Allahabad Court July 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.
Emperor Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All899
1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Moradabad in a matter arising out of an appeal purporting to be under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. The learned District Judge has not stated under what rule of law he has made the reference, but we presume that his reference is under Section 113 and Order 46, Civil P.C. If that is so, the reference is quite competent.2. The facts are briefly these: A certain person who was the appellant before the learned District Judge, viz., Ram Prasad, was ordered to be prosecuted for perjury by the learned Subordinate Judge of Moradabad. When the appeal came up for hearing, the objection was taken that no appeal lay. A ruling of a single Judge of the Lahore High Court, viz., Satto v. Emperor A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 9, was quoted before the Judge. The learned Judge was not satisfied that the ruling was a correct one. He did not like to take upon himself the responsibility of differing from a decision of a High Court, although the High Court was not th...
Darbari Lal Vs. Damodar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All792; 122Ind.Cas.687
1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against a decree of the lower appellate Court awarding the plaintiff one-third share of a sum of money, which he had paid under a decree, on the ground that the defendant was bound to contribute that one-third as a joint judgment-debtor along with the plaintiff. The facts are that the plaintiff and defendant were thikadars of certain zamindari property under a thikanama executed in favour of both of them, and subsequently reversioners of the executant sued the plaintiff and defendant for possession of the property and mesne profits, and on 31st March 1920, a decree was passed to the extent of one-third against the defendant and two-thirds against the plaintiff for mesne profits, interest and costs, amounting to Rs. 6,797-11-8 It has been found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that by 1st October 1923, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 2,400, and that between 1st August 1926 and 18th February 1927 the plaintiff paid Rs. 2,198-13-10 on this decr...
Amir Ullah and anr. Vs. Mt. Taqdirunnissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All798; 118Ind.Cas.234
Dalal, J.1. The lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to touch this matter. Formerly there was a khata-khewat No. 4 belonging to Muhammad Ali and Mt. Sajidunnissa. The plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest of Muhammad Ali and the defendants of Sajidunnissa, They owned 83 bighas and odd in equal shares and paid revenue in equal shares. On 10th April 1911 Muhammad Ali executed two deeds of gift granting 4 bighas 19 biswas to his wife free of revenue and the rest of his property to his daughters making them liable to pay the entire half revenue. In 1320 fasli Government revenue officials distributed the revenue 4 bighas 19 biswas was separated as khata No. 5 and assessed to revenue disregarding the direction of Muhammad Ali in his gift to his wife that the property shall be hold by her free of revenue. The rest of the property was kept in khata No. 4 and the revenue was distributed half and half, half payable by Muhammad Ali's daughters and half by the defendants, the sons of Mt. ...
Moti Lal Agarhari Vs. Champa Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All795; 118Ind.Cas.237
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal and arises under the following circumstances:2. On 7th December 1920, the decree-holder respondent obtained a simple money decree against three brothers named Hira Lal, Panna Lal and Moti Lal. Panna Lal and Moti Lal were minors on the date of that decree. The decree provided that the person of Panna Lal and Moti Lal and their shares in the ancestral house will be exempt from the operation of the decree. The decree-holder filed an appeal against that decree and, on 7th July 1921, the appellate Court modified the decree of the trial Court to this extent that it passed a decree against all the three brothers with the proviso, that so far as Panna Lal and Moti Lal were concerned, the decree money will be recoverable only from the family property in their hands.3. The first application for execution was filed on 1st February 1924. All the three brothers were arrayed as judgment-debtors in that application. Moti Lal by tha...
Askari HusaIn Vs. L. Chunni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All849
1. This is an application to revise an order of the learned District Judge of Bulandshahr, dated 3rd March 1928 by which that Judge rejected an application made to him by the petitioner to obtain the Judge's sanction to certain proposed transfers of some property alleged to be wakf. The learned Judge refused the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it.2. In the Court below the application was opposed by certain creditors of the estate. They are, in this Court represented by Dr. N.C. Vaish. His clients, have filed an affidavit in this Court stating that they are no longer interested in the property and that certain moneys due to them have been realised by two auction sales. The learned Counsel, however, urged that the decision of the Court below was right.3. We have given the petition in this Court our best consideration and have come to the conclusion that the learned Judge had the jurisdiction to hear the application and should have heard it.4. It is a pi...
Jhabboo Misir Vs. Havaldar Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All840
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Ballia, dated 3rd March 1928 by which that learned Judge refused an application on behalf of a defendant judgment-debtor to set aside the ex parte decree made against him on 1st November 1927.2. The only point that requires decision in this Court is whether the learned Judge was right in dismissing the application on the ground (inter alia) that no direction of the Court was taken as to whether the judgment-debtor should deposit, along with his application, the decretal amount or should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court.3. We have to construe the proviso to Sub-section 1, Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Court Act. It reads as follows:Provided an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ox parte... shall, at the time of presenting an application, either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment or give security to the...
Syed Askari HusaIn Vs. Lala Chunnilal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.674
1. This is an application to revise an order of the learned District Judge of Bulandshahr dated the 3rd of March, 1928, by which that Judge rejected an application made to him by the petitioner to obtain the Judge's sanction to certain proposed transfers of some property alleged to be wakf. The learned) Judge refused the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it.2. In the Court below the application was opposed by certain creditors of the estate. They are, in this Court represented by Dr. N. C. Vaish. His clients have filed an affidavit in this Court stating that they are no longer interested in the property and that certain moneys due to them have been realised by two auction sales. The learned Counsel, however, urged that the decision of the Court below 'was right.3. We have given the petition in this Court our best consideration and have come to the conclusion that the learned Judge had the jurisdiction to hear the application and should have heard it.4. ...
Jhabboo Misir Vs. Hawaldar Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.658
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to Revise the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Ballia, dated the 3rd March, 1928, by which that learned Judge refused an application on behalf of a defendant-judgment-debtor to set aside the ex parte decree made against him on 1st of November, 1927.2. The only point that requires decision in this Court is whether the learned Judge was right in dismissing the application on the ground (inter alia) that no direction of the Court was taken as to whether the judgment debtor should deposit, along with his application, the decretal amount or should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court.3. We have to construe the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It reads as follows:Provided an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte,....shall, at the time of presenting an application, either deposit in the Court the amount due. from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment ...
Chakrapan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All319
Dalal, J.1. I am of opinion that the trial Court was wrong in not giving an opportunity to Cakrapan to produce his evidence. Reference was made by the opposite party to a ruling in the case of Tarapada Biswas v. Nurul Hug [1905] 32 Cal. 1093, that it was not obligatory on a Magistrate to assist parties to a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C., in producing their witnesses. That ruling, however, was passed long prior to 1923, when Clause (4), Section 145, was amended by Act 18 of 1923 and the Magistrate was directed to receive all such evidence as may be produced by the parties. The direction to receive evidence implies in my opinion a duty on the Court to summon such witnesses as may be mentioned to the Court by either party. It may be noticed that the information given to the parties under Section 145(1) is not that they should bring their witnesses along with them. The parties filed written statements, so it may be said that the Court was not put to the necessity of hearing t...
Ramdas Rai Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All799; 118Ind.Cas.236
1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh dated 19th April 1928, dismissing the defendant-appellant's appeal on the ground that the appeal was incompetent. It appears that there was an arbitration and an application was made by the opposite parties to the Munsif of Azamgarh for the filing of the award. The learned Munsif heard the objections of the persons who have been arrayed as defendants in the case and having come to the conclusion that the award had been lawfully arrived at, made an order in the following terms:Plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs. The decree is to be prepared according to the award as prayed.2. It is clear that the order which the learned Munsif ought to have made was one directing the award to be filed. A separate order should have been made saying that a decree should follow in accordance with the award. His order was really a combined order.3. Section 104, Civil P.C., allows an appeal against an orde...