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.
Sohan Lal and ors. Vs. Sheo Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All676
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by three creditors of an insolvent Sheo Nath.2. On 15th December 1926 appellants 1 and 2 applied that Sheo Nath be declared an insolvent. The total debt payable by Sheo Nath to these two appellants did not amount to Rs. 500. So on 28th January 1927 appellant 3 joined in the petition and it was upon this petition, which was taken into account by the learned District Judge, that he on 18th February 1927 adjudged Sheo Nath an insolvent. On 1st, March 1927 an application was presented by the appellants to the Court under Section 54 (1), Provincial Insolvency Act (5 of 1920) praying that transfers made within three months of 15th December 1926 be set aside. Objection was taken that the, section did not apply, because it was upon the application of Mathra Prasad dated 28th January 1927 that Sheo Nath was declared an insolvent and transfers in question were more than three months from that date. No question arises whether Mathra Prasad could or could not apply f...
In Re: an Advocate of Bareilly
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All673
1. In this case a notice was issued on 21st June 1928, to Mr. Mohamad Qamar Ali, Advocate of Bareilly as the writer of an article appearing in the Rohilkhand Gazette on or about 1st April 1928, and to Mr. Mohamad Aziz as the editor and publisher of the Rohilkhand Gazette to show cause why they should not be convicted for contempt, inasmuch as the article was likely to prejudice the course of justice inasmuch as a criminal case was pending in the Court of Mr. Ram Babu Saksena, a Magistrate at Bareilly, and the article related to that pending case.2. Mr. Mohamad Aziz has stated before us that he admits his guilt and he apologizes. He asked us to accept what he stated before the District Magistrate on 25th May 1928, as his explanation and apology in this case.3. Mr. Mohammad Qamar Ali filed a written statement in this Court in which he sought to justify his conduct. But in the course of the hearing of the case he was better advised and he filed an unqualified apology to this Court and to ...
Dallo Vs. Jagan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All688; 110Ind.Cas.818
Dalal, J.1. It is correctly stated in the ground of objection that what the lower Court has put in as a judgment is no judgment in fact. The Court itself appears to have felt some shyness in calling it a judgment, and has headed it as finding. Under Order 60 the Code of Civil Procedure directs exemption of the application of certain provisions of the Code to Provincial Small Cause Courts. Order 20 relating to judgments and decrees is not exempted. It is true that under Rule 4, Order 20 a judgment of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. What the Judge is pleased to state in this particular case is:I disbelieve the defence. Claim proved and decreed with costs.2. The points for determination are not stated. So naturally the decisions thereon would not be stated as well. The disbelief of a defence does not naturally involve the proof of a claim. It will be seen that the Judge has gone the wrong way about in discovering th...
Firm Kripa Ram Chanan Ram Vs. Firm Jawahir Lal Narsingh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.285
Dalal, J.1. It is correct of the defendant applicant to say that the trial Court was not justified in striking out the defence under Order XI, Rule 21. The Court directed production of bahi khaias by the defendant, and the bahikhatas were not produced. This order could not have been passed under Rule 15, because the defendant himself had not made any reference to any bahi khata in his pleadings or affidavits. The order could have been made only under Rule 14, and a Bench of this Court in Lyallpur Sugar Mills and Co. Ltd. v. Ram Chandra Gur Sahai Cotton Mills and Co. Ltd. 67 Ind. Cas. 73 : 44 A. 565 : 20 A.L.J. 422 : 4 U.P.L.R. (A.) 139 : A.I.R. 1922 All. 235, has held that non-compliance with an order served on a defendant for the production only of documents under Rule 14, of Order XI, of the Civil Procedure Code does not warrant the striking out of the defence under Rule 21. Rule 21 applies only where a party fails to answer interrogatories or to comply with an order for discovery or...
Hira Mani Singh Vs. Anmol Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All699; 117Ind.Cas.351
Weir, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for proprietary possession of a village of the name of Sarai Aghi Chand alias Chandaukhi situate in pargana Sikandara of the district of Allahabad and for recovery of Rs. 500 on account of mesne profits for Kharif and Rabi 1331 Fasli. One Thakur Jagtamba Prasad Singh was the owner of the property in suit jointly with the plaintiff who was his son. The plaintiff is a parihar Thakur. The defendant belongs to the Baghel clan. He is highly connected and belongs to the family of His Highness the Maharajah of Rewah. Jagtamba Prasad Singh had a daughter of the name of Mt. Pershad Kuer. He gave this daughter in marriage to the defendant in the month of June of the year 1915. On 8th May 1918 Jagtamba Prasad Singh executed a deed of gift in favour of his daughter, certain recitals of which are material for the purpose of this appeal. He stated in this document:On the occasion of 'kanyadan' ceremony of my daughter Mt. Parshad Kuar, I t...
Bhola Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All1; 113Ind.Cas.213
Mukerji, J.1. The appellant, Col. Bholanath, has been convicted of the offence of defamation under Section 500, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The prosecution was started on two complaints filed by his own daughter-in-law, Mrs. Bishesharnath, in the following circumstances. The complainant was married to one Mr. Thomson, a well-known and wealthy manufacturer of tiles etc. carrying on business at Allahabad and Cawnpore. She came to be introduced to the family of the appellant, while he was stationed at Allahabad, and there, at Allahabad, she met the son of the appellant, Lt. Bishesharnath. According to the complaint filed on 26th June 1927 (the first complaint) the complainant and Bisheshernath grew to be intimate friends. Mr. Thomson removed to Cawnpore permanently and then the complainant and Bishesharnath often met secretly. On the death of Mr. Thomson the parties met openly, and according to the complainant herself the two began to live as husband and wife f...
Zulfiqar Ali and ors. Vs. Musammat Kallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.227
Dalal, J.1. The two subordinate Courts have got rid of this suit on technical grounds. Technical grounds may be insisted upon only where there is real force in the contentions raised. If the pleadings of parties are read, it will be found that the contest was totally different, and only learned Pleaders raised the technical defence. It is admitted that Musammat Badli transferred one-third of 210 yards of land to Musammat Asghari and gifted the sale consideration to her. The two subordinate Courts have held the deed of gift to be invalid (1) for want of possession, and (2) because of the doctrine of musha.2. Musammat Asghari lived with Musammat Badli and in the deed of gift it is specifically stated that possession had been made over to Musammat Asghari. So it is difficult to understand what larger proof of possession in pursuance of the deed of gift could be brought forward. The defence of one Qasid Ali, brother of Musammat Asghan, makes it certain that Musammat Asghari, did obtain pos...
Hanuman Prasad NaraIn Singh Vs. Mathura Prasad NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All472
1. The two questions that have been referred to the Full Bench arise from a suit for joint possession of certain sir plots in the village of Baraon. Other reliefs were claimed by the plaintiff, but with these we are not concerned. The two parties to the suit are members of a Hindu family which has been found to be still in some respects a joint family. They own properties in several villages, and it appears that although there has never been any regular partition between them, they have in fact held some of these properties separately, and there is a clear finding that the defendant has been in separate possession of the sir plots in the village of Baraon for 24 years and has been paying profits in respect of these plots to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of his title to a half-share in the sir plots, and also for joint possession, and the two lower Courts decreed his suit for a declaration but found that he was not entitled to actual possession. The learned J...
Zafaryab Hasan and ors. Vs. Umar Daraz Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All610; 114Ind.Cas.725
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of the defendant-appellant. It is not now disputed that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the house in dispute. It was occupied by one Mazhar Ali against whom a suit for ejectment was brought sometime before 1921. The plaintiff-respondent re-let the house to Mazhar Husain by an instrument dated 19th December 1921, under which he was entitled to retain it at monthly rent of Rs. 4. He agreed to vacate the house of his own accord at the end of one year from the date of the agreement. Mazhar Ali continued to hold under the agreement, though he does not seem to have ever paid any rent. Mazhar Ali died leaving a number of heirs, including the defendant-appellant. Plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for ejectment of the heirs of Mazhar Ali, and obtained a decree in execution whereof the defendant-appellant objected to his own possession being interfered with on the ground that he had no...
King-emperor Vs. Bishambhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All476a
1. The only evidence against the accused is that he was seen coming out of a sugar-cane field at 10 p.m. by two persons who challenged him. He tried to run away, but was caught by them. It is found that he is resident of a village near the place where he was arrested. We are of opinion that on these facts we cannot order him to be bound over under Section 109, Criminal P.C. The Government revision is accordingly dismissed and the accused is ordered to be released forthwith....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »