Allahabad Court April 1902 Judgments
Muhammad Hadi Vs. Ishri Alias Hatim Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All368
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises in a suit; brought by the respondent to recover from the defendant Rs. 5,000 as 'compensation on account of mental distress and defamation.' It appears that on the 18th of April 1898, Ori, a servant of the defendant, accompanied by the defendant, went to the Police station at Mirzapur and laid an information to the effect that the plaintiff, Muhammad Hadi, and several other persons entered the female apartments of the defendant, broke open locks, plundered his goods, and caused hurt to his wife. There upon an inquiry was made by the Police, with the result that the information was found to be false, and a report was sent up to that effect on the 28th of April, 1898. The defendant was prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The present suit was instituted on the 28th of April, 1899. In answer to it the defendant raised, among other pleas, the plea of limitation, which has been...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All443
Blair, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of, a Magistrate made in proceedings under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances are these. Har Sahai Patak, the owner of the property in dispute, died, leaving him surviving a widow and two sons of daughters. It is not disputed that under the ordinary law of inheritance the widow would take a life estate, and the daughters 'sons' interest would open up upon her decease. It is alleged that the deceased, Har Sahai Patak, made a will, the validity and the provisions of which became the subject of dispute between the widow of Har Sahai and Behari Lal and others. It was concluded by a compromise, which denned the relations of the parties to be established from that moment. It provided that the widow should retain her life estate, but that Behari Lal should manage the property on her behalf, not, however, taking any steps with regard to it without her consent. The Magistrate made the order, having received info...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bal Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All439
Knox, J.1. One Bal Kishan, a servant, has been convicted of an offence falling under Rule No. 10 of Rules under Section 128, Clause (c) of the N.W.P. and Oudh Municipalities Act, 1900, and been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15. I am asked to revise this order, upon the ground that the Municipal Board had no authority in law under Section 128, Clause (c), to frame a rule of this kind; further, because the rule was not necessary for the prevention of danger or grave inconvenience to the public; and thirdly, because the bye law is unreasonable in itself. The bye-law in question runs as follows: 'No coolie, whether bearing loads or not, no servant, except in attendance on his master, and no prostitute shall use the Upper North Mall at any time.' The facts of the case are not questioned. They are very briefly that the petitioner, a servant, and not in attendance on his master, was found at 2 p. M., on the 13th August, 1901, walking with a letter towards Talli Tal along the Upper North Mall...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. Bhim Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All363
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an. appeal by the defendant from an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, reversing the decision of the Munsif upon certain questions of fact, and remanding the case for the trial of the remaining issue in the case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The suit was brought to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution. It appears that the defendant Bhim Sen lodged a complaint against the plaintiff, Sita Ram, of an offence under Section 215 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Magistrate of Bulandshahr, the charge being that the plaintiff stole cattle, and then restored the cattle to the owners on receipt of rewards. The complaint was heard and dismissed on the 21st of December, 1900. Thereupon, on the 21st of January, 1901, the present suit was instituted. In his plaint the plaintiff alleges that there was enmity between him and the defendant arising out of a dispute about a plot of land which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Lal Vs. Sri Nath Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All361
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur allowing the plaintiff's claim for mesne profits.2. The circumstances out of which this appeal has arisen are shortly as follows: The plaintiff Ram Ratan Lal on the 6th of June, 1884, executed in favour of one Bindeshri Prasad a mortgage of his share in certain property to secure the principal sum of Rs. 4,000 and interest. Bindeshri Prasad subsequently, in the year 1887, transferred his interest in this mortgage to Mahadeo Dat Singh, the father of the defendant Sri Nath Sahai. On his father's death the defendant Sri Nath Sahai brought a suit on foot of his mortgage, and obtained a decree on the 21st of June, 1892. On the 12th of November, 1892, the plaintiff filed an appeal from this decree to the High Court, and whilst this appeal was responding the defendant, on the the of February, 1893, obtained an absolute order for foreclosure under Section 87 of the Transfer of P...
Tag this Judgment!imam Bandi Bibi Vs. Udit Upadhia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All402
Burkitt, J.1. The facts in the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:The plaintiff asserts that the defendants-appellants sold to her certain immovable property and executed a formal conveyance of the same to her; that when the conveyance was presented for registration, the defendants-appellants denied execution, whereupon the Sub-Registrar refused, to register it. This was on November 15th, 1900. The next incident in the case is that the plaintiff respondent on December 17th, 1900, made an application to the Registrar under the provisions of Section 73 of the Registration Act, No. III of 1877. The application was clearly made two days beyond the time limited by that section, and the Registrar therefore summarily rejected it. The present suit was then instituted underline permission given by Section 77 of the Act. The plaintiff respondent prays for a declaration of her right to have the conveyance mentioned above registered.2. The Muusif held that the suit was not mai...
Tag this Judgment!Waliullah Vs. Wajih-ud-din,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All381
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the respondent to the effect that an appeal from the decree of the Court below lay, not to this Court, but to the Court of the District Judge. In our opinion this objection must prevail. Under Section 21 of Act No. XII of 1887 an appeal from the decree of a Subordinate Judge lies to the High Court, where the value of the suit exceeds Rs. 5,000. Where it does not exceed that amount the appeal lies to the District Judge. Under the General Clauses Act No. I of 1887, Section 3, Clause (13), value with reference to a suit means the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit. Now the question is, what was the value of the subject-matter of the present suit? The suit was one for partition of what the plaintiff claimed to be his share in the property of a deceased Muhammadan. He valued his share at Rs. 2,178. The value of the whole property exceeded Rs. 5,000. It is contended on b...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Ram Vs. Dungar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All376
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. The suit in this case was instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of lands of which he had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants, and also for mesne profits. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff, and rcesne profits have been awarded. In estimating the amount of mcsne profits the defendants claimed to be entitled to credit for collection charges. This the learned Subordinate Judge disallowed on the ground that the defendants under the circumstances were not entitled to set off the alleged collection charges against any portion of the plaintiff's claim. An appeal has been accordingly taken against the decree in so far as it disallowed to the defendants the costs of collection. The facts of the case disclosed before us show that the conduct of the defendants in dispossessing the plaintiff of his property was very wanton and malicious. It appears that the property belonged to one Tika Ram deceased and that be had adopted the...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Ram Vs. Cheda Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1902
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All455
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This suit was instituted by Gobind Ram, the surviving brother of one Bhawani Das, who died on the 7th September 1898, to recover from the defendants Cheda Lal and Joti Prasad certain movable property which belonged to Bhawani Das at his death. The defendants claim to be entitled to possession of the property in question under the provisions of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased on the 9th of March 1888. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that this will was a fabricated will, and he claimed the property as the surviving member of a joint Hindu family consisting of Bhawani and himself. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the alleged will was a genuine will, but he held that upon the construction of it the property in dispute did not pass to the defendants, but was undisposed of. He also found that the plaintiff Gobind Ram and Bhawani were not members of a joint family, but were separate. The will contains the following ...
Tag this Judgment!Har Kishan Das and ors. Vs. Bhura Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All383
John Stanley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh refusing the application of the appellants under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sot aside an ex parte decree which was passed against them on the 14th of June, 1900. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for money alleged to be due to them on a balance of accounts. The defendants are one Bhura Mal, his daughter-in-law Musam-mat Gayatri, the widow of Ganga Prasad, a deceased son of Bhura Mal, who is a minor, and Jamna Das, the minor son of Bhura Mal. Bhura Mal was admittedly duly served with summons in the suit, and also, as has been proved, with a notice under the provisions of Rule 128 of the Court's Rules calling upon him to state whether he was willing to act as guardian ad litem for the minor defendants. It appears that he paid no attention to this notice, and that the Court omitted to pass any order appointing him or any other person to be such guardian, as required by Section ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »