Allahabad Court June 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.
Sallu Mal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All751
Boys, J.1. I see no reason whatever for interfering with the Magistrate's order which is a most proper one, and a reference to the terms of Section 133 would make that absolutely clear. The person on whom notice was issued to show cause why the obstruction should not be removed set up at the outset what has been found to be a false case, that he has only re-constructed the chabutra on an old foundation. It is found in fact that there was no old chabutra on the site of the new construction. It is most manifest on the facts found that what has happened is this: There was a tiny little portion of chabutra, which the plan clearly indicates was itself an obstruction, which the proper authorities would have been entitled to have removed. Having kept that there for some time he has now extended it on either side along the whole length of the frontage wall. On the one side of the tiny portion of the chabutra previously existing the encroachment extends to no less a length than 174 ft. and on t...
Emperor Vs. Nazir Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All795a; 129Ind.Cas.262
Boys, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun asking this Court to order a re-trial, if it thinks fit, in a case where an accused person has been discharged, the Magistrate purporting to act under Section 259 although, a charge having been framed, he could not act under that section. The facts are simple. A complaint was lodged against the accused charging him with having shoe-beaten the complainant, The assault was in itself comparatively trifling but for the well-known fact that beating with shoes adds insult to any injury that may be inflicted. A charge was framed against the accused and a date was fixed for the complainant to attend with his witnesses for cross-examination. The complainant and also his witnesses failed to attend, and I may state immediately that I am not able to find on the record, nor is the Assistant Government Advocate able to show me, that the complainant has ever explained his failure and the failure of his witnesses to attend. In this conn...
Aslop Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All834; 129Ind.Cas.370
ORDERBoys, J.1. This case would have never been referred if the Sessions Judge had not applied to the circumstances of the case and evidence given in it the same Sort of tests that might have been appropriate, had he been dealing with the question of whether some large estate was impartible or not, or whether there was a custom of some unusual nature existing in some particular family. The facts are simple. One Mt. Mulhu was first married to a man called Juma who proceeded to marry another woman, to ignore Mt. Mulhu and to leave her apparently entirely to her own devices and unprovided for three years and to ignore her going through the ceremony of marriage with another man. This the learned Sessions Judge does not consider constituted desertion, and apparently he holds that it does not amount to desertion because Juma could at the end of the three year3, if he had liked, have reclaimed his wife. The next step is that Mt. Mulhu, by a well-recognized form of marriage, the karao form, ma...
(Sher) Ahmad Khan Vs. Ali Bux
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All103
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Additional Munsif of Muzaffarnagar exercising jurisdiction as Judge of the Court of Small Causes.2. On 6th August 1929, a decree for Rs. 157-10-0 was passed ex parte in favour of the applicant Sher Ahmad Khan against Ali Bakhsh the opposite party who was the defendant. Ali Bakhsh was arrested in execution of the decree and brought before the Munsif. On 26th October 1929, Ali Bakhsh presented a petition to the Court to set aside the ex parte decree and to comply with the provisions of Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, a security bond was executed by Genda Mal in which Genda Mal undertook to produce before the Court when called upon to do so the judgment-debtor and on failure of his ability to produce the judgment-debtor he would pay up the amount due to the decree-holder. The Court fixed 23rd November 1929, for hearing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. On that date the decree-holder poi...
Bansidhar Vs. Ratan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All785a
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge of Aligarh on review of judgment.2. Two points have bean urged before us:1. that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the application for review of judgment; and 2. that the learned Additional District Judge failed to consider the question of limitation that had been raised on behalf of the appellant.3. We need not go into the merits of the case. It appears that Mr. Allsop, as the District Judge of Aligarh, decided a certain appeal on 2nd January 1925. An application for review of the judgment was presented to the same gentleman on 24th July 1928 when ha was still the District Judga of Aligarh. The learned District Judge rightly took cognizance of the application, but subsequently he transferred the case for decision to the Additional District Judge. It appears to us that this was not permissible to the learned District Judge under the provisions of Order 47, ...
Mt. Imtiaz Begam Vs. Abdul Karim Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All881
Sen, J.1. The property in dispute is a zamindari share in mauza Naithuwa which originally belonged to Mt. Imtiaz Begam, defendant. She gifted the property to her husband Muhammad Khan and his name was mutated in the revenue record in due course. Muhammad Khan died on 15th May 1925. The name of Mt. Imtiaz Begam, the widow, was mutated by order of the revenue Court dated 7th June 1926.2. Plaintiffs, as residuary heirs of Mahammad Khan, brought the suit which has given rise to the present appeal for a declaration that they were the owners in possession of 12 out of 16 sihams in the zamindari share left by Muhammad Khan. They prayed for possession in the alternative.3. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs were the residuary heirs of her husband and contended that after the death of Muhammad Khan she had lawfully and peaceably, without any force or, fraud taken possession of the property in lieu of her dower debt and that the plaintiffs ware not entitled to recover possession of it so l...
Mithai and ors. Vs. Hasan Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All863; 128Ind.Cas.827
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge under the following circumstances: The respondents who are faqirs sued seven defendants for several reliefs. One of the reliefs was that the defendants should be called upon to remove the materials of their buildings, the second was that they should be asked to pay damages and the third relief was as regards perpetual injunction. The defendants raised various pleas. They denied that the plaintiffs had a right to maintain the suit. They also alleged that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action and they alleged that the buildings had stood on the land for many years and that the new constructions were on old foundations.2. The Munsif framed eight issues and he decided all of them. He found that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. He found that the suit was bad for multifariousness and he found that most of the buildings on the site were more than 12 years old. He...
Madan Lal Vs. Chiddu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All852
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by him for recovery of Rs. 218 by a sale of a house hypothecated to him under the mortgage deed dated 20th November 1923 executed by defendant 1 Chiddu in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Defendants 2 to 6 are the sons of the mortgagor. Defendant 7 is his wife. Defendant 8 is one Bal Kishen who purchased the house to which the mortgage deed in suit related at an auction sale held in execution of a simple money decree passed against Chiddu on 22nd August 1925. The suit was not contested at all by defendants 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Defendants 2 and 3 who originally contested it subsequently withdrew in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 8 contested the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the mortgage deed in suit was executed by defendant 1 without any legal necessity presumably for immoral purposes. Both the Court is below have held that the mortgage deed in suit was not justified by any legal necessity. The learn...
Dwarka Vs. Ram Jatan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All877; 128Ind.Cas.755
1. This and the connected appeal arise from the same suit in respect of a plot of land lying between the homesteads of the parties. On 15th March, 1927, the defendants-appellants enclosed the plot by putting up boundary walls. The plaintiff sued for possession of the land by removal of the boundary walls in the right of ownership. In the alternative, he claimed a decree for his right of easement of way through his southern door and the right to discharge water from his drain across the land in dispute and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the said rights.2. The parties are neighbours. The plaintiff purchased his house under a sale-deed dated 31st May, 1912. The defendants acquired their house under an earlier sale-deed dated 21st April, 1893. A portion of the defendant's house fell into ruins more than 20 years before suit and. the land remained vacant for this long period till the defendants constructed the boundary walls. 3. On 12th January, 1927, the...
NaraIn Pershad and ors. Vs. NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All40
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad affirming the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of the same place in a suit for enforcement of a lien. Narain Singh, defendant 1, owned a zamindari share in Mauza Mandal Shankarpur, pargana Bhojpur, in the District of Farrukabad. On 1st August 1904 he executed a simple mortgage deed in respect of the bulk of the aforesaid share in favour of one Sadho Ram for Rs. 500 at a certain rate of interest.2. On 19th January 1912 he executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of one Pearey Lal for Rs. 1,000 and left the entire sum with the mortgagee with the direction that the latter should pay the amount to Sadho Ram and redeem his mortgage. On the same day, he also executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 for Rs. 5,000 for a period of 20 years. The property mortgaged by these two documents was the entire interest of Narain Singh in Mandal Shankarpur. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »