Allahabad Court December 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.
Salamat Khan and anr. Vs. Bhagwat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All379
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiff sued in 1925 to set aside a sale-deed executed on 24th October 1914, by the father and grandfather of the plaintiffs, who were at that period minors. The sale-deed purported to be for Rs. 3,550. The plaintiffs allege that the sale-deed was not for legal necessity. The Court of first instance decreed the suit unconditionally. The lower appellate Court reversed that decree and made the decree in favour of the plaintiffs conditional on the payment by plaintiffs of nearly all the sale consideration. In second appeal, a learned Judge of this Court has restored the decree of the Court of first instance.2. The case deals solely with the question of the burden of proof on legal necessity. The sale consideration according to the sale-deed, consisted of Rs. 1,600 cash before the Sub-Registrar, Rs. 200 paid to one Babban Lal and Rs. 1,432 to be paid between the years 1915 and.1918. It was found that the latter amount of Rs. 1,432 was not in fact p...
Latafat Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Mohammad Yar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All456
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal and for the purposes of this objection only a few facts need be mentioned.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for pre-emption of a zamindari property as well as a house. The defendants vendees were minors. A relation of theirs refused to act as their guardian, and the Court appointed Mr. Makhan Lal, a vakil of the Court, as the guardian ad item of the minors, The case was fought out and was decreed both as against part of the zamindari and a house. The guardian ad litem did not prefer any appeal from that decree; but a memorandum of appeal was filed on behalf of the minors by their father Wilayat Ali. A note was added to the memorandum of appeal to the effect thatin the original suit, Babu Makhan Lal vakil was appointed the guardian ad litem of the appellants by the Court. As he is not ready to prefer this appeal, he has been included in the array of the respondents.3. There was no formal application filed by the father ...
Sultan Singh Vs. B. Maya Ram Radha Swami
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All260
ORDERDalal, J.1. The applicant Sultan Singh is father of two minor sons and the opposite party Maya Ram is father of the applicant. The minor boys are at present under the charge of Maya Ram. They have been, according to the applicant's own affidavit, under the charge of Maya Ram since 1925. This application is made for a direction of the nature of a habeas corpus under Section 491(1)(b), Criminal P.C. That section gives power to this Court whenever it thinks fit to direct that a person illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody within the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction may be set at liberty. In the very nature of things the power would be exorcised in matters of urgency, where, for instance, the father is suddenly deprived of the custody of his sons and there is danger to the life of the sons in the transferred custody. It is stated in Wharton's Law Lexicon that this, the most celebrated prerogative writ in the English Law, is a remedy for a person de...
Munawwar Khan Vs. Tasalli Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All255a
1. This is an appeal by a gentleman who was appointed guardian to two minors, Jhabbu Khan and Zaibunnissa, and who has been now dismissed from his office of guardianship, except in so far as the guardianship of the person of Zaibunnissa is concerned.2. It appears, by an order passed sometime in 1923 Munawwar Khan was appointed the guardian of the persons and property of Jhabbu Khan and Zaibunnissa, who are brother and sister. Zaibunnissa, although then a child of 6 had already been married to Munawwar Khan's son. In 1918 one Tasalli Khan the respondent to this appeal, put in an application before the learned District Judge of Basti for the removal of Munawwar Khan from the guardianship of the minors. The charge that he brought against Munawwar Khan was mainly that he mismanaged the minor's property. The learned District Judge called for an account and had the same checked by a commissioner. It was found that a sum of Rs. 83-13-0 was payable by Munawwar Khan. Munawwar Khan had paid hims...
Luttur and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All263
Sen, J.1. The facts of the case which have given rise to this reference are set out in extenso in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Benares, dated 16th September 1929, and require no recapitulation.2. Luttur Balai, Ram Nath and Raghu were on their trial before a Special Magistrate of Jaunpur, under Section 324, I.P.C. During the progress of the trial one Luttur had applied to the Magistrate under Section 526(8), Criminal P. C, for stay of proceedings to enable him to move the High Court for the transfer of his case. The application was.granted, and the case was adjourned. Luttur did not apply to the High Court for the transfer of the case. He applied to the District Magistrate for a transfer, but his application was rejected, and he submitted to the order.3. On 17th May 1929, Balai made a similar application, but his application was refused. A second application was made by Balai, on 18th May 1929, but this application shared the same fate. Between 18th May, and 23rd May...
Chaudhri Jahangira Vs. Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All309a
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of rent for the years 1329 to 1331 Fasli. Defendants 1 and 2 are the tenants of the land in respect of which the rent is claimed. The plaintiff is one of three co-sharers of the 'mahal' in which the holding in question lies. The suit, as framed, was one for recovery of the whole rent payable by defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff relied upon an agreement between his co-sharers and himself entitling him (plaintiff) to realize the whole rent from defendants 1 and 2.2. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the plaintiff's right to recover the rent without other co-sharers being joined as co-plaintiff with him. At a later stage the plaintiff impleaded defendants 3 and 4, who are the other co-sharers in the 'mahal.' The latter stated that they had no concern with the rent in question. In other words, they did not object to the plaintiff recovering the rent in suit. Their statement sup...
V.S. Dandekar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All324; 122Ind.Cas.596
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Dandekar has been convicted of an offence under Section 124-A, I.P.C., in so far as that he made a speech bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or excite or attempting to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in (British India. From such a conviction an appeal is permitted direct to this Court. After reading the statement of the appellant in the Court of the District Magistrate I felt doubt as to his desire to appeal. He seems to glory in his condition and feel very happy in the position which he has created for himself. His learned counsel Mr. Malaviya assured me that though he had received instructions from the friends of the appellants, those friends had consulted the appellant who desired an appeal. That was the reason why I did not think it necessary to make direct enquiry from the appellant himself. Mr. Malaviya has read the entire speech to me. Such a speech should be considered to be seditious or otherwise, according to...
Ram Ghulam Vs. Kailash Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1931All59
Bennet, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order brought by Ram Ghulam minor son of an insolvent Mulchand. It is claimed by the appellant that there was a partition between him and his father and that the property in dispute was allotted to appellant, and his mother gave some vague evidence to that effect. Two lambardars gave evidence that there . had been no partition, and there is also the fact to be taken into account that the appellant is only a boy of 14 years of age, and therefore it is improbable that a partition between him and his father would have taken place. Accordingly we agree with the finding of fact of the learned District Judge that there has been no partition between the appellant and his father.2. A further point was taken that on the insolvency of a Hindu father the interest of his son in the joint family property does not vest in the receiver, and that the share of the son should be discharged. This argument of the appellant was supported by the ruling in The Allah...
Munawar Khan Vs. Tasalli Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.673
1. This is an appeal by a gentleman who was appointed guardian to two minors, Jhabbu Khan and Zaibunissa and who has bsen now dismissed from his office of guardianship, except in so far as the guardianship of the person of Zaibun-nissa is concerned.2. It appears, by an order passed sometime in 1923, Munawar Khan was appointed the guardian of the person and property of Jhabbu Khan and Ziibunnissa, who are brother and sister, Zaibunnissa, although then a child of 6 had already been married to Munawar Khan's son. In 1918 one Tasalli Khan, the respondent to this appeal, put in an application before the learned District Judge of Basti for the removal of Munawar Khan from the guardianship of the minors. The charge that he brought against Munawar Khan was mainly that he mismanaged the minors' property. The learned District Judge called for an account and had the same checked by a Commissioner it was found that a sum of Rs. 83 13-0 was payable by Munawar Khan. Munawar Khan had paid himself a s...
Municipal Board Vs. Narsingh Dutt Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All222
Dalal, J.1. Two tax-payers who wore plying a motor vehicle for hire sued the defendant Municipal Board of Benares for a declaration that the motor vehicle used by them was a motor car assessable to duty at the rate of Rs. 25 per annum and not a motor lorry assessable at the rate of Rs. 100 per annum. Both the subordinate Courts granted the declaration, whereupon the Municipal Board has come here in second appeal. Like most concerns with which one is acquainted, the Municipal Board of Benares evidently carries on its business by rule of thumb and has found itself in somewhat unpleasant situation in this suit. The plaintiff's car was assessed at Rs. 25, and when they took Rs. 12-8-0 for six months for payment to the municipality they were told that after the body was changed the car was assessable at Rs. 100. Both the sub ordinate Courts, however, stated that there has been no regular assessment. No assessment book has been produced before this Court to indicate that the plaintiffs have ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »