Allahabad Court March 1930 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.
Ram Das and ors. Vs. Debu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All610
Kendall, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a deed of gift dated l0th December 1924, was not fraudulent and had not been executed with intent to defeat or delay the claim of the creditors of the donor. It appears that a suit was brought against Mt. Sundra for possession of a house and mesne profits, and the house in question was attached before judgment, but that suit was withdrawn on 9th December 1924, with liberty to sue afresh. The second suit was filed on 10th December 1924. On this last mentioned date the deed of gift was executed by the defendant Mt. Sundra. Both the Courts below have found as a fact that it was executed with a fraudulent intention to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs.2. The learned advocate for the appellants contends that inasmuch as on the date of this gift the claim of the plaintiff was only for mesna profits which were in the nature of unliquidated damages, he could not be considered a creditor of the vendor, and ...
Mahabir Prasad and ors. Vs. Mahesh Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All856
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal and the connected execution second appeal No. 121 of 1929 arise out of the same execution proceedings and in this way:The decree-holders, who are the appellants before us, namely Mahabir Prasad, Mt. Mahdei and Narain Das obtained a preliminary decree for sale on 31st March 1925 against one Badri Prasad and his two sons, and Mahesh Prasad and his son. Badri Prasad and Mahesh Prasad were uncle and nephew. The preliminary decree was passed on foot of a mortgage executed by Badri Prasad and Mahesh Prasad on 5th August 1920. The judgment-debtors belong to the district of Banda, to which the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act applies. By Act 2 of 1903 (Local), Section 4, the Local Government was entitled to determine by notification in the Gazette what bodies of persons in any district were to be deemed to be agricultural tribes for the purpose of the Act. The act was meant to restrict the power of alienation of the inhabitants of Bundelkhand. Section 16 of that Act sa...
Ram Ugrah Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Sama Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All211a
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. On the date when the defendants filed their written statement they filed the original deed of exchange under which they had become cosharers in both the khatas Nos. 2 and 5 in which the property sold was situate. The plea taken in the written statement was that the plaintiff had not a preferential right of pre-emption as against the defendants. One of. the issues framed by the first Court also was:Whether the plaintiff has a preferential right of purchase.2. The Munsif held that the plaintiff was a cosharer in khata No. 5, but not in khata No. 2. He decreed the claim as regards khata No. 5 and dismissed it as regards khata No. 2. Both parties appealed. The lower appellate Court has decreed the claim in respect of both these khatas. One of the grounds of appeal taken before the lower appellate Court by the defendants was that the plaintiff had no preferential right in khata No. 5 and could not pre-empt the defendants-...
Mohammad Khan Vs. Mt. Nasiban and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All592
Mukerji, J.1. We do not think that there is any force in this appeal. The facts are given in extenso in the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court and briefly may be stated as follows: A Mahomedan Wahid died leaving him surviving one son and five daughters. He was in debt when he died. The son gave a promissory note in payment of one of the debts. The creditor on foot of the promissory note brought a suit against the son alone and having obtained a decree brought a, house belonging to Wahid to sale. The five daughters of Wahid now ask for a declaration that they have got their share (five-sevenths) in the property. This decree they have got and the decree is unhampered by any direction; that the plaintiffs must pay a proportionate share of the debt due on the promissory note, before they can obtain the declaration.2. In this appeal the auction-purchaser of the house contends that the daughters of Wahid cannot get their share without contributing towards the debt of their fa...
Har Saran Das Vs. Harbans Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All655
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiff zamindar against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court upholding the dismissal by the lower appellate Court of the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for damages for cutting certain trees on plot 249/1 which is within the zamindari of the plaintiff. The transactions in regard to this number are as follows: In the settlement of F. 1275 (1871 A.D.) the No. 249 was recorded as a sir of Bahadur Singh, a co-sharer, and it is not argued that entry was incorrect. There was no entry that the land at that time was grove. The land has still been recorded as sir and comes within the definition of sir in Section 4(12)(a), Act 3 of 1901 (U.P. Land Revenue Act), which island recorded as sir in the last Record-of-Rights framed before the commencement of this Act and continuously so recorded since, or which but for error or omission would have been so continuously recorded.2. The next transaction in regard to this land i...
Sheopujan Rai Vs. Bishnath Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All706
Kendall, J.1. This is an appeal by Sheopujan Rai, defendant, arising out of a pre-emption suit. The facts of this case are complicated and it is therefore necessary to recite them in some detail.2. On 22nd July 1925 a sale deed was executed by the vendor in favour of Sheopujan Rai. On 23rd July 1926 a suit, No. 537, was filed by Bishnath Rai to pre-empt this sale. There was another suit No. 538 filed by Tulshi to pre-empt the same transaction. The rival pre-emptors were made pro-forma defendants in each other's suits, and the two suits were connected and tried together. During the pendency of these suits Sheopujan, the vendee, obtained a document purporting to be a deed of gift from one Bindhachal, and on the basis of it took the plea that he was on the same footing as the plaintiffs and had therefore a right to defeat their claim. On 25th August the plaintiffs in both the suits applied to the Court to implead three other persons whose names had not been entered in the sale deed of 22n...
Hazari Singh Vs. Jhunna Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All21
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, who gave effect to the plea of res judicata in second appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. It appears that the plaintiff claimed a share in a certain property. He instituted two suits. In the first suit he stated that the property belonged to one Kauleshar, that on his death the widow Mt. Kali Kunwar was in possession as a Hindu widow, and that on her death as a reversioner to the estate of Kauleshar he was entitled to the property. The suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Azamgarh and was dismissed on the sole ground that the property did not belong to Kauleshar, but had belonged to Kali Kunwar who was the absolute owner of the property.3. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen on the allegation that he was one of the heirs of Kali Kunwar and he was entitled to a share in the property. The present Suit was filed in the Court of the...
Kashi Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All493; 129Ind.Cas.707
Dalal, J.1. Kashi Ram has come here in revision from his conviction by a Magistrate of the First Class for an offence under Section 500, I.P.C. The conviction was uphold by the Sessions Judge. Kashi Ram was a plaintiff in a civil suit where the basis of his claim was that Sheoraj was not the daughter's son of Prithi Singh but was the child of some other woman and Prithi Singh's daughter Mt. Bishan Devi pretended that Sheoraj was her own child. The plaintiff was examined as a witness on 18th March and in his statement he elaborated a long story of inquiries made by Mt. Bishan Devi of a likely boy to be smuggled in as her own and finally, the choice falling on a son of ML Jamna of Amritsar. He stated that three women were approached, one was Bal Mukand's wife another Mt. Jamna of Amritsar and a third Mt. Jaggo's husband's sister. This was in examination-in-chief when his own counsel was examining him. He further elaborated how Mt. Jamna's boy had to be smuggled in. He said that Bal Makun...
Ram Saran and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All497; 125Ind.Cas.577
Dalal, J.1. The facts proved to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge and all the assessors are that Ram Saran, father of a married woman, Suraj Bali and Jagardeo, went to the house of the woman's husband, took the woman away from the house and left her at Jagardeo's house in the position of the wife of Jagardeo. These facts have been conclusively proved. The only question is whether the acts of the appellants amount to an offence. The principal question from the decision is whether the young woman is under 18 or over 18. The burden of proving that she was over 18 lay on the prosecution. I have gone through the evidence. It is of an exceedingly slight nature. The medical witness was of opinion that the girl was under 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence. He, however, gave his opinion in a very hesitating manner to the effect that there might be a difference in the estimate of a year or so. One year is of great importance when the doctor thinks that she is 17 and it is asserte...
Banarsi Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All595
Dalal, J.1. This application must succeed on both the grounds raised on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has been convicted of an offence under Section 4, United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act 6 of 1912(Local). There is a mandatory injunction in Section 15(2) of the Act that every summons issued in a prosecution under Section 4 and Section 10 shall specify particulars of the offence charged and the name of the prosecutor besides other information. In the summons no particulars were given; nor was the name of the prosecutor given. The particulars were essential in this case because even now I have not understood the exact reason or rather the exact charge on which the applicant has been convicted. If the particulars had been stated in the charge a Court of revision would have had an opportunity to test the particulars and discover whether they amounted to an offence under Section 4. What the learned Judge says I am afraid I am unable to understand. What happened in this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »