Allahabad Court February 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 Asghari Begam and ors. Vs. Maula Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.90
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for sale of a certain property on the basis of a mortgage. The mortgage was in respect of two kinds of property; one was land and the other was a certain money charge created on other property. It is with the latter only that we have to deal with in this second appeal.2. The question is solely one of interpretation of a certain deed. This deed was executed by one Kishori Lal, a zemindar, in favour of two minor children in consideration of the mother of these children having given up her rights to claim an exproprietary tenancy.3. The important portions of the deed are as follows: 'Therefore in consideration of the relinquishment of their ex-proprietary rights Rs. 150 a year for maintenance in favour of Mohammad Abdul Hafiz Khan and Mohammad Abdul Aziz Khan minor sons of Mussammat Aliunnissa, daughter of Choudhri Mohammad Hidayat Ali Khan deceased resident of Kasba Balram have been fixed for ever and after th...
Rameshwar Rai Vs. Sheopal Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1929
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.822
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Remeshar plaintiff in respect of certain property originally owned by one Raghunandan. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled as next reversioner on the death of Raghunandan's widow, Musammat Lachminia, and the suit was brought against more remote reversioners. The suit was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff was estopped by a certain agreement from claiming the whole of the estate of Raghunandan.2. The facts of the case are as follows:--The genealogical table given in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court indicates the relationship between the parties to this suit, Raghunandan, the last male owner, died in 1892, leaving behind him a widow, Musammat Lachminia. The lady could not manage her husband's property herself, so she entered into an arrangement, which pruported to lease out her land to the plaintiff, his two brothers and his two distant cousins. They, however, failed to pay her the rent secured by this lea...
Jadunandan Misra and ors. Vs. Sheopahal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All272
Dalal, J.1. I am sorry to disappoint Mr. Goyel who I see has come prepare with a large number of law reports. When I admitted this revision, I overlooked the omission of the applicants to approach the Sessions Judge first. In future the trial clerk is directed to note when an application for revision is made direct to this Court without first approaching the District Magistrate or the Court of Sessions. As a rule there is a practice at the Bar to certify in the grounds of revision that application was made to the District Judge or to the Sessions Judge and had not proved successful. If the trial clerk makes a note, the attention of the Judge would at once be drawn to the omission.2. It has been the settled practice of this Court to refuse to hear an application for revision, even after an ex-parte admission of the application, when the applicant has not first applied to the District Magistrate or to the Sessions Judge for revision. The practice was laid down by a Bench Judgment of this...
Hans Raj Vs. Surja and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All324; 115Ind.Cas.449
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Hansraj, plaintiff-appellant, against his cousins for damages in respect of a certain 5 bighas 1 biswa, 6 biswansis of a tenancy holding which the defendants are said to have cultivated over and above the area in the holding to the possession of which they are entitled. The plaint set forth that one Madho Singh had three sons, and that the plaintiff was the son of Sheo Sahai. The other defendants were sons of Ganga Bakhsh and Har Bakhsh. It went on to say that there was an occupancy holding belonging to all three brothers, that the plaintiff inherited his father's rights as a co-tenant and as such was entitled to be in possession or to enjoy the profits of 18 bighas 7 biswas and 7 biswansis, whereas he had only been allowed to cultivate 13 bighas 6 biswas. He, therefore, asked for a sum of Rs. 355 as remuneration for three years in respect of the land in the possession of the defendants. The suit was resisted on the grou...
Meharban Ali Khan Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All374; 118Ind.Cas.232
Dalal, J.1. This is an application in revision from the discharge of a patwari of an offence under the provisions of Section 218, I.P.C. The learned Judge is wrong both in law and fact. In my opinion the Magistrate arrived at a correct decision on the question of law. In a certain revenue suit brought by a tenant against the zamindar Sajjad Ali Khan for commutation of rent in kind into cash rent the patwari Sita Ram was examined as a witness. The revenue Court is generally in a hurry, and to avoid taking down a statement in detail the patwari was directed to prepare a written statement (fard) according to his papers and file it. He prepared a 'fard' and made a statement on oath.I file 'fard' exhibit A. It is prepared by me according to settlement rates and the papers of 1333 Fasli.2. The suit was heard ex parte, so there was no cross-examination. It appears that in the village record of 1333 Fasli a rent of Rs. 110 payable by the plaintiff-tenant was entered. The zamindar subsequently ...
Tikam Singh and ors. Vs. Likhi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All319
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for redemption of a mortgage dated 14th December 1896. Harbans and Ramjit were the mortgagors and Sobha Ram and Frunt were the mortgagees and the property in suit was usufructuarily mortgaged to secure Rs 1,300. The mortgagors sold their equity of redemption to Lakhkhi, Chandan and Dipchand on 20th October 1900. After the death of Lakhkhi, his estate devolved upon Chunni Ram alias Chet Ram, Kalyan and Bhim Raj by succession. Chet Ram alias Chunni Ram sold his equity of redemption to the plaintiff on 3rd September 1920. The share of the plaintiff in the equity of redemption is about 1/6th in the property but the integrity of the mortgage not having been broken he institutes the present suit for redemption of the entire mortgage.2. Sobha Ram, one of the original mortgagees, was dead and the suit, as originally framed, was instituted against Tikam Singh, and Ratan Singh, sons of Sobha Ram, and Frunt, one of the original mortgagees.3. The pl...
Emperor Vs. Jukhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All338
1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly under Section 307, Criminal P.C.2. Jukhan was committed to sessions on a charge under Section 394-75, I.P.C. The trial proceeded with the aid of five jurors. A verdict of 'not guilty' was returned by a majority of 3 to 2. The learned Sessions Judge disagrees with the verdict of the majority and is clearly of opinion that it is necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case for the consideration of this Court. The Judge has stated his opinion on the evidence and given his reasons for differing from the majority of the jury. The reference to this Court fulfills the requirement of Section 307, Criminal P.C.3. Ordinarily the verdict of the jury to whom the decision of the case was primarily entrusted by law is entitled to very great weight and their verdict is not liable to displacement upon the mere ground that upon a consideration of all the evidence, a Judge would have arrived at a conclusion different from that...
Karam Ali Vs. Mohammad Latif and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All326
Dalal, J.1. This property in suit was once held by a man of the name of Wazir. He disappeared and his wife Bandi Bibi took possession of the property as against the rightful heirs by right of succession. She sold the property on 16th September 1873 to two persons for a sum of Rs. 700. Ultimately one of these, Mohammad Ali became owner of the entire property by purchasing the other portion of the property by right of pre-emption. The plaintiff of the present suit is legal heir of Wazir and sued the defendants who are successors-in-interest of Mohammad Ali for recovery of possession of the property. His case was that Mt. Bandi Bibi was in possession of the property in lieu of a dower debt of Rs. 51, that the debt had been paid out of the usufruct, that what was transferred was a right of retention of property until her dower debt was paid and that the defendants were liable to give up possession and to render accounts. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court held that what was sol...
Abdul Majid Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All364
1. This is an application in revision, and one of the grounds taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that we should set aside the verdict of the jury, as the charge to the jury by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was erroneous by reason of misdirection by the Judge. The powers that the Court of revision has under the Code of Criminal Procedure, are confined in cases like these to the powers of an appellate Court, and under Clause 2, Section 423, Criminal P.C, the Court cannot alter or reverse the verdict of a jury, until it is of opinion that such verdict is erroneous, owing to a misdirection by the Judge or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him.2. Mr. Malik has taken us through the charge to the jury, and we are unable to accept his contention that the charge was not a fair charge and that the Judge had misdirected the jury. Mr. Malik asks us to reduce the sentence, but we are unable to accede to his request.3. The application is ...
Bikram Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All535
1. The two appellants Bikram Singh and Nanhey Singh have been convicted, the first under Section 302 read with Section 114, I.P.C., and the second under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced to transportation for life.2. That Narain the deceased was injured by one blow from the instrument called kasi (Ex. 1) there can be no doubt, for the medical evidence makes it clear that the three injuries caused on Narain were very likely caused by one blow. The witnesses called on behalf of the prosecution have not been able to controvert the suggestion of the defence that only one blow was given to Narain. Having considered the whole of the evidence in the case, we have no doubt that the findings of the learned Session Judge that a fight took place between Ram Prasad and Mulaim Singh on the one side and Bikram Singh and Nanhey Singh on the other, was a correct finding.3. Narain who was admittedly a friend and a partisan of Mulaim Singh came up, and it may well be that the accused mistook Narain as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »