Allahabad Court January 1907 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.
Sardar Singh Vs. Kanhaya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All284
George Knox and Richards, JJ.1. This was a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act. It appears that an application was made for the registration of a deed, dated the 22nd of August 1904, which purported to be executed on behalf of one Musammat Sundar, by one Makhan Lal as her mukhtar-am, in favour of one Sardar Singh, plaintiff in this suit. The document was not presented for registration within the four months prescribed by the Act. The document was in fact presented for registration on the 15th of April 1905, at which date Musammat Sundar was dead. The appellant, however, does not in any way support the appeal by reason of the fact of the death of Musammat Sundar before the deed was presented for registration. The Registrar refused to register the document, first on the ground that there was no proof that the deed was in fact the deed of Musammat Sundar, and, secondly, that the delay in presenting the deed for registration had not been sufficiently explained. The present suit w...
Emperor Vs. Bhola Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All282
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This is an appeal by Bhola Singh and his son Jauhari against their conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of transportation for life passed on each of them. It appears that a Civil Court Amin went to attach the cattle of the accused in execution of a decree of a Court of Small Causes. He was accompanied, among others, by one Ganeshi Lal, a servant of the decree-holder. When the Amin's party was seen approaching, the accused untied their cattle and drove them off to the jungle. One buffalo was seized, and Ganeshi Lal and another man, Ram Charan, went in pursuit of the other cattle. The appellants and Khem Sahai, another son of Bhola Singh, who has absconded, went after them and attacked them with lathis. Ganeshi Lal received a blow on the head which fractured his skull, and also injuries on the right side of the chest. As a result of the blow on the head he died shortly afterwards. These facts are fully proved by the witnesses fo...
Sri Ram and ors. Vs. Het Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All279
George Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a decree granted under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, in favour of Sukh Lal, father of the present appellants, as against the judgment-debtors, who are respondents. The decree was given on the 11th of May 1880. Some time in June 1888 Sukh Lal died, leaving him surviving the three appellants, who were all minors at that time. On the 30th of April 1889 these three sons, still minors, made an application for execution. The file connected with these proceedings has been destroyed, but the parties and the Court have proceeded upon the assumption that it was an application for an order absolute, and it is difficult to see that it could have been for anything else. Since that date up to the 1st of October 1904 no further proceedings appear to have been taken by the decree-holders. Both the Courts below held that Article 178 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act governed the present application, and further that as t...
Ram NaraIn Dube Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All277
George Knox and Richards, JJ.1. Ram Narain Dube, the petitioner in this case, brought a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Benares. It appears that one Musammat Janki was the tenant of Ram Narain. Janki died intestate, so it is alleged, leaving personal property. No claimant to the property having come forward, the District Judge of Benares, under the authority vested in him by Section 7 of Regulation V of 1799, took temporary care of the property. Janki was the tenant of Ram Narain Dube, and at the time she died was, according to Ram Narain Dube, in debt to him for certain arrears of house rent. It is for the recovery of this house rent that a suit was instituted in the Court of Small Causes. The suit was defended on the ground that the Secretary of State was not the owner of the property at the time the suit was brought and was not in possession of the property. The learned Judge held that until the period prescribed ...
Dhuman Begam Vs. Imtiazi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All275
George Knox and Richards, JJ.1. The lower appellate Court, following the decision of this Court in Bashir-ud-din v. Jhori Singh (1890) I.L.R., 19 All., 140, dismissed the appeal pending before it on the ground that no appeal lies from an order passed under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure, refusing to accept a deposit tendered under that section on the ground that it was too late. In the case cited this Court came to that conclusion in consequence of the view then taken 'that a purchaser at an auction gale was not a representative, within the meaning of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of a party to the suit in execution of the decree in which the sale had taken place.' Since then, however, this same question as to whether a purchaser at auction Sale is or is not a representative, within the meaning of Section 244, of a party to a suit, came up for decision before a, Full Bench of this Court, and it was laid down in the case of Gulzari Lal v. Madho Ram (1904) I.L....
Emperor Vs. Radhe Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All272
Richards, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order, dated the 20th September 1906, of the Officiating Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, confirming the order of Babu Ganga Prasad, a magistrate of the first, class, sentencing the first three applicants to five months' under Sections 147 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the last five of the applicants to three months' rigorous imprisonment each.2. It would appear that the applicants had made default in the payment of Government revenue. Property was seized under what was alleged to be an attachment under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act of 1901. The applicants resisted the seizure of the property and hence the charge against them and their Conviction,3. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the attachment was illegal. Section 147 of the Land Revenue Act empowers the Collector to attach and sell the property of a person making default in payment of Government revenue. Section 227, Sub-section 16, conf...
Mahmud Fatima and anr. Vs. Parbati Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All267
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly as follows: One Kazi Ahmad Husain who was the owner and in possession of the entire village of Yasinnagar and also of a 10 biswa share in the village of Khardauli and of some bighas of resumed muafi land in another village, died on the 2nd of August 1892, leaving his widow, the first defendant, and the defendants Husain Ahmad and Muhammad Ahmad, two sons, and the plaintiffs, his two daughters, him surviving. After his death in satisfaction of a decree obtained by one Gandharp Singh 5 biswas of Yasinnagar and 5 biswas of Khardauli and a third of the muafi land were foreclosed and possession delivered over to the judgment-creditor. Later on, namely, on the 18th of January 1899, a further share in the village of Yasinnagar was sold by the widow and two sons to the defendants 6, 7 and 8 and another party, the ancestor of the defendant 5. Again, under a sale-deed, dated the 25th of July 1904, a 5 biswa share in ...
Ram Kishan Shastri Vs. Kashi Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All264
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. We agree with the learned Judge of this Court in the conclusion at which he arrived. We think it would be unduly restricting the language of Section 12 of the Limitation Act if we were to hold, as did the lower Court, that the application for a copy of the judgment must necessarily be by the appellant or somebody proved to have been acting in the matter as her agent. The language of Section 12 is very general. It provides that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree shall be excluded in the computation of time. The section does not say by whom the copy is to be obtained, nor does it introduce the words which have been suggested as necessarily embodied in the section, showing that the copy must be obtained for the purposes of an appeal. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›