Allahabad Court May 1902 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Sukhdeo Prasad Vs. Lachman Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All456
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. In this case the final decree or the Commissioner has been referred to this Court for report and opinion under Rule 17 of the rules for the administration of justice in the Kumaun district. The suit in which the decree and judgment were passed was an ordinary suit brought by a mortgagee, asking for the sale of property mortgaged under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. In his prayer for relief the plaintiff, in addition to the prayer for sale, added a prayer that 'any other relief which the plaintiff may be entitled to may be granted, because the mortgaged property is at present under kham management.' The suit was heard out, and had proceeded up to judgment and decree, when the plaintiff by a fresh application withdrew his prayer for sale of the mortgaged property and asked for a simple money decree. The Court of first instance granted a money decree. The Commissioner, however, in appeal set aside the decree; the only reason given in his judgment being t...
Emperor Vs. Harpal Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All454
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. Harpal Rai has been found guilty of an offence under Section 19 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate who has convicted him found on the evidence that on January the 9th one Mr. Colin Nichols gave a pistol to the son of Harpal Rai, and asked him to get it repaired for him in Zamania. As Harpal Rai was taking the pistol to the blacksmith in accordance with his t instructions, he was charged with the offence of going armed with the aforesaid pistol. This Court has pointed out, first, in the case of Queen-Empress v. Alexander William Weekly Notes 1891 p. 208 and again in the case of Queen-Empress v. Bhure Weekly Notes 1892 p. 221 and again in Queen-Empress v. Tola Ram Weekly Notes 1894 p. 82 that the mere temporary possession, without a license, of arms for purposes other than their use as such is not an offence within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act of 1878. The learned Magistrate apparently thought that the principle that underlies these decision...
Drig Bijai Singh Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Gonda and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All420
John Stanley, C.J.1. This matter comes before the Court upon a reference under Section 9 of the Oudh Courts Act (XIV of 1891) as amended by Act No. XVI of 1897.2. The suit was brought to enforce a right of pre-emption, the plaintiff claiming such right as being a person entitled to preempt under the provisions of the Oudh Laws Act, 1876 (Act No. XVIII of 1876).3. The property to which the suit relates is a mahal called Patti Sabal Shah, and was sold by the Deputy Commissioner of Gonda, as manager on behalf of the Court of 'Wards, to the respondent, Rup Ram. The plaintiff holds an under-proprietary interest in a portion of the land in the mahal, and by virtue of such interest claimed a right of pre-emption under the provisions of the Act to which I have referred. The learned Judicial and Additional Judicial Commissioners differed in their views upon this question, and in consequence have referred to us the following question, viz.--'Whether the appellant (Drig Bijai Singh) in this case ...
Tikam Singh Vs. Dhan Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All445
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Agra dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a declaration that the defendant, Lachman Singh alias Mahar Singh, was not the son of one Thakur Kehri Singh, deceased. The plaintiff claimed as one of the reversionary heirs of Thakur Kehri Singh, who died on the 15th May, 1890, leaving the defendant, Thakurain Dhan Kunwar, his widow, him surviving. The defendant, Lachman Singh, who is the child of Thakurain Dhan Kunwar, was born on the 7th May, 1891, that is 357 days after the death of Thakur Kehri Singh. The plaintiff alleges that Lachman Singh is not the child of Kehri Singh, and charges that the moral conduct of Thakurain Dhan Kunwar during the life-time of her husband was doubtful, but that after his death she became immoral, and contracted improper intimacy with several persons whom we shall presently mention. The learned Subordinate Judge found that Lachman Singh was the legitimate son of Th...
Darbari Mal and ors. Vs. Amir Kazim and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All475
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. The facts of this case are; few and simple. One Ganeshi Lal was the owner of a village called Benipur. He mortgaged 15 biswas of the village to the plaintiffs on the 21st of March, 1892. Subsequent to this mortgage the entire village was sold at the instance of a creditor under a simple money decree on the 21st of September, 1896, and. was purchased by the defendant Lakhpat Rai. Subsequently, on the 27th of January, 1897, the mortgagees instituted a suit for the sale of the 15 biswas of the village on foot of the mortgage of the 21st of March, 1892, and to this suit they made Lakhpat Rai a party. A decree was passed on the 5th of May, 1897. Before, however, the decree was obtained, namely, on the 27th of April, 1897, Lakhpat Rai granted a lease of the village to the defendants, Amir Kazim and Mohan Lal, for a term of ton years, at a rent of Rs. 1,800, and under this lease the defendants went into possession. After the date of the lease, namely, on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›