Allahabad Court July 1906 Judgments
Durga Dei Vs. Balmakund and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All93
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances: One Kishan Prasad was at the time of his death possessed of considerable movable and immovable property. He had two sons, namely, Banke Bihari, who predeceased his father, and Ram Ratan. Banke Bihari left two sons, namely, Lal Bihari and Chhail Bihari. The plaintiff, Musammat Durga Dei, is the widow of Lal Bihari, who is dead. Lal Bihari had a son named Kishna Murari, who is also dead. In the year 1896, the there surviving members of the family, namely, Ram Ratan and his nephews Lal Bihari and Chhail Bihari, entered into an agreement whereby they left it to arbitrators to divide the assets of Kishan Prasad in any way they might think fit. It would appear that Ram Ratan was desirous of having a definite share allotted to him and of separating from his nephews. An arbitration award was drawn up whereby the immovable property was divided into two shares and one share allotted to Ram Ratan and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayesha Begum and anr. Vs. Shi Gopal and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All52
Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by two ladies who, as daughters of one Bisharat Ali, laid an action in ejectment against certain persons, purchasers of the property in dispute. These last named persons are in possession of that property under a sale-deed executed in their favour by one Kasim Ali, a son of the same Bisharat Ali. Kasim Ali was arrayed as co-defendant with his vendees.2. They also asked for mesne profits.3. Both the Courts below decreed the claim. The appellants, who are some out of the transferees from Kasim Ali, have come here in second appeal. They set out in their memorandum of appeal four pleas. The first and second were not pressed, but the third and fourth have been maintained, and we are indebted to the learned advocate who appeared for the appellants for a very able, elaborate and exhaustive argument on the remaining pleas. Before entering upon this argument it is better to set out the facts of the case.4. The property in dispute was or...
Tag this Judgment!Chhote Lal Vs. Ramji Mal and anr. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All50
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. The plaintiff respondent was the auction purchaser of a house. Subsequently to his purchase it was sold in execution of a decree enforcing a mortgage created by two unregistered bonds of different dates. When the property was put up for sale, the defendant, who had two mortgage bonds of the value of Rs. 99 each of even date (the 22nd of November 1899)) applied that his lien may be proclaimed. The plaintiff objected, but his objections were dismissed. He then brought the present suit under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge's Court, and was decided by the Subordinate Judge. He held that as the two mortgage deeds formed portions of one and the same transaction by which a sum of Rs. 198 had been borrowed by the mortgagor from the mortgagee, the transaction should have been embodied in one deed of the value of Rs. 198. This would have necessitated th...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore Vs. Fakhr-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All90
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District; Judge of Bareilly dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The suit was brought for partition of a house of which the plaintiff claimed to be part owner. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim in part, holding that he was entitled to 6 out of 40 sihams of the property in question. On appeal this decision was reversed on the ground of limitation. It appears that the plaintiff has never been in actual possession of the property, but he relied upon an acknowledgment of his right to a share in it made by the defendant respondent, Alim-ud-din. On the 18th of August 1890, in execution of a decree 14 sihams of the house in question were sold to Jugal Kishore, and on the 29th of March 1898, he obtained formal possession of the share, but actual possession was not delivered to him. His suit would apparently be barred by limitation were it no...
Tag this Judgment!Chiddu and ors. Vs. Kunwar Sen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All49
Aikman, J.1. In this case the parties to the suit put in a joint application stating that they had agreed that the case should be decided according to what a certain person named Sobha Ram should state on oath. The learned Munsif accordingly issued a summons to Sobha Ram. When he appeared, the plaintiffs, who are appellants here, made certain allegations of collusion against Sobha Ram and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the reference. The learned Munsif refused to allow them to withdraw, and as Sobha Ram stated that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the land in dispute for 16 years, and that the defendants had been in possession, he dismissed the suit. The decision of the Munsif was affirmed on appeal by the learned Additional Judge of Aligarh. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal. In my judgment the Court below was right. In my opinion when a party to a suit has made a reference of this kind, whether it be considered to be a reference to arbitration or a reference...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ishri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All46
George Knox, J.1. The accused, Ishri, has been convicted of an offence under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code. I am asked to interfere in revision on the ground that the evidence for the prosecution does not prove that the accused was in the house with a criminal intent. Reliance is placed upon the case, Brij Basi v. The Queen Empress (1896) I.L.R., 19 All., 74. The present case differs from Brij Basi v. Queen-Empress in one very important point. In the case quoted the offence of which the accused was convicted was house-trespass with intent to commit adultery. The husband was not called as a witness and did not appear as a witness, and the nephew who was the complainant and who was living in the house, was also not called as a witness. In the present case the husband was called as a witness and gave evidence at great length. He was cross-examined at considerable length also, and throughout the cross-examination the question was never asked him--'Did not Ishri come into the house w...
Tag this Judgment!Badri NaraIn and ors. Vs. Ram Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All27
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1.This first appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the whole body of overseers appointed under the will of one Bisheshar Prasad and entrusted with the supervision of an endowment. They set forth in the plaint that under the terms of the will they removed the appellant from his position as manager of the trust property, and that notwithstanding his having received notice of removal he refused to vacate, to give up the papers relating to the property and to render accounts. The Court of first instance, holding that the plaintiffs could not sue until they had first obtained the consent in writing of the officer authorized under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court on appeal reversed the decree of the Court of first instance and remanded the case under Section 562 of the Code. From that order of remand the present appeal has been filed, and it is contended that the decision of the Court of first instance wa...
Tag this Judgment!Basdeo Pande Vs. Balbhaddar Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All44
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The suit is one for damages for alleged false imprisonment and was brought under the following circumstances: The defendant appellant Balbhaddar was badly beaten by some person or persons on the 22nd of April 1903. He was carried to the police station at Gopiganj and there reported the circumstances of the occurrence and named the plaintiff and others as being the perpetrators of the assault upon him. The police made the usual inquiries and arrested the plaintiff and the others who were named along with him as participators in the assault, and sent them up to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who, after holding a preliminary inquiry, committed them all for trial to the Court of Session. The result of the trial was that all the accused were acquitted. This suit was then instituted to recover damages for false imprisonment. The imprisonment extended from 23rd of April to the 23rd of July 1903. Both the lower Courts have dec...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Amrit Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All25
John Stanley, C.J.1. The learned Counsel for the applicant has only addressed me on the subject of sentence. The appellant was found guilty of the offence of embezzlement and sentenced to a term of eight years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500, or in default two years' further rigorous imprisonment. It was also adjudged that the rents and profits of his property during the period of his imprisonment should be forfeited to Government, Subject to such provision for his family and dependents as the Government may think fit to allow. The offence of which the accused has been found guilty is no doubt a most serious one Whilst in Government employment as a clerk in connection with the Botanical Gardens at Saharanpur he was guilty of embezzlement and found to have appropriated sums amounting to Rs. 664 in the year 1905. The learned Sessions Judge was no doubt right in considering that systematic embezzlement of the kind by persons in Government service must be regarded as a very ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Budhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All24
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. After examining the record and perusing the referring order of the learned Sessions Judge, we find no ground for quashing the commitment. The learned Sessions Judge has overlooked the fact that the ruling of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Sudra (1891) I.L.R., 14 All., 336, on which he relies, was expressly dissented from in the case of Queen-Empress v. Brij Narain Man (1898) I.L.R., 20 All., 529. In the particular case under consideration, Budhan was an accused person from the very first. All the evidence for the prosecution was taken in his presence and he had an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. When that evidence had been recorded, the Magistrate, for the reasons set forth in his order of the 10th of April 1906, deemed it necessary to offer a pardon to, Budhan on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his Know-ledge relative to the offence under inquiry. Budhan accept ed that pardon, but immed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »