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.
Janki Kuar and ors. Vs. Nanda and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All847; 118Ind.Cas.240
Sen, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 209-7-2, being the rent of certain cultivated land for 1333 and kharif 1334 F. The suit was instituted by the appellant Mt. Janki Kuer, who is the wife of Sri Narain. The defendant against whom the claim was launched, was one Nanda, a resident of and cultivator of mauza Karsora. Another cosharer impleaded in the suit was Raja Dat Prasad Singh, rais of Mursan. The suit was resisted inter alia on the ground that, under the provisions of Section 266 Act 3, of 1926, the suit was bad in law, because there were certain other cosharers who had been left out from the suit and without impleading whom the suit could not proceed. The trial Court gave effect to this contention, and further held that part of the rent had been paid by the tenant in good faith to Raja Dat Prasad aforesaid. The lower appellate Court has affirmed this decision.2. The plaintiff, along with an appeal to this Court, has presented an applicati...
Musammat Mahmuda Bibi Vs. Sayed Abdul Hamid and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.557
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is in the position of a mortgagee and not a proprietor and is, therefore, not a co-sharer entitled to pre-empt. It has further held that a deed which was ostensibly one of gift taken during the pendency of the suit was in reality a sale for a consideration of Rs. 50 and, therefore, did not entitle the vendee to resist the claim. The plaintiff has filed an appeal from the dismissal of his suit and the respondents have unnecessarily filed a cross-objection taking exception to the finding that the latter transaction was one of sale. The suit having been dismissed there was no necessity for filing the cross-objection. Furthermore, the finding that it was a sale for Rs. 50 was a finding of fact and cannot be challenged in second appeal. The cross-objection is dismissed with costs.2. As regards the appeal, the findings of the lower Appellate...
Emperor Vs. Kajori Mal Kalyan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All211
1. This is an application by the learned Government Advocate asking us to revise our judgment delivered in an income-tax case on a statement made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66, Income-tax Act of 1922.2. The ground on which the review is sought is this. In our judgment we found the fact stated in the 'statement of the case,' that a certain notice was issued to the assessees directing them to submit 'a return on a particular date. We said that this period allowed was less than 30 days the minimum period allowed by law. We therefore declared the assessment to be bad.3. The learned Government Advocate now states that it was the practice the of the Income-tax Officer concerned to state in notices issued that in the case of the period allowed proving to be less than 30 days, the assessees would have 30 days within which to make a return.4. Dr. Katju on behalf of the assessees has taken a preliminary point that no review lies.5. Mr. Bajpai has not been able to point out t...
Murli Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All720
Niamatullah, J.1. Heard the learned Assistant Government Advocate. I have no hesitation in accepting the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, who has rightly referred to the provisions of Rule 35, U.P. Arms Rules and Orders (1924). It is perfectly clear that a person who repairs arms and is in possession of guns made over to him for repairs cannot be convicted of an offence of being in possession of arms without license.2. The explanation of the learned Magistrate does not refer to any section of the Arms Act or to any rule framed thereunder which requires a person carrying on the business of repairing arms to take out a license for the exercise of his profession or for being in possession of arms made over to him for the bona fide purpose of repairs. The learned Magistrate emphasises the fact that the accused was in possession of the guns in question for a longer time than would be necessary for effecting the required repairs and refers to the evidence of a witness who says t...
Sohan Lal Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All788; 118Ind.Cas.239
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of an ostensible sale of 6th October 1925. The first Court decreed the claim, but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it. The latter Court has not expressed itself clearly in recording its findings which is the chief source of difficulty in this second appeal. But the facts found by it are clear enough and only one conclusion can be drawn from those facts. Mardan Singh the last owner died some 40 years ago and his widow Mt. Jeet Kunwar succeeded to the property. Jot Singh and others sued as the reversioners denying the widow's rights on the ground that she had not been legally married. The widow in her turn denied the relationship of the claimants. Without going into the question of the pedigree of the claimants the Court held that Mt. Jeet Kunwar had been the legally married wife of Mardan Singh. After this Mt. Jeet Kunwar remarried and yet continued in possession of the property for more than 12 years. From her...
SayiduddIn Vs. Abdul Bari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All857
1. In this case the interests of the minor must be our first consideration, and we can have no doubt that the interests of the minor can only be protected and her life continue to be happy by maintaining her in the house where she was a child of nine months old. The position is that Abdul Bari had a son named Akhtar Husain. He married Mt. Habiba Bano, and he having died on 9th January 1920, Abdul Bari was guilty of some conduct, not exactly specified, towards Mt. Habiba Bano which made it necessary for her brother-in-law to interfere and apply to the Magistrate under Section 100, Criminal P.C. for an order for her protection. The evidence is that at that time Abdul Bari was proposing to marry Habiba Bano, the widow, to some undesirable parson. It appears that she had some property. Sayiduddin having obtained a warrant for her removal from the house of Abdul Bari, the warrant was executed and she came over to live with her sister who had married Sayiduddin. Later she married Fakhruddin ...
Thakurji Maharaj and ors. Vs. Kamta Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All973
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by two idols Sri Thakurji Maharaj and Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj through two of three persons who originally instituted the suit on behalf of the two idols. The Court below found that plaintiff 3 Sri Ram had not signed the plaint and thought that, on that account, he could not maintain the suit. Sri Ram has been made a pro forma respondent, in the appeal.2. The plaintiffs' case was as follows: The two sons of Saheb Rai: see genealogical table at p. 3 of the printed record, namely, Baldeo Prasad and Har Dayal created a wakf in favour of the two idols and, for the purposes of their worship and certain charitable purposes and for the performance of Ramlila, endowed the property in village Hasanpur Huryai. This was on 10th September 1866. On the death of the dedicators his descendants, who wore the defendants in the suit, carried on the objects of the trust, although they got their own names recorded in the village papers as the proprietors of the property endowe...
Kali Pratap Misir Vs. Amla Pat Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All307
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff sued for possession of a property of his mother's father Jurawan from a reversioner of his grandfather, who is in possession. After Jurawan's death his widow Mt. Suraj Bansi took possession. She appears to have died about 1898 when mutation proceedings took place. The papers of those proceedings are not available except the two judgments, one of the trial Court dated 6th August 1898 and the other of the appellate Court of the Collector dated 20th December 1898. On the basis of these two judgments it was alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff's mother Mt. Harpali surrendered her rights and accelerated the reversion of the plaintiff and that, therefore, the defendants had been in adverse possession as against the plaintiff since 1893. The suit on this ground was alleged to be time barred.2. Point 2 taken up by the defence was that adverse possession as against Mt. Harpali was tantamount to adverse possession against the plaintiff reversioner. The last poin...
Sahdeo Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Nawal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All790
Dalal, J.1. The view taken by the lower appellate Court is correct Roads in the village abadi belong to the zamindars and are kept open by reason of the right of easement acquired by the residents to use them as means of passage. Such roads are not entered as property of the Government in the village record. An encroachment on that road will raise questions of the right of easement of the residents and proprietary right of the zamindars, and Section 91 would not be applicable to issues which arise on encroachments being made on a road of this nature. The plaint has been carefully prepared. The plaintiffs declared themselves, some of them to be cosharers of the land in dispute, and others to be residents who have acquired right of easement to have the land kept open. A suit, therefore, did lie without any permission from the Advocate General.2. As regards the third ground of appeal, I do not think that there is any misjoinder of parties in two different sets of persons joining together ...
Chotey and ors. Vs. Dal Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All862; 118Ind.Cas.225
Mukerji, J.1. This is the defendant s appeal and arises out of the following circumstances. The plaintiffs brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 600, as damages on the allegation that they had a right to irrigate four plots of land namely Nos. 2671, 2672, 2673 and 2674 with the water taken from a well situated in plot 2670, that they had grown potatoes in all the plots except plot 2671, that the defendants, without any rhyme or reason stopped the plaintiffs from Irrigating the potatoes field and that a loss was caused to the plaintiffs. The defence was that the well belonged to the defendants themselves, that the plaintiffs had no right to cultivate their lands with the water of the well, that the defendants themselves had been cultivating the four plots which are now in plaintiff's possession and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover any damages.2. It will be noticed that the plaintiffs did not explain in the plaint what was the nature of the right which was claimed by them....