Allahabad Court August 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.
Neur Ahir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All755; 113Ind.Cas.79
Dalal, J.1. One Neur Ahir was called upon by a Deputy Magistrate of Ghazipur under Section 109, Criminal P.C. to show cause why he should not be hound over under Section 109, Criminal P.C., to be of good behaviour for a certain period of time. After enquiry he was discharged under Section 119, Criminal P.C. Subsequently the District Magistrate of Ghazipur took up the case in revision under Section 436 of the same Code and directed further enquiry to be made in the case by another Deputy Magistrate. It is submitted here in revision that the District Magistrate had nO jurisdiction to interfere. A District Magistrate is empowered to direct a subordinate Magistrate to make a further enquiry into the case, of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. It is argued here that Neur was not a person accused of an offence. In Section 4(o), Criminal P.C., 'offence' is defined as an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. The conduct of a person calle...
Mt. Pran Dei Vs. Sat Deo Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All85a
Weir, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for possession of a 4 pie share in area Mahulani Khurd which he alleges was sold to him for Rs. 400 by Ram Milan, defendant 1. He has joined as defendant Ram Milan's wife Mt. Pran Dei and one Shiva Haragh Pathak. The sale in respect of which the suit was brought was effected on 29th November 1923. Several defences were raised, but I am concerned with only two of them. The first is this: Mt. Pran Dei, who is the sole appellant in this appeal, alleges that on 7th September 1920, her husband Ram Milan entered into an agreement with her that he would not alienate, either by mortgage or sale, any part of his property without her consent. This agreement is in writing and has been registered; and counsel for Mt. Pran Dei contends that the agreement is valid under Section 25, Contract Act. The learned Subordinate Judge decided that the agreement was ineffectual to restrain Ram Milan's right to sell the property, and secondly, that in any event,the pla...
Mul Chand-nandu Mal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All134
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, dated 17th September 1925, disallowing the plaintiffs' claim for recovery of Rs. 6,804-13-6. Plaintiffs carry on business in the City of Delhi under the name and style of Firm Mulchand-Nandumal. The suit was instituted through Lala Hari Ram, one of the partners of the firm.2. The defendants are the proprietors of the Firm Kanhaiya Lal-Lakshmi Narayan, situate in Mandi Qaisargunj in the city of Meerut, and their chief business is that of commission agents.3. The plaintiffs' firm employed the defendants to purchase 151 grain pits of wheat on their account; and the defendants purchased these grain pits between the 4th June 1921 and 12th August 1921. These grain pits were sold by the defendants, under instructions received from the plaintiffs between 5th July 1921, and 13th August 1921. The plaintiffs had paid Rs. 2,000 to the defendants by way of earnest money. The plaintiffs allege tha...
Randhir NaraIn and anr. Vs. P. Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.699
Dalal, J.1. I am afraid that a view in conflict with that of the District Judge is not possible, _ The District Judge himself admitted that the case was a hard one. A Hindu widow in the capacity of lamhardar recovered certain profits which she ought to have paid to the applicant, She did not do so and was, therefore, sued. In that suit a decree was passed against her. She died during the execution proceedings and the reversioner who was made a party objected that he was not liable under the decree as he was not successor-in-interest of the lady. The argument is quite sound. It is true that in the case of Risal Singh v. Balwant Singh 40 Ind. Cas. 553 : 40 A. 593 : 40 A. 593 : 28 C.L.J. 519 : 24 M.L.T. 361 : 9 L.W. 52 : 23 C.W.N. 326 : (1919) M.W.N. 155 : 36 M.L.J. 597 : 21 Bom. L.R. 511 : 45 I.A. 168 (P.C.), their Lordships held that a reversioner would be bound by a decree passed against a widow, as representing the estate, where the widow had an opportunity of defence and the decree w...
Firm Mul Chand Nandu Mal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.791
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, dated the 17th of September, 1925, disallowing the plaintiffs' claim for recovery of Rs. 6,801-13-6. Plaintiffs carry on business in the city of Delhi under the name and style of Firm Mulchand-Nandumal. The suit was instituted through Lala Hari Ram one of the partners of the firm.2. The defendants are the proprietors of the Firm Kanhaiya Lal-Lukshmi Narayan situatein Mandi Qaisargunj in the city of Meerut, and their chief business is that of commission agents.3. The plaintiffs' firm employed the defendants to purchase 151 grain pits of wheat on their account; and the defendants purchased these grain pits between the 4th of June 1921, and the 12th of August, 1921. These grain pits were sold by the defendants, under instructions received from the plaintiffs, between the 5th of July, 1921, and the 13th of August, 1921. The plaintiffs had paid Rs. 2,030 to the defendants by way of earnes...
Pearey Lal Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All266a; 113Ind.Cas.751
ORDERDalal, J.1. The respondent is not represented. Mr. Shabd Saran, on behalf of the appellant, has placed all the law available on the subject. The defendant was put in charge of attached property which it is said he misappropriated. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit on the ground that he was a decree-holder and had suffered loss by the defendant misappropriating the property. In my opinion the provisions of Section 145, Civil P.C., will bar such a suit. When any person has become liable as surety for the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree, the decree may be executed against him in the manner herein provided for the execution of decrees, and such person shall for the purposes of appeal be deemed a party within the meaning of Section 47. The plaintiff, therefore, ought to have take action against the defendant in the execution department of the Court where he had obtained the decree and not brought a separate suit.2. It was argued that the plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›