Allahabad Court July 1907 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Gokul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All737
Richards, J.1. This is an application in revision to set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 168 and 147 of Act I of 1900. It appears that the petitioner having occasion to erect certain buildings in the city of Cawnpore, duly applied to the Municipal Board for sanction. The Municipal Board neglected and omitted for one month after the receipt of that valid notice to make or deliver to Gokul any order in respect thereof. Gokul thereupon again called the attention of the Board to their omission or neglect, and this omission and neglect continued for a further period of a month. Thereupon Gokul commenced to erect the buildings for which erection he had given notice to the Municipal Board. In doing as he did Gokul was acting quite lawfully. Sub-section (3) of Section 87, expressly provides that under these circumstances the Board shall be deemed to have sanctioned the proposed buildings absolutely. It became necessary in the course of the building to put up certain scaff...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdeo Prasad and anr. Vs. Nihal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All740
Knox, Acting, C.J. and Dillon, J.1. The plaintiffs, Sukhdeo Prasad and Ganeshi Lal, who represent themselves as residents of Shamshabad, brought a suit against one Lala Nihal Chand in which they prayed that an injunction be issued upon the defendant preventing him from commencing any new 'hat' within the limits of the five mahals of the village Shamshabad and from interfering with the plaintiffs' rights. They also asked for damages. The case, as stated by them in the plaint is that from time immemorial the plaintiffs and their ancestors have the exclusive privilege of holding markets within the entire area of the five mahals of the village Shamshabad, and of collecting chaudharahat dues on all articles and live-stock sold within that area either on market days or any other occasions. They further alleged that from time immemorial no other market has been held within that area; that on or about 21st July 1901, the defendant has started a new market within that area, and within the dista...
Tag this Judgment!Lohre Vs. Deo Hans and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All48
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by Lohre, appellant, against Deo Hans, respondent, for arrears of rent for the years 1309 to 1312 Fasli. The plaintiff joined as a defendant to the suit Sita Ram, respondent, who, he said, was his co-sharer and had refused to join in bringing the suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim as against Deo Hans and decreed it against Sita Ram. The plaintiff acquiesced in this decree and did not appeal against that part of it which dismissed his claim against Deo Hans. Sita Ram appealed, making the plaintiff and Deo Hans respondents to the appeal. The lower appellate Court decreed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal, and contends that the Court below ought to have made a decree in his favour against Deo Hans. This contention is untenable. The plaintiff having submitted to the decree of the first Court dismissing the claim against Deo Hans, and there being no ...
Tag this Judgment!Barsati and ors. Vs. Chamru and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All683
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents for a declaration that they are the chowdhris of the bazars of the villages Muhammadabad Gohna, Khairabad and Behna; that the defendants are not the chowdhris of the said bazars, and that they are not entitled to take chowdhris dues. The plaintiffs also asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from offering obstruction to the plaintiffs taking their chowdhris' dues and realizing the said dues themselves. They further claim damages, but that part of the claim has been dismissed, and we are not now concerned with it. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, holding that it was not maintainable. The lower appellate Court has decreed it. The defendants appeal, and they contend that a suit like this is not maintainable. In our opinion the contention is well founded. The right claimed by the plaintiffs is a vague and indefinite right. They alleged in their plaint that they were appointed ch...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Lal and ors. Vs. Musammat Gopi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All44
Dillon, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs appellants for a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the groves Nos. 2806 and 2814 situated in mauza Bithri. The facts of the case are as follows: One Manick Chand, ancestor of the defendant respondent, instituted a suit against the plaintiffs in the Revenue Court for arrears of rent in respect of these groves. In that suit the present plaintiffs, who were then defendants, pleaded that they had proprietary rights in the grove in question. Thereupon the Revenue Court passed an order on the 13th of November 1903, under Section 199, Clause (a) of Act No. II of 1901', requiring them to institute a suit within three months in the Civil Court for the determination of such question of title. They accordingly instituted a suit in the Civil Court, which was decided against them on the 13th of May 1904. They appealed on the 20th of June 1904, but withdrew the appeal with leave to bring a fre...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ganga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All685
