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.
Sharafat Ali Vs. Mt. Bhagwati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All763; 122Ind.Cas.678
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order directing a decree to be prepared in terms of the award and exempting the applicant. The applicant, Sharafat Ali, was a co-judgment-debtor with Jagpal, against whom Hamid Uddin had obtained a money decree. Certain property was attached in execution of that decree, and Mt. Bhagwati objected on the ground that it was her property and not of Jagpal. Her objection was disallowed and she instituted the suit, out of which this revision has arisen, for a declaration that the property was her property. She impleaded the decree-holder, judgment-debtor Jagpal and the Official Receiver of the estate; and she also impleaded Sharafat Ali. Sharafat Ali did not put in any appearance. The parties before the Court referred the dispute to arbitration, and an award was delivered under which it was held that the property did belong to Mi. Bhagwati. The Court below has passed decree in terms of the award, and has exempted Sharafat Ali.2. The a...
Bhola Nath Vs. Raghunath Das Mithan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All743; 122Ind.Cas.685
1. This is an application in revision from an order superseding a reference to arbitration before the award was delivered. Defendants 1 and 2 applied to the Court that the reference should be superseded on the ground that the umpire was related to the plaintiff and that the uncle of the umpire's son-in-law had sued the defendants at Kasganj and the plaintiff had an apprehension that the fact might influence the mind of the umpire in deciding the case. The learned Munsif after taking evidence came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the umpire was in any way related to the plaintiff but considered that defendants 1 and 2 might very well apprehend that the umpire would not treat them fairly. He himself did not record any finding that in his own opinion there was an apprehension that justice would not be done and that his immediate intervention was called for. He superseded the reference and fixed a date for the disposal of the suit. Defendant 3 has applied in revision from this...
Nathu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All855; 118Ind.Cas.46
1. This is an appeal by one Nathu Brahmin against a sentence of death passed on him under Section 302, I.P.C., and a reference for confirmation of that sentence. Nathu has not been represented by counsel before us because it was reported that he had sufficient means to employ counsel. He has not done so, but the case has been very fairly placed before us by the learned Government Advocate.2. The facts are that the deceased Munshi and his brother Kashi Ram who has become a Sidhu owned a half share in an occupancy holding in Sarauth village and the accused Nathu owned the other half share. Nathu formerly lived in a village about a mile from Sarauth called Jasrathpur and in that village also lived one Mt. Rainka who was married to Baldeo Brahmin, and the mother of Baldeo Brahmin was a sister of the mother of Nathu. Baldeo died when Mt. Rainka was a young girl of about 15 or 16 years of age and after his death, she states that she became the mistress of both the accused and the deceased. S...
Ram Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.767
1. Ramnath, the appellant, was put on his trial on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code of having murdered his wife on the 26th of 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 the 28th of July, 1928, Ramnath made a confession which was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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...
Mohammad Raziq-dad Khan Vs. Haji Mohammad Zafaryab Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All168
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for profits. Several points have been pressed before us. The first is that the restoration of the suit, after it had been dismissed for default owing to non-appearance of all the plaintiffs, was improper. The learned advocate for the appellant argues that it is open to him to raise this point now in second appeal in view of the provision of Section 105, Civil P.C. There is some difference of opinion as regards the interpretation of that section in the High Courts in India. Our attention has also been drawn to the remarks of Lindsay, J. in the Full Bench case Ram Sarup v. Gaya Prasad : AIR1925All610 dissenting from the view expressed in the Division Bench case Nand Ram v. Bhopal Singh [1912] 34 All. 592. On the other hand, there is the case of Tasadduq Husain v. Hayatunnissa [1903] 25 All. 280, directly against the appellant. It seems to us unnecessary to decide in this case whether the words 'affecting the decision of the case' in S...
Sukhwa and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All707a; 118Ind.Cas.190
1. This is a reference of the death sentence passed on Sukhwa Pasi and appeals by Sukhwa, Darshanwa, Mangalwa and Parbhua Passis. These four persons have been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C., of causing the death of a Kalwar called Ram Prasad on 12th November 1928 as a result of an assault committed on 7th November 1928. The parties are all residents of the village of Palia. The questions to be decided are firstly, whether the assault was committed by all four accused or by the accused Sukhwa alone, and secondly, what were the circumstances which led up to the assault. For the prosecution three eyewitnesses, Ram Bharose who admittedly accompanied the deceased and two persons Bore and Badri who were close to the scene of occurrence, stated that they witnessed the assault and that all the four accused beat the deceased with lathis. Four witnesses have given evidence for the defence, but we consider that their evidence is not worthy of credit. The first report which was made without a...
Secy. of State and anr. Vs. Nand Ram Chhotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All749; 122Ind.Cas.682
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for damages brought against the East Indian Railway Company. 126 bags of sugar were consigned to the plaintiff under two risk notes in form B, out of which 18 were found missing on arrival and two bags which did not belong to the plaintiffs were also tendered by the railway company, of which the plaintiff's munib refused to take delivery.2. The plaintiff alleged that there was a wilful neglect on the part of the railway Company and that the plaintiff's packages having been lost he was entitled to damages as well as interest. The defence taken by the railway company was that there was no wilful neglect on their part and that it was a case of robbery from a running train and the company was, therefore, protected. The lower appellate Court has conceded in favour of the company that the burden of proving wilful neglect was on the plaintiff but held that the burden of proving a robbery from a running train was on the defendant company. I...
Abhey Ram and anr. Vs. Jhanda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All910; 121Ind.Cas.102
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that they are in proprietary and adverse possession of the property in suit. The last male owner was Jas Karan on whose death Mt. Kuri his widow admittedly succeeded to the estate. It was the plaintiffs' case that Mt. Kuri remarried and that there was a custom under which she forfeited all rights in this estate. Her deceased husband's uncle Tirkha instituted a suit against her for possession but during the pendency of the suit he died. That suit was continued by Kanhaiya the father of the present plaintiff who was not the nearest reversioner of Tirkha, but Net Ram and Nawal the grandfathers of the present defendants were the nearest reversionary heirs. These latter were impleaded as pro-forma defendants. The suit was dismissed by the first Court and Kanhaiya alone appealed to the District Judge and got a decree reversing the decree of the first Court. That judgment was set aside and the suit dismissed by the High Cour...
Hakim Saiyad Abdullah Vs. Saiyad Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.666
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, and for a declaration that, the sale-deed dated the 12th of January, 1925, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is null and void as against the plaintiff.,2. The plaintiff s case was that defendant No. 1 contracted to sell his 1 anna 7 ganda:, and odd share in Mauza Dharamsipur to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,925 and, on receipt of R9. 99 by way of earnest money, on the 26th of December, 1924, executed an agreement embodying the terms of the contract and promised to execute the sale-deed on the 5th of January, 1925, but notwithstanding the said contract defendant No. 1 sold 17 1/2 gandas share to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 fore a sum of Rs. 2,700 on the 12th of January, 1925.3. The suit was contested by all the defendants. The case put forward by the defendants was that, prior to the agreement alleged by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 had on the 17th of ...
J.W. Thomas Vs. Hanuman Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All837; 122Ind.Cas.675
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, whose suit has failed in the two lower Courts. The matter was extremely simple, but around it there have grown a number of erroneous ideas both of law and fact. The plaintiff sued on the allegation that, on 28th March 1924, the defendant executed and got registered a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, conveying to the plaintiff plot 21 in the Cantonment of Allahabad in consideration of the payment of rupees 4,000 Para. 3 of the plaint runs as follows:After the receipt of the money and the execution of this document, the defendant did not deliver possession over it to the plaintiff nor could he do so, inasmuch as he defendant, had no right to transfer the said property. The plaintiff accordingly sued for the return of Rs. 4,000 consideration and also for interest.2. The defence was that possession had been given to the plaintiff, and para. 15 of the written statement sets forth:This defendant purchased the said property in November 1914, u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »