Allahabad Court June 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.
Banke Lal Vs. Bhola Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All416
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application asking to extend the period of limitation under Section 5, Lim. Act, in the case of a second appeal.2. The appeal itself was filed just within time, but there was no copy of the first Court judgment attached to the memorandum of appeal. This copy was filed on 23rd April 1928.3. The applicant made his application for a copy of the first Court's judgment on 23rd February 1928 and the copy was not ready till 16th April 1928, i.e., it took nearly two months to prepare the copy. If we exclude this period the appeal would be amply within time.4. It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondent, under the authority of Narsingh Sahai v. Sheo Prasad [1917] 40 All. 1, that under Section 12, Lim. Act, the period occupied in obtaining a copy of the judgment of the first Court cannot be excluded. This may be perfectly good law but the fact does remain that the High Court insists on a copy of the first Court's judgment being filed, and it is therefore necess...
Emperor Vs. Tika Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All680
Boys, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government. A citation, Ex. A in the case, under 8. 147, U.P. Land Revenue Act of 1901, was served upon Tika Ram the opposite party in the present case. He failed to appear on the date fixed, 11th March at noon and the criminal prosecution out of which these proceedings arose was instituted against him under the first part of Section 174, I.P.C. The citation was dated 25th February 1927, but admittedly it was not served on the accused until 5 p.m. on 10th March 1927. Tika Ram admitted that the citation was served on him but stated that his village was 15 kos from the tahsil and that he fell ill of the evening of 10th March and could not attend or pay the revenue. He tendered no proof that he was ill, and, so far as the evidence on the record goes the process server stated that he was not ill at 5.p.m. on 10th March. Tika Ram further did not offer any proof that his village was 15 kos distant from the tahsil, nor, except by implication...
Emperor Vs. Lachmi Datt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All672
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. Lachmi Dat was a combatant driver in the 14 Infantry Brigade Transport Company. He was also attached as orderly to Risaldar Lal Singh. It is alleged that he dishonestly abstracted notes of the value of Rs. 4,000 from a steel trunk over which he had been ordered to keep guard, and then bolted away. After considerable difficulty he was arrested at Rangoon and brought over to these Provinces and charged under Section 408, I.P.C. The Magistrate took evidence and committed him to the Court of Sessions. The military authorities considered that this was a case for trial by a military Court, and requested the Sessions Judge to hand over the prisoner to them. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to the High Court with a recommendation that the commitment be quashed. In the meantime he has taken steps to hand the accused over to the military authorities.2. Criminal breach of trust by a servant is an offence triable both by military and criminal Courts, but the ...
Bhola Ram Vs. Dhani Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All25
1. The circumstances which led to the institution of the suit out of which the present second appeal by the plaintiff has arisen are as follows:2. Mt. Saro Kunwar who originally owned the property in dispute-shares in two villages in Hamirpur District-made a gift of the same by a deed dated the 12th June 1894, to Mt. Budhia Kuar, then aged 10, about eleven days before the latter's marriage with Baldeo Prasad, a man of fifty and a brother of Mt. Saro Kuar who appears to be a lady possessed of extensive properties. It was due to her position and efforts that an unequal match of that kind was agreed to by the bride's parents who were themselves of limited means. Accordingly the marriage was celebrated and in due course mutation of names was effected in favour of Mt. Budhia Kuar. She died as a childless widow on 16th March 1912, Baldeo having predeceased her. On her death mutation of names was effected in favour of Mt. Saro Kuar, who later on made a gift of it to Dhani Ram, the defendant-r...
Rangacharya and ors. Vs. Guru Revti Raman Acharya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All689; 114Ind.Cas.734
1. This is a special appeal in Suit No. 111 of 1923 instituted by Guru Reoti Raman Acharya against Jaistha Madhav Acharya and seven others, and relates to the temple of Thakur Gat Shram Narainji Maharaj, situate in Muhallah Gat Shram Tila, in the city of Muttra.2. The temple is said to have been founded by the great scholar and theologian Pandit Prannath Shastri in the early part of the 19th century. The history of the endowment is not preserved in any written record. The administration of the temple property was for a long time in the hands of Raja Pitambar Singh of Avagarh. On 26th March 1850 dispute having arisen amongst the heirs of the founder, the matter was referred to arbitration. An award was made on 26th March 1850 which directed that half the income of the temple property should be spent towards the expenses of the worship of the idol, the payment of the salary of the servants and the maintenance of vaisnava acharis, and that the other half of the income was divisible amongs...
Nanhu Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All706
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B, Criminal P. C, and has arisen under the following circumstances;2. Certain persons, Man Singh and others, were being tried before an Honorary Magistrate Mr. Puech, An application to transfer the case from the Court of Mr. Puech to some other Court was made on behalf of the accused persons and in support of that application one Nanhu Singh, the appellant before me filed an affidavit. In that affidavit he made various statements. The District Magistrate transferred the case from the file of Mr. Puech to a Stipendiary Magistrate. Badhu Mal, the complainant at whose instance the criminal case was pending filed a petition before the District Magistrate asking him to file a complaint for the prosecution of Nanhu Singh on the ground that he made various false statements. Badhu Mal enumerated these false statements and these were according to him to be found in paras. 2, 7 and 8 of the affidavit. The District Magistrate directed the Stipendi...
Mahadeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Badri Das Ramsarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All740; 110Ind.Cas.881
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application on the revisional side of the High Court by the plaintiffs of a certain suit against a decree made on 14th June 1927 by the Subordinate Judge of Basti.2. It appears that two plaintiffs, one of whom is an applicant in this Court and the other of whom having died, is now represented by the remaining two applicants in this Court, instituted the suit out of which these proceedings have arisen, for recovery of a large sum of money amounting to nearly Rs. 20,000 from the defendants. After the trial began, the parties agreed to refer their difference to the arbitration of three gentlemen, namely, Jokhai Ram, Jainarayan Ram and Ram Kumar Marwari (the latter being the President of the Board of Arbitrators). An order of reference to the arbitrators was made by the learned Subordinate Judge on the day the petition was filed, namely, 28th January 1927. 26th February 1927 was fixed by the Judge for the submission of the award. By a petition dated 23rd February 1...
Ram Charan Lal and ors. Vs. Ghafoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All31
Weir, J.1. In this case it was objected before the lower appellate Court that the appeal was not in time; and sustaining the objection, the Court dismissed the appeal. The facts are that the judgment in the suit was delivered on 29th May 1925. The month of June was vacation, and the Court did not reopen till the 6th July on which date a memorandum of appeal was filed with a copy of the judgment but without any copy of the decree against which the appeal was taken. On the 10th July an order was passed allowing the appellants time up to the 15th July for obtaining and filing a copy of the decree. On the 11th July the appellants applied for a copy of the decree, which was not delivered to them till the 16th July. In the meantime the appellants had obtained a further extension of time up to the 21st July, on which date they presented a copy of the decree. The next material date is 27th July 1925, on which date the following order was passed:As parentage of the parties has been filed in Eng...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›