Allahabad Court April 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.
Dwarka Prasad and anr. Vs. Ojha Dariao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All560
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand of a District Judge in appeal which was filed before him against a decree of an Assistant Collector. A preliminary objection has been taken by Dr. Agarwala that the Tenancy Act 3 of 1926 does not provide for an appeal against an order of remand passed by a District Judge in appeal. Under Section 240, Tenancy Act, no appeal lay from any decree or order passed by any Court under the Tenancy Act except as provided by the Act. Section 242 provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector in certain suits. The present suit was one of those. We cannot find any provision in the Tenancy Act which allows an appeal to this Court from an order passed by a District Judge in appeal. We therefore, allow the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Mohammad Niaz, Ahmad Khan and ors. Vs. Nanhe Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All615
1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit for sale on foot of a mortgage of 30th April 1919 which had been executed by one Mr. Muhammad Ismail Khan in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Md. Ismail Khan died on 9th November 1919. In September 1919 Md. Ismail Khan had executed a deed of wakf. Ex. 10, by which he had appointed certain persons as mutawallis. Defendants 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Mohammad Ismail Khan, defendants 5 to 9 are the trustees under the wakf, and defendant 10 is a subsequent mortgagee of the property in suit. Various pleas were taken by the defendants and the points that were in controversy before the Court below were whether Mohammad Ismail Khan had validly executed the mortgage, and the mortgage was legally enforceable, and whether the rate of interest was excessive; and the last question, which was the only question in controversy before us, was whether an agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff Nanhe Mal and the mutawallis on 19...
Mohammad Niaz Ahmed Khan and ors. Vs. Lala Nannhe Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.107
1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit for sale on foot of a mortgage of the 30th, of April, 1919 which had been executed by one Mr. Muhammad Ismail Khan in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.2. Muhammad Ismail Khan died on the (sic) of November, 1919. In September, 1919 Muhammad Ismail Khan had executed a deed of waqf. Ex. 10, by which he had appointed certain persons as mutwallis. Defendants Nos. 1 4 are the legal heirs of Muhammad Ismail Khan defendants Nos. 5-9 are the trustees under the waqf and the 10th defendant is a subsequent mortgagee of the property in suit. Various pleas were taken by the defendants and the points that were in controversy before the Court below were whether Muhammad Ismail Khan had validly executed the mortgage, and the mortgage was legally enforceable, and whether the rate of interest was excessive and the last question, which was the only question in controversy before us, was whether an agreement had been entered into between the plaint...
Kunwar Ram Krishna Vs. Anand Krishna and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All578; 118Ind.Cas.589
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiffs, through their mother, and certain relations transferred to the defendant-appellant two items of property, one being landed property and the other being certain houses occupied by tenants. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondents to obtain a declaration that the house property was never intended to be sold and to be purchased and that, therefore, the plaintiff's title to the property remains intact. In the alternative the plaintiffs ask for delivery of possession. The defence was that parties did in fact intend to sell and did sell the house property and the defendant is the owner of the property and he is in possession of the same. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The Court below has decreed the suit for possession with respect of one-half of the property on the ground that the plaintiffs' title extended to only a half share. The Court found that the plaintiffs were out of possession.2. In this Court, it has been contended t...
Shanker Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All587; 117Ind.Cas.346
Dalal, J.1. In this case it has been definitely held by both the Subordinate Courts that Moti was not only beaten but was robbed of a sum of Rs. 150. It is argued here that this Court could revise the finding of fact of the subordinate Courts and hold that Moti was only beaten and that there was no robbery. Reference was made to the wording of Section 435, Criminal P.C., that this Court may send for a record to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed. Legality and propriety would both include questions of law as to whether a finding, sentence or order was legal or proper having regard to the evidence. Then there is the word 'correctness.' That does not mean that this Court may inquire whether the finding was acceptable to it on a balance of the evidence recorded in the trial Court. The correctness of the finding, sentence or order also implies a legal defence such as the finding being based on an entire want of ev...
Mahabir Vs. Baijnath Singh and ors. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All609; 117Ind.Cas.339
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal against the concurrent judgments of the two lower civil Courts which have awarded the respondent-plaintiffs a decree for joint possession as cosharers with the appellant in certain plots in which it is admitted that the respondents own 13/16th shares. The points raised in appeal are that joint possession should not have been granted because the defendant had not denied the title of the plaintiffs and because there was an apprehension of the breach of the peace. The facts are simple. The plots in question were held by a tenant Mata Mahesh and all the cosharers, i.e. appellant and the respondents, brought a suit in the revenue Court for ejectment of the tenant. Under the Agra Tenancy Act 3 of 1926 it is necessary that all the cosharers should join in such a suit, and by bringing this suit along with the respondents the appellant clearly admitted that respondents were cosharers with him in regard to this tenancy. Subsequently one of the respondents app...
Kailash Chandar JaIn Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All544
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The facts are simple and not in dispute. The plaintiff is the sole zamindar of the village and the defendant is an occupancy tenant. The defendant has recently constructed a well close to his occupancy tenancy on some 'parti' land. The mukhtar-am of the plaintiff admits that the distance of the well from the occupancy holding is only 20 paces. The plaintiff has not shown that he has been caused any special damage by the construction of this well. The only argument put before me on appeal, out of the various grounds of appeal, was that it was necessary for the lower Courts to find that there was a local custom entitling the defendant to make the well in question, and that as a matter of fact it was not necessary for the defendant to make the well because sufficient water could be obtained for irrigation of his holding from a jhil. Section 110, Act 3 of 1926 states:An ex-proprie...
Achhaibar Misir and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All614; 117Ind.Cas.99
Dalal, J.1. Applications for bail were put up before the two subordinate Courts, one of the Magistrate and one of the Judge, and neither appears to have realized what kind of an inquiry was necessary in the matter. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 497(1). Reasons given by him are such as would necessitate severe punishment in case of conviction, but are not reasons for a refusal to grant bail. It may happen that there may be likelihood of an offender absconding in case of bail, or of his terrorizing prosecution witnesses. That would be a reason for using discretion against him in refusing to grant him bail. Another reason may be that he may commit a similar or any other serious offence while on bail. No such reason is given by the Magistrate. When the matter went up before the Sessions Judge the reason given by him which looks like a reason of want of jurisdiction, must be due to want of reference to the law on the subject at the time of passing the order. Th...
Ch. Resal Singh Vs. Baljit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All709
Dalal, J.1. As I have previously remarked in several judgments Chap. 10, Criminal P.C, was not revised with care in 1923 when additions were made to it in accordance with certain rulings of certain High Courts. In Section 139-A it is not stated who is to have the matter of the existence of a right decided by a competent civil Court and what order the Magistrate has to pass in order to reach an end to the criminal litigation. Under Clause (2) of that section the Magistrate has to stay proceedings and obviously the proceedings are not meant to be stayed indefinitely. There should be some period of the stay, and the Magistrate ought to have the power of dismissing the application on the right not being decided by a civil Court on motion by a particular party within a certain time. In the present case the question of the authority of the Magistrate to direct a party to take proceedings in the civil Court has not been questioned by Mr. Nihal Chand, and argument was addressed to me only on t...
Ali Mohammad Vs. Manna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All972; 118Ind.Cas.657
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against whom the lower appellate Court has granted a decree for Rs. 200 for defamation. The defamation in question was contained in an application which was made by the appellant to a civil Court, asking that certain papers should be sent to arbitrators in a suit in which the appellant was a party, but the respondent was not a party. The passage in question is as follows:The plaintiff (viz., Beni Prasad the plaintiff in suit No. 1001 of 1925) has a regular gang. The plaintiff is a great forgerer, liar and a clever man, and Bala Prasad, Parbhu Dial and Manna Lal (the plaintiff in this suit) are included in that gang which is responsible for producing many forged pronotes charging others with liability and which has filed many false suits against others and has made illegal gain in this way.2. In second appeal the only question raised is whether the occasion on which this statement was made was or was not an occasion of absolute privi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »