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.
Bankey Lal and ors. Vs. Raghunath Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All561
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. In this case Bansidhar, the last male owner, died in 1878 and was succeeded by his widow Mt. Gumane. Mt. Gumane died in 1894. On her death the estate devolved on their daughter Mt. Saraswati under the Hindu law, but Bansidhar's collaterals took possession of the estate and Mt. Saraswati never got possession. In her lifetime she never sued to recover possession She died in 1920. The present plaintiffs are the sons of Mt. Saraswati and are, under the Hindu law, entitled to the estate in preference to the collaterals. The defendants are the representatives of the collaterals who took possession of the estate in 1894, and some of the defendants are transferees from them.2. The plaintiffs' suit was instituted in 1923, and they claimed that the cause of action in their favour accrued in 1920 when Mt. Saraswati the daughter died. Among other pleas the defendants raised the plea that the suit was barred by time. This plea was overruled by the Court below and the claim was ...
Basdeo NaraIn Vs. Muhammad Yusuf and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All617
1. This second appeal arises from a suit brought by a minor son in a joint Hindu family for a declaration that a perpetual lease of ten agricultural plots granted by one of his brothers in 1922 is null and void as against the plaintiff; and praying to be put in possession of the property. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the lease was not executed for the benefit of the family in that it was not for the payment of any debts binding on the family. The lower appellate Court has reversed this finding on the ground that the lease was a sound business transaction. It may be mentioned that it is agreed before us that there is an inaccuracy in the statement of the case by the learned District Judge, in that the granter of the lease was the brother and not the father of the plaintiff.2. The facts are that this brother, Dhanwant Narain, acting as manager of the family, executed the lease at a rental of Rs. 70 a year, whereas the property had previously been leased and at any ...
Joti Prasad and anr. Vs. Srichand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All629
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows:2. A suit was compromised between the parties on 16th June 1918. The substance of the compromise was embodied in the decree. Reading the decree in the light of the compromise there can be no doubt that it provided that Rs. 6,000 would be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs on 12th July 1918, and the remaining amount would be paid by annual instalments of Rs. 1,000 each on 16th June in the following years in succession. The decree further provided that in case of default of two (consecutive) instalments, the defendants will pay the whole of the balance remaining unpaid to the plaintiffs. Admittedly Rs. 6,000 was duly paid. Rs. 1,000 was paid on 1st July 1919 and the decree-holders accepted it.3. On 14th September 1925, the decree-holders filed an application for execution, out of which this appeal arises, giving credit for two sums of Rs. 2,000 each, stated in the application to have been paid on 12th June 1921, and...
Ram Sarup Kalwar and anr. Vs. Mahabir Kalwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All685
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by two defendants, Ram Sarup Kolwar and Sukhdeo Kalwar in a suit for a declaration that the decree obtained by Sukhdeo against the plaintiff Mahabir in suit No. 338 of 1923 from the Court of Small. Causes, Rai Bareili, was fraudulently obtained, for the cancellation of the said decree and for an injunction restraining Sukhdeo from executing the decree against the plaintiff.2. The defendants Ram Sarup and Sukhdeo, who are brothers owned two shops, one at Mungra Badshahpur in the District of Jaunpur, and the other at Fursatganj in the District of Rai Bareli. The plaintiff alleges that in the year 1920 he was appointed a Munib of the shop at Fursatganj at a certain salary; that in February 1921, the plaintiff became a partner of the firm at Mungra Badshahpur; that the plaintiff owed one Raghunandan Tewari a sum of Rs. 390 under a bond, dated 16th March 1915; that Raghunandan in his turn was indebted to the defendants to the extent of about Sections 700, that Su...
Secretary of State Vs. Alladin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All735; 114Ind.Cas.727
Kendall, J.1. This and the connected Appeals Nos. 2055, 2065 of 1925 and 2109 of 1925 arise out of six suits brought by plaintiffs, who were non-occupancy tenants in the district of Saharanpur, for damages against the defendant the Secretary of State for India-in-Council, and for injunction. The suits have been decreed by the Courts below for varying amounts of damages, but the relief of injunction has been disallowed. The defendant preferred these second appeals. The plaintiffs have acquiesced in that part of the decree which dismissed their claim to injunction.2. The circumstances which led to the institution of the aforesaid suits are these: The Gangetic canal was made by Government in 1860 or thereabout. At a certain point near Saharanpur it crossed the bed of a torrent of rain-water, called Rao Pathri, descending from the mountainous regions in the vicinity. To prevent the stream and the canal intersecting each other and the resulting damage to the canal works, a super-bridge was ...
Emperor Vs. Phuchai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All33; 113Ind.Cas.417
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. The facts of this case have been clearly found by the Courts below and cannot be doubted. The police received information that a number of persons were hiding themselves on a dark night at about midnight in a mango grove outside the abadi of a village with a view to commit some offence. When the police went to the grove they found four persons sitting there, who, on being challenged, tried to run away. They were chased and two of them, the present accused, were captured. They had house-breaking instruments (jemmies) with them. When caught, they first gave wrong names and addresses, and then later on disclosed their real identities. They are residents of the same sub-division. They were called upon to show cause under Section 109, Criminal P.C. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that the case fell under Section 109, Sub-clause (a) and demanded security. The learned Sessions Judge, following the recent pronouncements of this Court, held that sub-section was inappl...
Emperor Vs. Abdul Ghafur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All68
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Saharanpur acquitting Abdul Ghafur of an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act 11 of 1878.2. The accused was a tailor working at Rurki. One Mohan Lal, a supply agent, informed the Cantonment Magistrate of Rurki on the 9th January 1924 that the accused had a gun and revolver without license. The Cantonment Magistrate sent the information to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who ordered the local police to take up the matter. The second officer of the Rurki police station, Sub-Inspector Chittar Mal recovered a revolver with 16 cartridges from the possession of the accused and rifle, which the accused admits belongs to him, from the Military Stores at Rurki. The accused denied the charge and said that the revolver and rifle were not recovered from him and that the case was got up against him by Mohan Lal. The Magistrate who tried the case and the learned Sessions Judge foun...
Sheo Prasad Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Raj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All763
Dalal, J.1. In a profits suit separate decrees were passed one for Rs. 72 against Kewal Deo Singh and another for Rs. 10 against Sheo Prasad Singh. This second appeal is valued at Rs. 72, so it must betaken that Sheo Prasad Singh has not appealed. His appeal is dismissed, and the question shall be considered as regards appeal by Kewal Deo Singh only. The plaintiff is purchaser of a 4-anna share of proprietary interest from the defendants. The parties are in separate possession as regards recovery of rent from tenants. With respect, however, to certain sir and khudkasht lands cultivated by the defendants alone, it was alleged that the plaintiff should be granted one-fourth of the profits derived by the defendants out of the lands. The trial Court carefully considered the amount of profits, and fixed the plaintiff's share at Rs. 84 as against Kewal Deo Singh. Mr. Khirod Gopal Banerji lately Judge of the Ghazipur District has written one of his numerous judgments which are in no sense jud...
Pir Bakhsh and anr. Vs. Rameshwar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All52
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff sued for possession of four shops and for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100 a year for a certain period of time. The suit was resisted. The question of possession is of no importance now,because possession has been decreed and that decree Mr. Shambhu Nath Seth on behalf of the respondent does not contest now. The claim for rent was disallowed on the ground that the plaintiff had not put the defendant in possession of one shop altogether and in possession of two of the shops only partially. The defendant further claimed a set-off which was decreed. It is argued that the decree is contrary to the provisions of O.8, Rule 6, Civil P.C. I am not in agreement with the Calcutta case quoted by the two subordinate Courts, Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Narendra Chandra Lahiri [1919] 46 Cal. 956. Fletcher, J., in delivering the judgment, of the Court has applied certain technical rules of English. Law to India. Another Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Nagendra Chandr...
Suraj NaraIn Dube Vs. Sukhu Aheer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All440
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. The present case must be decided on the provisions of the Contract Act. Analogies drawn from the English common law where the contract of a minor is only voidable, are wholly inappropriate when we have a codified law in this country. Since the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] 30 Cal. 539 it is now settled law that a contract by a minor is not only voidable, but is altogether void. But although such a contract is void, it cannot be said to be prohibited by law or otherwise unlawful. Nor does any question of public policy arise. Section 23 is inapplicable.2. Under Section 11 a minor is not competent to contract. He is disqualified from contracting. He can, therefore, neither make a valid proposal, nor make a valid acceptance as defined in Section 2, Clauses (a) and (b). He cannot, therefore, for the purposes of the Act be strictly called a promisor within the meaning of Clause (c). Nor can, therefore, anything done by the promisee be strictly called a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »