti and Mt. Kalawati Devi, and a mother, Mt. Bhawan Kuer. Shortly before his death he executed a will on 6th December 1896 under which he made Mt. Kalawati the absolute owner of his entire property and gave her a right to sell, mortgage, donate or otherwise transfer the property in any way she liked. He also authorized Mt. Kalawati 'to adopt, when she wished, any boy' of her choice, and if the adopted son died, he empowered her to adopt a second and a third boy in succession. He also fixed...
Walidad Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All660; 110Ind.Cas.223
Dalal, J.1. I have informed the learned Government Advocate that I am determined to enforce the mandatory provisions of a statute, and shall transfer the hearing of a case from any Magistrate who appears to disobey a statutory mandate. In the present case there was an application for transfer put in before the District Magistrate who dismissed it on 20th April 1928. On 23rd April the applicant applied to the Deputy Magistrate for postponement in order to move this Court for transfer. The Deputy Magistrate had the temerity to refuse this application. This flagrant disobedience of a statutory mandate is sufficient, in my opinion, to entitle the applicant to obtain a transfer of the case from this Magistrate. There can be no doubt whatsoever as to the interpretation of Clause (8), Section 526:If, in the course of any inquiry or trial... the accused notifies to the Court before which the case... is pending his intention to make an application under this section in respect of such case... t...
Madan Lal and anr. Vs. Mt. Gur Dassi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All650; 110Ind.Cas.376
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff produced a will executed by Mt. Gaya Sundari Devi in favour of Mt. Hari Dasi, and she also produced a will purporting to have been executed by Mt. Hari Dasi in her own favour. The defendants appear to have led evidence in the Court of first instance to show that in the lifetime of Hari Dasi the defendants' father was a tenant on behalf of Prem Ballabh on whose behalf he is still holding the property, and that Mt. Hari Dasi was not the owner of the house. The Court of first instance decreed the claim and that decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has distinctly found that the plaintiff's father took this house on rent from Hari Dasi. It has, therefore, rightly held that the defendants cannot be allowed to deny the title of Hari Dasi to the house in suit. But before the lower appellate Court it was further pressed on behalf of the defendants that Mt. Gaya Sundari Devi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »