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.
Chaudhri Risal Singh Vs. Baljit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.352
Dalal, J.1. As I have previously remarked in several judgments Chap. X of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. Nehal Chand, and argument was addres...
Bahal Singh and ors. Vs. Mohammad Yusuf and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All504; 118Ind.Cas.520
Bennet, J.1. These are two second appeals by the plaintiffs whose suit for removal of certain alleged encroachments have been dismissed by the two lower civil Courts The plaintiffs are residents in houses in a certain lane in the town of Gangoh in the District of Saharanpur, and they alleged that in that lane, which is a public lane, the defendants, who are Muhammadans, have constructed a mosque, and that mosque encroaches on the lane to an extent which has made it too narrow for carts to pass to the houses of the plaintiffs. It is not alleged that the plaintiffs have suffered special damage otherwise which would entitle to maintain the suit for removal of the alleged encroachments. Both the lower Courts have made local inspections and have come to the conclusion of fact that there is no narrowing of the lane which would cause any special damage to the plaintiffs. The lane is according to the finding at least 7 feet 7 inches wide at the spot where the mosque has been built and carts ca...
Sita Ram Vs. Har Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All527; AIR1929All576; 118Ind.Cas.519
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by one Sita Ram, whose application for restitution to possession of certain houses Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been refused by the two lower civil Courts. The facts are simple and were not in dispute. Har Sahai the respondent, brought a suit No. 561 of 1921 in the Court of the Munsif against Sita Ram appellant for possession of houses Nos. 1, 2 and 3, another house No. 4 and a nibehra. Originally the suit was decreed ex parte then restored and decree for possession of houses Nos. 3 and 4 and a nibehra was granted to Har Sahai. Ultimately after an appeal and a second appeal it was decided that Har Sahai was entitled only to house No. 4 and the nibehra. Sita Ram has, therefore, applied under Section 144 Civil P.C., for restitution of possession of houses Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In the ordinary course it is clear that he would be entitled to restitution of these three houses under this section. But it is admitted that the appellant Sita Ram filed a partition suit, No...
Sis Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All585; 118Ind.Cas.384
Dalal, J.1. The case is a very clear one. All the appellants have been rightly convicted, and I dismiss the appeal. What delayed my decision for a considerable time was by reason of a second similar charge against Sisram and Debi for seducing the same girl. This refers to appeal No. 97. The learned Judge has not explained the circumstances. What the learned Government Pleader and I gather is that Sisram and Debi were separately tried for offering the girl after seduction to separate persons for sale. An offence under Section 366 A, however, is one of inducement with a particular object, and when after inducement the offender offers the girl to several persons, a fresh offence is not committed at every fresh offer for sale. Several offers for sale evidence the criminal intention of the offender just as much as one offer for sale. Under the circumstances once Sisram and Debi were convicted of seducing the girl they could not be convicted over again for the same seduction unless in a case...
Behari Lal Vs. Babu Ram and Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.659
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a defendant against whom the lower Courts have decreed redemption of a mortgage of a shop. The mortgage was made in 1867 by one Mulraj to Hulasrai, the ancestor of the first defendant. The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the descendants of Mulraj on 2nd January, 1926. On 16th January, 1914, the defendant No. 1 executed a sale-deed of this house as owner in favour of defendant No. 2. This deed was registered on 19th January, 1914, when the price was paid. The present suit was brought on the 19th January, 1926. The only question, which has been argued on second appeal is whether Article 134 of the Limitation Act applies to this suit and the method of its application. The Article states that the period of limitation runs from the date of transfer. If so, the suit would be time-barred if the Article applied. On the other hand, if the Article applied from the date of possession and that date were taken as the date of, payment before ...
Bhagwan Das Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. B.N. Ry.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All597a
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against the decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court and arises under the following circumstances. The applicant firm indented some rice from a place called Burdaura served by the B.N. Ry. The goods were consigned to where the applicant lived namely Deoria in the District of Gorakhpur. Unluckily, the railway receipt was made out to show that the goods were sent to a place called Jalalpur. In spite of this fact, a part of the consignment arrived at Deoria, nobody could tell how, on 14th April 1927. It was not till 8th May 1927 that the remaining portion of the consignment was received in Deoria and handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff-applicant, thereupon, brought his suit out of which this application has arisen to recover certain amounts of money including a sum of Rs. 230 as damages. The claim for damages was based on the allegation that by the time the goods arrived, the market for the goods (rice) fell and the plaintiff suffered...
Sheo Saran Rai Vs. Jaimangal Misir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All616; 121Ind.Cas.223
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against the concurrent decrees of the two lower civil Courts, decreeing possession of the property in suit to the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff brought his suit for redemption of plot 585, area 62 acres in mauza Ranighat. The following facts have been proved. On 10th January 1916 one Kodai Rani made a usufructuary mortgage to the defendant-appellants of 35 acre of this plot and of another plot. On 28th May 1925 Kodai Rai made a perpetual lease of the plot in suit to the plaintiff. On 26th March 1927 Dudh Nath, the son of Kodai Rai, sold whatever rights remained to him in two pie zamindari share to which this plot appertained to the defendants. The first question that was argued was that by some rule of law not explained the purchase by the appellant of the rights of Kodai Rai in two pie zamindari share would prevent the plaintiff from suing for redemption.2. It appears to me that it was perfectly legal for Kodai Rai to make a ...
Firm Bhagwan Das Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Bengal Nagpur Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.95
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against the decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court and arises under the following circumstances.2. The applicant firm indented some rice from a place called Burdaura served by the Bengal-Nagpur Railway. The goods were consigned to where the applicant lived, namely, Deoria in the district of Gorakhpur. Unluckily, the Railway receipt was made out to show that the goods were sent to a place called Jalalpur. In spite of this fact, a part of the consignment arrived at Deoria, nobody could tell how, on 14th April, 1927. It was not till the 8th of May, 1927, that the remaining portion of the consignment was received in Deoria and handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff-applicant, thereupon, brought his suit out of which this application has arisen to recover certain amounts of money including a sum of Rs. 230 as damages. The claim for damages was based on the allegation that by the time the goods arrived, the market for the goods (rice) fel...
Budhu Pasi Vs. Badlu Pasi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.523
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by two defendants against a decree of a lower Appellate Court, the Additional Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh, granting the respondent plaintiffs a declaration that they are entitled to possession of one-third of the occupancy numbers in suit. The plaintiff-respondents sued in the Court of the learned Munsif on the ground that the property in suit was the ancestral property of the parties, and that after the death of Kewal, father of the plaintiffs, the defendants managed the property and their names were alone recorded in the revenue khataunis, and that in 1927, the defendants began to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs brought this suit. The main ground of defence was that the plaintiffs were not the sons of Kewal but were the sons of another person whose widow came to live with Kewal. On this issue the trial Court found that the plaintiffs were not the sons of Kewal, but this finding has been reversed by the lower Appe...
Mt. Imtiaz Bibi Vs. Mt. Kabia Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All602; 118Ind.Cas.164
1. This case has been referred to a larger Bench on account of an apparent conflict between the case of Dulla v. Shib Lal [1917] 39 All. 47 and the case of Bulaqi Das v. Kesri : AIR1928All363 . One Abdul Rahman died in 1917 leaving a widow Mt. Kabia Bibi and a daughter as well as three brothers as his heirs. One of his brother Abdul Karim promptly made a gift of his share which he had inherited in favour of his wife Mt. Imtiaz Bibi. A suit was brought by Mt. Kabia Bibi for recovery of her dower debt against the heirs of the deceased by realization of the amount out of the assets left by him. There can he no doubt that the heirs were liable to pay the dower debt when they took the assets. A compromise decree was passed in favour of Mt. Kabia Bibi against the heirs including Abdul Karim. Abdul Karim died afterwards and his heirs including Mt. Imtiaz Bibi his widow, were brought on the record as the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. Mt. Kabia Bibi decree-holder procee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »