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.
Bhartu Vs. Deedar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All241; 113Ind.Cas.831
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff Deedar Singh who is one of the cosharers of the village instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the ejectment of the defendants granting them a chance to remove the materials of a house It appears that defendant 3 and the plaintiff are two of the cosharers of the village and defendant 1 was a tenant occupying, the house in question in the village sire Defendant 1, Kaley, rented the house to defendant 2 and, subsequently, on 2nd October 1925, sold it to defendant 3. On these facts the suit was instituted. Defendant 3 contested the suit on the ground that although a tenant had no right to sell the house without the consent of the cosharers of the village, yet the house having been transferred to one of the cosharers in the village, the plaintiff had no cause of complaint and had no remedy. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance but it has been decreed by the lower appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge found t...
Sheo Shanker Upadhya and ors. Vs. Partab NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All213
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale-deed was executed on 8th March 1926, but the suit was filed on 17th June 1927. To extend the period of limitation the plaintiff alleged that the sale had been fraudulently concealed from him by the defendants, and he came to know of it only when in May 1927 the notice of the mutation proceedings was served on the village patwari. Both the Courts below have found that there was a fraudulent concealment of the sale transaction. The lower appellate Court has recorded a distinct and specific finding that in its opinion the defendants had actively and fraudulently concealed the sale transaction from the knowledge of the plaintiff and that therefore the provisions of Section 18, Limitation Act, were operative. This finding is based on the circumstances that the sale-deed instead of being registered at the Tehsil in which the property was situate was actually registered in another district; that in order to get th...
Ram Lal Vs. Harpal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All237
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The only point for consideration before us is whether the defendant is a co-sharer in the village. Previous to the disputed purchase, the defendant Ram Lal had purchased a share in the village which was pre-empted by two sets of plaintiffs. One suit was brought by Shanker and another was brought by three plaintiffs including Harpal Singh who is one of the present plaintiffs. Both the claims were decreed and it was ordered that the pre-emptors would obtain certain shares on payment of the pre-emption money. Shanker deposited the whole amount, but the other plaintiffs apparently did not. Thus Shanker Singh became entitled to the property. This was in early 1923. But Shanker did not apply for execution and delivery of possession. In July 1925 the present suit was instituted to pre-empt property purchased by the defendant in July 1924. The main defence was that the previous suit of Harpal Singh was a collusive suit and ...
Janeshar Das and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All202
Dalal, J.1. I passed a preliminary order in this matter on 4th December 1928. The opinions expressed therein were merely tentative and the whole matter shall be examined over again in the present order. Janeshar Das and Khushi Ram, two servants of the treasurer of the Muzaffarnagar treasury, were charged with three offences and each offence was framed in the alternative either of criminal breach of trust or abetment thereof. There was found deficiency on a certain date in stamp labels kept in the double lock of the treasury and in cash kept in the single-lock. Inquiry was made and the prosecuting agency appears to have been doubtful whether Janeshar Das committed the breach of trust and Khushi Ram abetted him, or whether Khushi Ram committed the breach of trust and Janeshar Das abetted him. Three items of defalcation were chosen, two relating to stamps and one relating to cash, and as regards each item the charge was framed in the alternative. Both Janeshar Das and Khushi Ram were 'tri...
Sheo Prasad Vs. Dodi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All164
Dalal, J.1. The two subordinate Courts have sought to legislate in the present litigation instead of following the clear dictates of law. They are of opinion that the provisions of Section 199(2) are hard and unjust and have therefore assumed the illegal attitude contrary to law of refusing to administer Statute Law. In the present case the plaintiff, a zamindar, sued the defendants for ejectment as a non-occupancy tenant and the defence was that the defendants a major and a minor under the guardianship of that major, had a proprietary right in the land, The Assistant Collector by order in writing required the defendants to institute within three months a suit in the civil Court for the determination of the question of title. This order was made on 18th October 1924. No suit, however, was brought, and the consequence of such neglect would be as enacted in Clause (2) of the section. The words are:when an order has been passed under Clause (a), Sub-section 1, if the defendant fails to co...
Manohar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All220
Boys, J.1. The applicant applies in revision of an order under Section 140, Criminal P.C., directing him to remove a portion of his house on plot 43 across which there is held to be a public right of way. I have had considerable difficulty in ascertaining what are the actual facts. It appears that upon the defendant filing a written statement a Naib Tahsildar was called on to make measurements and report. I had proceeded thus far with the commencement of this judgment on the case as stated by counsel when I referred for another point to the written statement and from that it appears that the Naib Tahsildar had already made his measurements and made a report. This fact is sufficient to indicate the difficulty I have had in arriving at the facts to which I am asked to apply the law. I will, therefore, proceed to state what is the case of the applicant for it is for him to show that there is proper ground for interference. The case, then as stated on behalf of the applicant, is that upon ...
Kundan Lal and anr. Vs. Sahu Bhikhari Das-ishwar Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All254
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,000 and odd on the bas is of two hundis for Rs. 5,000 and 4,500 respectively, executed by the defendants Kundan Lal and Suraj Bhan in favour of the plaintiffs. The case as put forward in the plaint was that the defendants were partners of a firm styled Kundan Lal and Suraj Bhan carrying on business at Hapur, and they executed these hundis on 15th December 1922 on receipt of consideration and made them over to the plaintiffs; that these hundis were accepted by Kundan Lal, defendant 1 who was a proprietor of a firm styled Banwari Lal Kundan Lal on which these hundis were drawn; that the hundis were presented for payment and they were dishonoured. The defendants pleaded that the hundis were not properly cancelled and that the interest of 15 annas per cent. per mensem claimed in the plaint was excessive. They also denied the receipt of consideration, and pleaded that these hundis were executed merely as security fo...
Mewa Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All349
Boys, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Pilibhit. Five persons were convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and four of them were sentenced to pay fines. A boy of the name of Debidin was ordered to be released and made over to a relative on the execution of a bond for his good behaviour. Further the four adult accused were ordered to furnish security under Section 106, Criminal P.C., for a period of one year. The four adult accused applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Pilibhit an application which resulted in this reference. The effective ground taken in revision was that it having been found that five persons took part in the assault there was a riot, and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case summarily. It has been repeatedly held that it is not right to minimise an offence, for the Court to shut its eyes to a graver offence which on the facts found by it has been committed, and to refrain from charging the accused with that offence,...
Kashi Pershad Vs. Ambika Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All165
Boys, J.1. Judgment.-This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of title to certain plots of land of which he claimed to be his occupancy tenant joint with his brother, and for possession. The defendants rested their answer on a plea that there had been a revenue Court decision in an enquiry held in accordance with the terms of Section 42, Land Revenue Act, and that the decision in that case operated as res judicata, and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter. The trial Court held that by virtue of the provision in Section 40, Clause (3), Land Revenue Act the plaintiff had a right to bring a suit in the civil Court, but found against him that he had not succeeded in proving any interest in the property in suit. The lower appellate Court held in the defendant's favour that the enquiry in the revenue Court had been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 42, Land Revenue Act, and that it had in fact amounted to suit under Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›