Richards, J.1. In this case one Ganga Prasad applies for the revision of the conviction under Section 500 of the Penal Code and a sentence of fine and imprisonment. It appears that one Birbal was being tried for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Ganga Prasad was called as a witness for the defence, and he thereupon made some remarks of a defamatory nature concerning one Banke Lal. Banke Lal then instituted the present prosecution against Ganga Prasad under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and the prosecution resulted, as already stated, in the conviction of Ganga Prasad. It has been contended on behalf of Banke Lal that the words spoken by Ganga Prasad were so irrelevant and foreign to the charge against Birbal that we ought to hold that the words were not spoken by Ganga Prasad in his capacity as a witness at all, and furthermore that some of the words spoken were spoken by Ganga Prasad after he had left the witness box. As to this last allegation it is by no...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Prasad Vs. Sheodat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All41
Richards, J.1. This was an application to revise an order made under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would appear that the matter originated by a police report that there was likely to be a breach of the peace between two brothers owing to a dispute about land and asking that proceedings should be taken under Section 107 and also under Section 145. On the 17th of September 1906 the Deputy Magistrate issued notices to the parties under Section 107 to show cause why tie parties should not be bound over to keep the peace. On the 5th of October 1906 the case came on, and the Court, finding that the dispute was really a dispute about land, ordered the proceedings to come on under Section 145. Statements had been put in by both parties in the proceedings under Section 107. The parties attended in Court, the patwari was examined, and the Court finding that the opposite party had proved their possession, made an order providing for the possession of the opposite party. Of cou...
Tag this Judgment!Asghari Begam and anr. Vs. Ashiq HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All90
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by Musammat Asghari Begam and Musammat Akbari Begam, the daughters of one Masum Ali, for possession of a half share of an exproprietary holding, 17 bighas 7 biswas in extent, and for dispossession of the defendants from that share, the allegation being that the defendants had taken possession of the whole of the holding. The plaintiffs also claimed mesne profits. The plaint contained a prayer to the effect that the plaintiffs might be granted any other relief which might, in the opinion of the Court, be deemed just and proper. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiffs a decree for joint possession of 15 million odd sihams out of 76 million odd sihams. From this decree the plaintiffs appealed. The lower appellate Court decreed their claim for possession of a half share out of the whole and also for mesne profits. The defendants have preferred this second appeal. One of the appellants Musammat Said-u...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Deni Vs. Nand Lal Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All109
Richards, J.1. The circumstances of the present case are as follows: Ram Deni made a complaint against Nand Lal and one Jokhu under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. This prosecution resulted in the acquittal of Nand Lal and Jokhu. Nand Lal then applied to the Court which tried the original case for sanction, the application being made under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That Court refused to sanction the prosecution against Ram Deni. Naud Lal applied to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate granted sanction. Ram Deni then applied to the Sessions Judge to revoke that sanction. The Sessions Judge held that the District Magistrate was not an authority subordinate to him within the meaning of Section 195(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present application is to review and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge on the ground that the application came regularly before him, and he ought to have gone into the merits and given a decision either revo...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Prasad Vs. Ambika Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All679
Griffin, J.1. The plaintiff, who is described as a istimrari pattadar (permanent lease-holder) under an instrument of the year 1897 in respect of certain sir land, sues to redeem a mortgage created by the predecessor in title of his lessor in the year 1840 over a property, of which the sir land leased to the plaintiff is a part. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has such an interest in the mortgaged property as would give him a right to redeem under the provisions of Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act. The lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has no such interest under his lease as would confer upon him the right to come in and ask to redeem the property. 2. The plaintiff comes in second appeal to this Court, and it is contended that under the special conditions of the lease in the plaintiff's favour he has such an interest in the property as would confer upon him the title to come in and redeem. The terms of the so-called patta are ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »