Allahabad Court January 1929 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.
Musammat Bibi Rafi-un-nissa Begam Vs. Chunni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.150
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff zemindar sued for the recovery of Re. 1 as a customary due (Bau) on the marriage of the daughter of the defendant. The custom of such payment by Gaderiyas, Lodhas and washerman was, according to the plaint, recorded in the first wajib-ul-arz prepared under the direction of Mr. Currie. The defendant is a Lodh, and was, therefore, liable to pay. la the written statement the custom was not admitted. The frame of para. 1 of the additional pleas of the written statement would seem to accept the existence of such custom in other villages, but it was pleaded that such custom did not obtain in the village in suit Mauza Baghthari. In the second paragraph it was contended that the record was one of contract, and not of custom. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court which decreed the suit, there was no allegation whatsoever in the written statement that the custom which once existed had fallen into disuse. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has fallen into...
Emperor Vs. Durg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All260a; 114Ind.Cas.733
1. This is a case in which four persons were convicted by a Magistrate of cheating, an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. That offence is not considered by the law to be one of a minor description and Courts are directed if they arrive at a finding of guilty under that section to inflict some sentence of imprisonment with or without an additional sentence of fine. The Magistrate in this case has found the four accused guilty of inducing the complainant to part with the sum of Rs. 90 in return for their promise to secure the restoration of two bullocks which he had lost, but he has only inflicted a sentence of Rs. 50 fine in the case of each of the accused persons, or in default, six months rigorous imprisonment. This is not a sentence in accordance with law and on the matter being brought to his attention by the Sessions Judge the Magistrate has admitted that he made an error and that error was due to an oversight. The offender convicted under Section 420, I.P.C.shall be punished with i...
Altaf Begam Vs. Brij Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All281
1. This is a plaintiff s appeal arising out of a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed dated 2nd September 1921 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, and in the alternative for a recovery of the amount of the sale consideration. Under a hypothecation bond dated 21st September 1913 the plaintiff's husband had undertaken to pay her a monthly allowance of Rs. 75 and had hypothecated his village Nagphan Risuya valuing the deed at Rs. 10,800. There were certain misunderstandings between the husband and the wife, and it is an admitted fact that she could not for a long time recover her monthly allowance. Eventually she sued her husband for recovery of the arrears and in execution of her decree put the village for sale at auction. It was purchased by Hakim Zakir Husain Khan for a small amount, as the sale was apparently subject to the continuing charge. Thereafter she brought a second suit against her husband and the purchaser and obtained a decree on 28th February 1920 for abo...
Dasami Sahu Vs. Param Shameshwar Uma Bhairabeshwar Ban Lingeshar and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All315
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the house in dispute was debutter or trust property and was not alienable. It originally belonged to the ancestor of the defendant Chittaranjan Mukherji and was sold away at auction and purchased by a stranger in 1878. Later on it was transferred by the auction purchaser to Chittaranjan's father and has been held by the family since then. The father of Chittaranjan died when the latter was a minor five years' old. Ho was brought up by his uncle Niranjan Mukharji who was appointed a certificated guardian. About 1902 Chittaranjan attained majority, but the management and some Government securities, remained in the hands of his uncle Niranjan Mukharji. On 2nd June 1908 a registered deed of release was executed by Chittaranjan in favour of his uncle Niranjan, stating that he had received all the accounts and received back what was due to him. On the same day Chittaranjan executed a deed of endowment dedicating the...
Naubat Lal and ors. Vs. B Mahadeo Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All309
1. This is a defendants' appeal under the following circumstances:2. The suit was for possession of certain zamindari property or in the alternative for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,548-0-6 against a number of persons. The plaintiffs alleged that on 11th September 1894 the ancestors of defendants 1 to 9, who are appellants before us mortgaged 3 as.-1.33 pies in the village Chandpur to one Gokul Prasad. Gokul Prasad obtained a decree on foot of this mortgage and an auction sale in execution of that decree took place on 25th June 1919, when Gokul Prasad brought the property mortgaged. The plaintiffs who were purchasers under money decrees and mortgage decrees of 1a.-7.33 pies in the village, deposited the whole of the decretal amount which was Rs. 4519-12-4 on 17th July 1919 under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., and got the sale of 25th June 1919 set aside. They in the present suit claim possession over the property which is not in their possession and hypothecated in the deed of 11th Septe...
Har Saran Das Vs. Harbans Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All335; 129Ind.Cas.435
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff zemindar sued for the price of certain trees sold by the defendants. These trees were situated on plot 249. There was also a prayer for an injunction that the defendants may be prevented from cutting down more trees.2. In para. 1 of the plaint the plaintiff described himself as the owner and possessor of the plot while he described defendant 1 at first as an exproprietary tenant of the same plot on behalf of the plaintiff. Subsequently his pleader appears to have seen wisdom, and an amendment was made that defendant 1 was an exproprietary tenant of other plots.3. The lower appellate Court held that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff of the plot in suit, and that under a custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz a tenant was entitled to cut the tress standing on the land within his cultivating occupation. For these reasons the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and he has come here in second appeal.4. The argument here was that no exproprietary rights can accru...
Jamna Prasad Vs. Mohammad Zahir UddIn Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All366
1. Three points have been urged in this appeal. The first is that an isolated plot of land is not pre-emptible under the act. We are unable to accept this condition. Under Sections 11 and 12 a right of pre-emption accrues in favour of the cosharers in the mahal oven when a petty proprietary interest is transferred.2. The second point is that the land covered by buildings is exempted from the operation of the Act. This contention also cannot be accepted. Section 4, sub-Clause (3) makes the Act applicable to land which includes things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, when sold or foreclosed along with the land to which they are attached. This in our opinion, includes buildings which are attached to the earth. We may in this connection point out that the expression 'attached to the earth' has been defined in Section 3, T.P. Act. as meaning rooted in the earth or embedded in the earth as in the case of walls or buildings. There is no reason t...
Raja Lohar Vs. Nur Mohammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.456
Dalal, J.1. The subordinate Courts have not proceeded correctly in this matter. The plaintiff Raja Lohar minor under the guardianship of Jawahir Lohar instituted the present suit. The suit proceeded nearly up to the date of the judgment. A day before the judgment the defendants pointed out that Jawahir Lohar was not a proper guardian as another certificated guardian had been appointed to Raja Lohar. It was the duty at that time by the trial Court to take proceedings under Rule 2 of Order XXXII. If Jawahir Lohar could not take action as guardian the suit must be taken to have been filed by the minor without a guardian. Rule 2 of Order XXXII enacts:Where a suit is instituted by, or on behalf of, a minor without a next friend, the defendant may apply to have the plaint taken off the file, with costs to be paid by the Pleader or other person by whom it was presented.2. No such action was taken, and the trial Court is in its judgment stated that the suit failed by reason of the want of a pr...
Mohammad Daud Khan Vs. Jai Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All265
Dalal, J.1. The view of civil Courts as to the examination of evidence in cases where damages are wanted for malicious prosecutions will have to be revised after the judgment of their Lordships in the case of Balbhaddar Singh v. Budri Sah A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 46. The common impression was that when a plaintiff came to Court after acquittal in the criminal Court, he had to prove his innocence positively before he would be entitled to claim damages. The proof of a want of reasonable and probable cause, was held to be tantamount to proof of innocence. Their Lordships pointed out that what the plaintiff was called upon to prove was that he was prosecuted by the defendant and that the prosecution ended in his acquittal. He was not called upon to prove that he was innocent of the charge. He had to prove that the prosecution was instituted against him without any reasonable and probable cause. The evidence will have to be examined from a different point of view when the burden is removed from the...
Habib Bakhsh Vs. Amina Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All312
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a share in the inheritance of Rahim Bakhsh, the father of the plaintiff. Rahim Bakhsh died on 24th January 1921 leaving a mother, Mt. Muhammadi, three widows, six sons and two daughters. According to Mahomedan Law the shares would he as follows: The mother, Mt. Muhammadi, would get 1/6 or 56 sihams; The three widows would got 1/8 between them or 14 sihamas each; the six sons would get 34 sihams each, and the two daughters 17 sihams each; total 336 sihams. In 1922 one of the widows, Mt. Latifan who had five sons and one daughter, brought a suit No. 24 of 1922, for partition of the share of herself and her children. The other heirs of Rahim Bakhsh were impleaded as defendants. The suit ended in a compromise whereby Latifan and her children obtained 7/16 of the property and the remaining 9/16 went to the other heirs.2. The plaintiff, Mt. Amina, has now brought a suit for her share claiming 45 sihams out of 336. She claimed 17 sihams as her own share...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »