Allahabad Court June 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.
Jagdeo Singh and ors. Vs. Kesho Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All735; 118Ind.Cas.227
1. This is an application in revision from an order passed by the District Judge on 11th February 1929, remanding a case to the Assistant Collector with directions to retry it. The Assistant Collector had on 2nd August 1927, held that the land in respect of which arrears were claimed had by an action of the river been transferred to another pargana and he had no jurisdiction to try the case. He accordingly ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge who held that the revenue Court had jurisdiction to try the case. The suit related to years during which the land had not been so transferred. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that no appeal lay to the District Judge because so far as the question of the appeal is concerned the matter was governed by the old Tenancy Act under which no appeal from an order was allowed, but he contends that a revision lies under the new Act.2. It was held by a Pull Bench of th...
Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Khubi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All793; 118Ind.Cas.189
1. This is a revision by a judgment-debtor arising out of an auction sale. On 19th January 1928, an objection under Order 21, Rule 90 was filed by the judgment-debtor that the decree-holder had dishonestly misled certain bidders by false representation, that fictitious bids were offered and that the property was sold for an inadequate consideration. The learned Munsif took down the evidence of the judgment-debtor on 25th January 1928 and dismissed his objection on the 26th. He did not fix any date for its hearing and issued no notice to the decree-holder and obviously did not allow any opportunity to the judgment-debtor to produce any witnesses in corroboration of his testimony. This in our opinion was a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction which might have prejudiced the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor appealed to the District Judge who dismissed his appeal stating that it seemed that the judgment-debtor made no attempt to establish his suggestion and did not pro...
Ram Ratan Vs. Ram Lal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All759; 118Ind.Cas.188
1. This is an application in revision by the defendant Ram Ratan, His mother Mt. Dukhni was also a defendant whom the plaintiff in his amended plaint had alleged to be a pro-forma defendant who had no interest in the property. At the trial the plaintiff and the defendant Ram Ratan agreed to abide by the statement of one Bihari Singh on oath before the Court. Bihari Singh made his statement on oath and the trial Court pronounced its judgment in accordance with the statement of Bihari Singh. On appeal the District Judge has held that inasmuch as there was no such agreement on behalf of Mt. Dukhni the case should be disposed of on the merits as against her.2. Ram Ratan wants that the whole case should be retried and should not be bound by the statement of Bihari Singh. In our opinion the case fell under Oaths Act. Under Section 9 the defendant Ram Ratan had offered to be bound by the oath of any witness and under Section 11 the evidence so given shall, as against the person who offered to...
Govind Ram and ors. Vs. Gokul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All806; 122Ind.Cas.750
1. This appeal raises an interesting point. Govind, Dallu and Kallu, all by caste Kalwars, were aggrieved by certain Hindus and Muhammadans, refusing to allow them to draw water from five wells and thereupon Govind, Dallu and Kallu purporting to act on behalf of all the members of their brotherhood filed a plaint what was, as we shall show most clearly, intended to be a representative and not a personal suit against some 18 defendants. The plaintiffs omitted to obtain the permission which is required by O.1, Rule 8. That fact did not appear to be noticed by the defendants. It was undoubtedly a matter of discussion before the Munsif, who, however, in our opinion, did not approach the matter properly when he had found that the plaintiffs were themselves alleging that the suit was one under Order 1, Rule 8. It was his duty to study the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, and he would then have seen that before he was entitled to hear the suit at all permission had to be granted by a competent ...
Bhagwan Prasad Vs. Madan Murari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All811
1. This is a defendant's application in revision from an order restoring a case. It is not necessary to consider the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents as we are satisfied that on the merits this revision must fail. On the adjourned date of hearing, the senior vakil engaged did not turn up in time, and the junior vakil for the plaintiffs stated that his client had gone to fetch the senior vakil and he himself could not produce the evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge thought that this was a case of non-appearance on the part of the plaintiffs, and dismissed the suit under Order 9, Rule 8. That this was an error is now conceded by the advocate for the applicant. Under Order 17, Rule 2, as amended by this High Court no party is to be deemed to have failed to appear, if he is either present or is represented in Court by any pleader, though engaged only for the purpose of making applications. As the junior vakil was present in Court, there was no default in appear...
Kunj Lal and anr. Vs. Munshi Batuk Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.552
Dalai, J.1. The law on the subject is very clear. The lower Appellate Court ought to have quoted Section 135 of the Contract Act to enable this Court to understand his observations. Section 135 of the Contract Act lays down: 'A contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, by which the creditor makes a composition with, or promises to give time to, or not to sue, the principal debtor, discharges the surety, unless the surety assents to such contract.' In the present case before a decree was passed Batuk Prasad agreed to pay the decretal amount of decree to be passed in case the defendant of that suit failed to do so. The creditor entered into a composition with the defendant and promised to give him three months' time to pay up the decretal amount. This was done without obtaining the assent of Batuk Prasad. Batuk Prasad was, therefore, discharged from his liability under the provisions of the law quoted above. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
Balbhaddar Prasad Vs. Mt. Bitto
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All754; 118Ind.Cas.188
1. This is an application is revision from an order, dated 14th January 1928, refusing to allow the applicant to withdraw the money deposited under Section 83, T.P. Act, by the mortgagor. The money was deposited in favour of the present applicant and his father on 16th October 1922. An application was made on 9th December 1922, on behalf of the present applicant alone, which was consigned to the record room on the ground that both the mortgagees had not joined. Later on, a fresh application was made by the applicant, alleging that his father had not been heard of for more than seven years, and must be presumed to be dead. The learned Judge has considered that he is not competent to make enquiries into the death of the applicant's father, and has thought that without the consent of the mortgagor he cannot order the money to be paid to only one of the mortgagees.2. In our opinion, the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it. The amount was deposited to the ...
Gargi DIn Misra Vs. Debi Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All805; 122Ind.Cas.752
1. This is an application in revision from an order of the District Judge, Cawnpore, remanding a revenue appeal.2. The respondent, Debi Charan, first instituted a suit for arrears of rent based on a registered kabuliyat executed by the applicant. The suit was resisted on the ground that the kabuliyat was fictitious, that in respect of a sale-deed executed by the present applicant he still remained the proprietor of the land and that there was no relation between the parties of a land holder and a tenant. The revenue Court ordered that the present applicant, who was a defendant to that suit should under Section 199, Tenancy Act, establish his title in a civil Court. Accordingly, he filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the civil Court and an appeal from that decree is still pending in this High Court and is numbered as First Appeal No. 569 of 1926. In the meantime the revenue Court decreed the claim for arrears of rent on the basis of the judgment of the subordinate civil...
Ram Chander Vs. Tej Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All906
1. This is an application in revision from an order refusing to restore an application which was itself an application for setting aside an ex parte decree and had been dismissed for default. The learned Judge thought that no application for the restoration of such an application can lie, and the only remedy open to the applicant is to make a fresh application. Apparently his view seems to be that, if an application for setting aside an ex parte decree is dismissed for default, a fresh application for setting aside the ex parte decree should be filed, and no application to restore the application dismissed for default is competent. If this view were correct, the result would be that, if the application for setting aside an ex parte decree happens to be dismissed after the expiry of 30 days, the applicant would be left without any remedy, even though there may be a just cause for his non-appearance. For, it is quite clear that Section 5, Lim. Act, would not apply to such an application,...
Ramnath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All450
Boys, J.1. Ramnath, the appellant, was put on his trial on a charge under Section 302, I.P. C, of having murdered his wife on 26th August 1928. We have read the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the material evidence and, as the learned Additional Sessions Judge says in his judgment, the facts are not in dispute. We need not therefore recapitulate them further than is necessary for the purposes of the present judgment. On 28th July 1928, Ramnath made a confession which was recorded under Section 164, Criminal P. C, it is only necessary to read that statement to appreciate that Ramnath was at that time either wandering in his mind or shamming. The committing Magistrate, however, who heard the witnesses and who again had of course to take the statement of Ramnath, recording it under Section 364, expressed in his commitment order the view that whether or no Ramnath was at the time of committing the offence of unsound mind, he was at the time of the inquiry before the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »