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.
Bhagwati Prasad and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All709a
Dalal, J.1. In my opinion there was no misdirection to the jury. The learned Judge was fully justified in telling the jury to rely more on medical evidence than the opinion of a lay European Magistrate as to the age of an Indian woman. The jury was rightly directed and found by their verdict the girl to be under 18 years of age.2. It was next argued that the appellants had been discharged of an offence under Section 366-A by the Magistrate. Such, however, is not the case. The Magistrate has definitely stated that the accused were discharged of the offence under Section 363. He has nowhere stated that they were discharged of an offence under Section 366-A. Finally, the argument was that if the minor is a consenting party no offence is committed under Section 366-A. Such, however, is not the law. The consent may be induced and such consent would not prevent the commission of an offence.3. The aim as I have been stating from this Bench of the provisions of Section 366-A is to prevent immo...
Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. Lachman Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All845
Dalal, J.1. The Subordinate Courts certainly had jurisdiction in this matter. The plaintiff held a decree against one Jhandoo a tenant of the defendant Mukhtar Ahmad. What Jhandoo did was to get up a fictitious distraint by the zamindar and thereby fraudulently prevented the plaintiff from recovering the amount of his decree by selling Jhandoo's crops. Both the Subordinate Courts have found that really no rent was due from Jhandoo to Mukhtar Ahmad and that the distraint was collusive and fraudulent. It was argued that the jurisdiction lay entirely with the revenue Court under Section 181, Ten. Act. The provisions of that section, however, afford no relief to a third person against a fraudulent distraint collusively brought about by a zamindar against his tenant. Those provisions merely provide for the precedence of a rent claim where the distraint is genuine. The claim for rent is to prevail over a claim against a tenant for any other purpose. The Tenancy Act does not provide for a s(S...
M. Abdullah Khan Vs. Kanhaiya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All869
1. The plaintiff of the Court of first instance is the appellant before us. He brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen on the allegation that he had let out the plots detailed in the plaint to defendant 1, that defendant 1 was ejected through the revenue Court from those plots, but with his help the two other defendants who were his son and nephew, occupied the lands. The plaintiff accordingly sued for recovery of possession.2. Defendants 2 and 3 did not contest the suit. Defendant 1 alone appeared. He said that he was a cosharer in the village and therefore he was not liable to be ejected under Section 44, Agra Tenancy Act 1926, under which section the plaintiff purported to institute the suit.3. The Court of first instance held that the defendant were trespassers in respect of certain plots but were cosharers in two khewats, viz-, Nos. 50 and 51. In the result, the learned Assistant Collector decreed the suit in respect of lands situated in khewats other than Nos. 50 and...
Santi Lal and anr. Vs. Raj NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All858
1. In this case Sant Lal was adjudicated a bankrupt on 26th March 1926. He was ordered as is usual to apply for discharge within six months. On 18th October 1926, he applied for his discharge. Notice of this application was served on Raj Narain, the only creditor. On 13th December 1926, no objection having been received, or no one appeared on behalf of the objector, the insolvency Court passed an order of discharge. On 15th January 1927, Raj Narain filed an appeal. This appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the formal order which had been drawn up on 13th December 1926. On 16th March 1927, Sant Lal objected to the appeal on the ground that it was not accompanied by a formal order. On 21st March 1927, Raj Narain applied for a copy of the formal order and on 26th March, he obtained it and filed this copy. On 21st April 1927, Raj Narain, the appellant, took the point that the notice of the application to discharge was not served upon him The District Judge directed an issue on this poin...
NaraIn Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All898
Dalal, J.1. Though the application in revision was not admitted specifically I have heard arguments of both parties. The Court of an Assistant Collector refused to make a complaint against the applicant Narain Prasad under Section 471, I.P.C., for forging certain receipts. The opposite party Puttu Lal went in appeal under Section 476-B to the District Judge who did make such a complaint. This is an application in revision from the order of the District Judge. It was first argued that an appeal lay to this Court as the complaint was made by the District Judge and not by the Assistant Collector. This argument is not sound. Such circumstances would arise if the District Court had taken action under Section 476-A. It is open to a person interested to move the appellate Court direct, and if the trial Court has not passed any order in the matter, the appellate Court may make the complaint without the intervention of the trial Court. In such a case an appeal would lie to this Court. No appeal...
Baldeo and ors. Vs. Muloo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.8
Sen, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for joint possession of a holding and Rs. 150 as mesne profits. The following genealogical table will elucidate the position of the parties: LACHIRAM | -------------------------------- | | Chheda Lal Duli | | | --------------------------- | | | | Mulu, son. Musammat Bibi, | wife. ------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | | | Baldeo, Sarupi, Lalta, Musammat son. son. son. Tursa, wife.2. It appears that Lachhi Ram, the common ancestor, was the original tenant of the occupancy holding now in dispute. Upon his death, the holding was jointly cultivated by Chheda Lal and Duli, his two sons. Chheda Lal appears to have left the parent village Agras about the year 1907 and settled in the Rampur State; since then the holding in question remained in the occupation of Duli and his son Mulu.3. The plaintiffs are the sons of Chheda Lal and the defendants are the son and widow of Mulu.4. The suit was in...
Sant Lal and anr. Vs. Lala Raj Narain, Creditor and Official Receiver ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.4
1. In this case Sant Lal was adjudicated a bankrupt on the 26th of March, 1926. He was ordered, as is usual, to apply for discharge within six months. On the 18th of October, 1926, he applied for his discharge. Notice of this application was served on Raj Narain, the only creditor. On the 10th of December, 1926, no objection having been received, or no one appeared on behalf of the objector, the Insolvency Court passed an order of discharge. On the 15th of January, 1927, Raj Narain filed an appeal. This appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the formal order which had been drawn up on the 13th of December, 1926. On the 16th of March, 1927, Sant Lal objected to the appeal on the ground that it was not accompanied by a formal order. On the 21st of March, 1927, Raj Narain applied for a copy of the formal order and on the 26th of March, he obtained it and filed this copy. On the 2ist of April, 1927, Raj Narain, the appellant, took the point that the notice of the application to discharge ...
Kundan Gir Vs. Jaswant Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All765; 122Ind.Cas.759
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly these. One Gulab Rai sold the property in suit to the appellant Kundan Gir on 24th August 1925 for the sum of Rs. 400. The respondent Chaudhri Jaswant Singh brought a suit for pre-emption. After the suit was filed Gulab Rai purported to make a gift of one kachwansi share of property in the same village in which the pre-empted property was situated, in favour of Kundan Gir. Having obtained this gift, Kundan Gir's contention is that he is in a position to defeat the claim of Jaswant Singh because Jaswant Singh has no better title than himself in the matter of purchase. The suit having succeeded in both the Courts below, this second appeal has been filed by the purchaser. In this Court, it is contended that in view of the Full Bench case of Ram Saran Das v. Bhagwati Prasad : AIR1929All53 Section 19 is the section of the Pre-emption Act which applies to this case and the plaintiff cannot succeed. On the other hand, the case of Deonarain Sing...
Madan Kishor and anr. Vs. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All816
Dalal, J.1. The regular Court had no jurisdiction. The suit for a small amount of money was certainly triable by a Court of Small Causes. The lower appellate Court was of opinion that the case was one of mischief, if not of theft and, therefore, barred from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under Article 35(ii), Sch. 2 of the Act, No criminal Court would countenance such a charge. A branch of a joint tree is alleged to have been cut and the plaintiffs have sued for their share of the price. The second reason given by the lower appellate Court is that a question of title is involved. That matter, however, is for the Court of Small Causes to decide under Section 23 of the Act. If the Court of Small Causes so desires he may return the plaint.2. I set aside the decrees of the two subordinate Courts and direct the trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. The defendants raised the plea of jurisdiction in the lower appellate Court an...
Raghuraj Singh Vs. Hargobind
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All845a
Dalal, J.1. With all respect, I do not agree with the opinion of the learned Judge Mr. Bennet, at present a Judge of this Court. The interpretation desired is of Section 242(1)(a), Tenancy Act. It is as follows:An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class or a Collector in any of the suits included in group A of Sch. 4 in which (a) the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds Rs. 200.2. The learned Judge is of opinion that the subject-matter refers to the subject-matter of the appeal. Ever since 1887, when the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (12 of 1887) was passed, jurisdiction of different Courts in appeal has been fixed in accordance with the subject-matter of the suit which has been made the criterion, and not the subject-matter of the appeal. The word 'which' must refer to the nearer word 'suits' and not to the further word 'appeal.' If the word 'which' is made to refer to the appeal, Clause (b) of the section ...