Allahabad Court July 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.
Krishnapal Singh and ors. Vs. District Judge of Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All582
1. This is an appeal from a decree and order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. The plaintiff-respondents are the members of the committee of management of the Balwant Rajput High School Agra, and the defendants are the three sons of the late Thakur Dhyan Pal Singh who was secretary of that committee. The circumstances that led up to the suit were briefly these: In 1915 the Government made a grant of Rs. 90,000 to the committee to be expended on the school on condition that the money should be placed in deposit with the Bank of Bengal and should not be utilized till schemes had been prepared (after consultation between the managing committee of the school and Government) to which the committee and Government should have assented. The work was held up during the war but on 16th October 1920, Dhyan Pal Singh, the secretary of the committee represented to them that Rs. 60,000 of this grant had been invested in the three years war loan the p...
Toshanpal Singh and ors. Vs. District Judge of Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.748
1. This is an appeal from a decree and order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. The plaintiffe-respondents are the members of the Committee of management of the Balwant Rajput High School Agra, and the defendants are the three sons of the late Thakur Dhyan Pal Singh, who was Secretary of that Committee. The circumstances that led tip to the suit were briefly these: In 1915 the Government made a grant of Rs. 90,000 to the Committee to be expended on the school on condition that the money should be placed in deposit with the Bank of Bengal and should not be utilised till schemes had been prepared (after consultation between the Managing Committee of the School and Government) to which the Committee and Government should have assented. The work was held up during the war but on the 16th of October, 1920, Dhyan Pal Singh, the Secretary of the Committee, represented to them that Rs. 60,000 of this grant had been invested in the three years' ...
Ram Kishun Vs. Lalta Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All527
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a certain house is not liable to be attached and sold in certain execution proceedings, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the principal defendants from taking any such proceedings.2. It appears that one Murtaza Khan obtained a decree for sale against Bandhan. In execution of the decree the mortgaged property was sold and purchased by Lalta Singh, defendant 1. This defendant deposited the money in Court and Murtaza Khan withdrew the amount. Subsequently a minor Ram Prasad brought a suit for setting aside the sale, and got it held that the property did not belong to Bandhan. That judgment was affirmed on appeal, The property having gone out of the auction purchaser's possession he applied for a refund of the amount of the purchase-money. Murtaza Khan filed some objections but they were disallowed and he was ordered to repay it. While a revision on behalf of Murtaza Khan was pending, he...
Bhairon Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All756; 113Ind.Cas.78
Dalal, J.1. This Court is much handicapped by neither the Deputy Magistrate Mr. Wali Bakht nor the District Magistrate of Agra quoting (except in one instance in one report) a single section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is the only Code laying down rules for the guidance of Magistrates in the procedure that they should follow. It appears that a complaint possibly anonymous was made to the District Magistrate against Babu Bhairon Prasad to the effect that be being a member of the Municipal Board of Agra acquired a share in a contract with the Board. Such conduct on the part of a member of a Municipal Board is prohibited by the provisions of Section 82 (1), U.P. Municipalities Act of 1916 and is made punishable as if the member who acquired an interest in the contract had committed an offence under Section 168, I.P.C. It appears that (though it cannot be said for certain as no specific details are given by either Magistrate and the learned Government Advocate was not in posse...
Prag Datt Tiwari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All765
Dalal, J.1. The Court had the advantage of listening to very helpful arguments from the Assistant Government Advocate and from Mr. Hamid Hasan.2. One Prag Datt complained to the police that certain persons committed an offence. This was done on the 9th October 1927. Subsequently he lodged a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate on the same allegations on 17th October, and the complaint was dismissed after inquiry, on 2nd November 1927. A revision application to the Court of the Magistrate was dismissed in December of that year. Subsequently the Superintendent of Police of Cawnpore sent a written complaint to the District Magistrate for the prosecution of Prag Datt on a charge under Section 211, I.P.C., and the trial is being held by a Deputy Magistrate Mr. Mathur. On 23rd February last on objection being raised by Prag Datt as to the Magistrate's jurisdiction, the Magistrate gave reasons affirming his jurisdiction and directing the trial to proceed. A revision application from that or...
Masoodulzaman Vs. Raza Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All698; 110Ind.Cas.750
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff who, I am informed, is a practising barrister in Banda, gave a lease to the defendant of 80 bighas of land for agricultural purposes. Subsequently the defendant erected two lime-kilns and a pound on this laud, obviously inconsistent with the purpose for which the land was let. The plaintiff, therefore, brought a suit for ejectment under Section 57 (b), Tenancy Act. The trial Court decreed the suit, but this decree was set aside and the suit dismissed by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court. On the first point the learned Judge has held in favour of the plaintiff that the lime-kilns and the pound were inconsistent with the purpose for which the land was let. Presumably, therefore, the learned Judge would have maintained the decree for ejectment of the trial Court if he had not held further that the plaintiff had contracted out of the provisions of Section 57 in favour of the landlord. The clear question at issue is whether the plaintiff has so contrac...
Ram Lagan Tewari Vs. Phatangan Lohar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All674
Dalal, J.1. It was admitted by the pellant's learned Counsel that no appeal lay, and this matter was argued as if it were a revision. The parties appointed three pleaders Mr. Kamlakar, Mr. Kunj Behari and Mr. Firangi Rai as arbitrators to decide the dispute between them and appointed Mr. Kunj Behari umpire. It so happened that one of the arbitrators absented himself There is no evidence of his refusal to act. He did not communicate to the Court any refusal. The umpire thereupon approached the Court and inquired what was to be done. What he said on 30th March 1925 in a petition was:Owing to the absence of one of the panches arbitration could not take place. The plaintiff's nephew says that he does not like to have the case decided by us (arbitrators). Under the circumstances I would request the favour of your kindly ordering me as to what to do.2. The trial Judge directed that action should be taken under para. 9 (a), Schedule 2, Civil P.C. The provision of the law is:Where an umpire ha...
Harnandan Lal Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All718; 110Ind.Cas.772
1. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 24th April 1928, and one week's previous notice was given to the counsel concerned. It was placed first on the day's list. Two advocates' names appeared on the paper-book, and in the list. If it was contemplated that a brief-holder would argue the case, one would expect that the case, being a heavy one, would be handed over to him in advance so as to enable him to prepare it thoroughly and do justice to the case. In that event he would have been ready to appear at 10-30 am., and argue the appeal.2. When the case was called on Mr. P. L, Banerji sent a slip stating that he was engaged in another Court. Mr. Sheo Prasad Sinha was called and he stated that he had no instructions in the case as he had not been paid his full fee.' No one appeared as a brief-holder. If a counsel holds a brief for another counsel, it is obviously his duty to inform the reader that he does so, otherwise the reader cannot know that he will argue the case. No intimation was ...
Karimullah Vs. Rameshwar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All774
Mukerji, J.1. The only point urged in this application is whether the Court below had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.2. It appears that the opposite party Rameshwar Prasad brought a suit on a bond for recovery of certain amount of money against Karimullah and others. Karimullah is the applicant in this Court. It was found that Karimullah had paid up a good deal of the amount claimed and the claim of Rameshwar Prasad was excessive. At the instance of Karimullah, the Munsif directed the prosecution of Rameshwar under Section 476, Criminal P.C. It being held by him that Rameshwar, was prima facie, guilty of the offences under Sections 209 and 210, I.P.C., Rameshwar filed an appeal to the District Judge and the District Judge transferred the appeal to a Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge heard the case and held that the Munsif's order directing the prosecution was not justified. He ordered the revocation of the complaint.3. Mr. Khwaja has argued that the District Judge had no jurisd...
Har Sarup Vs. Tohfa Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All534
Mukerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of suit for rent under the following circumstances: The plaintiff instituted a suit, in the year 1920, for ejectment against two persons Tohfa Singh and his minor brother Ram Chandra, under the guardianship of Tohfa Singh. In that suit both the defendants pleaded that they were occupancy tenants, and that there were other people besides themselves who were tenants of the holding. The plaintiff thereupon made an application that those people whoso nonjoinder had been pleaded, namely Bijai Singh and others might be made a party to the suit. The parties, after the joinder of additional defendants, came to terms and an agreement was drawn up on 2nd August 1921. Nothing, however, came out of that agreement, because the suit was dismissed for default. When it was restored on 9th August 1921, it was dismissed in terms of a compromise, to which only the plaintiff and the original defendants Tohfa Singh and Ram Chandra were parties. It was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »