Allahabad Court January 1909 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Jamna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All290
Griffin, J.1. Musammat Jamna has been convicted of an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. She appeals against her conviction. The learned vakil, who appears for her, has taken me through all the material evidence in the ease. His contention is that the evidence on which the conviction mainly rests and the confession of the accused are not sufficient to warrant the conviction. The case has been tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh with extreme thoroughness and care. His judgment contains an accurate summary of all the evidence in the case, and in it every aspect of the case has been fully considered. On the 25th of March last some food was prepared at the house of one Lal Singh Brahman of village Mahugua. A number of people of Lal Singh's household partook of the food on that and the following day with the result that four persons died and several others became seriously ill. The report of the chemical...
Tag this Judgment!Sat NaraIn Tewari and After His Death His Sons and anr. Vs. Ganga Pars ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.117
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought under the following circumstances. The appellants Sat Narain and Jag Narain are the sons of one Sri Kishen who had a brother Guptar. Guptar's son was Jokhu. Jokhu, Sat Narain and Jag Narain formed a joint family. On the 19th of May 1893, Lachmi Upadhia, defendant, executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 744, the property hypothecated being a 6 pie share. The mortgage deed was in favour of Sat Narain alone but the consideration for the mortgage was money which belonged to the joint family and was advanced by Sat Narain on behalf of the joint family as the managing member of it. As Jokhu had a half share in the amount advanced his interest in the mortgage was to the extent of one half. On the 14th of May 1900, Lachmi Upadhia executed two mortgages in lieu of the amount due upon mortgage of the 19th of May 1893, one of which was a usufructuary mortgage and the other a simple mortgage. Both these mortgages were also executed in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Brij Bahadur Vs. Musammat Dallo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.137
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies under Section 10 of the Letters Patent from the order of the learned Judge of this Court. We think that this objection is well founded. The final order of the learned Judge of this Court is in the following terms 'I, therefore, under Section 57 read with Sections 582 and 587 of the Code of Civil Procedure return the Memorandum of Appeal for presentation to the proper Court.' The order is thus an order directing the Memorandum of Appeal to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. It was held by a Full Bench in Muhammad Naim-ullah Khan v. Ihsan-ullah Khan 14 A. 226 (F.B.), that an appeal under the Letters Patent does not lie against an order from which an appeal is excluded by Chapter 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. It has been held in this Court that no appeal lies under that Chapter, that is under Section 588 which appears in that Chapter, from an order directing ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Nath Singh Vs. Hardeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All285
George Knox and Griffin, JJ.1. This first appeal arises out of an application made by one Chaudhari Gopinath, decree-holder. The application is under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act asking for a decree under that section and for sale of certain property of Dalip Singh and others, judgment-debtors.2. Among other objections raised by the judgment-debtors was an objection to the effect that the claim to this decree was barred inasmuch as the suit was filed when more than six years had expired after the execution of the bond. The bond was dated 21st of March 1884, the suit brought upon it was instituted on the 28th of August 1902. Several payments had been made from time to time, but the judgment-debtors objected that these payments were not payments made towards interest 'as such.' The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit held that these payments should be considered payments appropriated by the judgment-creditor towards interest due under the bond. The lower Court in consideri...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhari Gopi Nath Singh Vs. Hardeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.137a
1. This first appeal arises out of an application made by one Chaudhari Gopi Nath decree-holder. The application is under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act asking for a decree under that section and for sale of certain property of Dalip Singh and other judgment-debtors.2. Among other objections raised by the judgment-debtors was an objection to the effect that the claim to this decree was barred inasmuch as the suit was filed when more than 6 years had expired after the execution of the bond. The bond was dated 16th of March 1884, the suit brought upon it was instituted on the 28th of August 1902. Several payments had been made from time to time but the judgment-debtor objected that these payments were not payments made towards interest 'as such'. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit held that these payments should be considered payments appropriated by the judgment-creditor towards interest due under the bond. The Lower Court in considering the application for execution w...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Baroda Parshad Bose Vs. Babu Peare Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.77
Griffin, J.1. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant, who is the proprietor of a news-paper published in Calcutta, asking him to publish an advertisement for him and sending at the same time Rs. 10. The defendant declined to accept Rs. 10 as sufficient, and after some negotiations agreed to accept Rs. 24 as the costs for the advertisement. This sum was remitted to the defendant by the plaintiff, who resides at Aligarh. The plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this application has arisen in the. Court of the Munsif of Aligarh, to recover damages for a breach of contract. The defendant pleaded that the suit was not cognizable at Aligarh. The Court of First Instance sustained this plea and dismissed the suit. The Lower Appellate Court on appeal decreed the suit in part holding that the suit was congnizable at Aligarh. The defendant comes here in Revision and contends that the order of the Court below is wrong in law inasmuch as the Court at Aligarh had no jurisdiction by reason of th...
Tag this Judgment!Negi Puran Singh and ors. Vs. Hira Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.146
1. This appeal is due to irregularity in the procedure adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge. The suit was brought by the plaintiff Negi Puran Singh for the sale of three villages. Amongst the defendants to the suit are the three younger sons of one Gopal Singh, deceased, namely, Kundan Singh, Shamsher Singh and Tej Bahadur Singh, they being under the guardianship of their mother Musammat Lilawati.2. Before the hearing had proceeded at any length, the plaintiff appears to have filed what is described as a reference to arbitration of the matters in dispute. On the 11th of June 1906, an agreement was filed by the plaintiff which was not signed by some of the defendants at the time it was filed. The signatures of some of the defendants were afterwards obtained.3. The Court on the 13th of July passed an order to the effect that as no agreement referring the matter in dispute to arbitration had been filed, this must be done and the signature of the defendant Musammat Lilawati must be obt...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh and ors. Vs. Sher Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All282; 2Ind.Cas.210
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Karamat Husain, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs appellants for possession of a house. The plaintiffs impleaded in the suit two brothers namely Sher Singh and Partab Singh, claiming title to the house under a sale-deed executed on the 28th of April 1896, by Sher Singh alone purporting to act on behalf of himself and Partab Singh. Partab Singh filed a defence to the effect that he alone was the owner of the house under a purchase made by him and that he did not authorise his brother Sher Singh to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs on his behalf. The suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance, whereupon an appeal was filed but during the pendenoy of the appeal Partab Singh died childless, leaving a widow, namely the defendant respondent Musammat Misri. Musammat Misri was not brought upon the record within the period of six mouths allowed by law for that purpose and after the expiration of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Chhakauri Khan Vs. Pir Bakhsh Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All279
George Knox and Griffin, JJ.1. This appeal has been brought by Chhakauri Khan who purchased at a sale in execution of two Revenue Court decrees the house of the judgment-debtor defendant. One decree was for costs resulting in proceedings under Section 39 of Act No. III of 1901. The other was a decree passed under Act II of 1901, Section 159. Apparently the two decrees were consolidated and one sale held on account of both decrees so consolidated.2. The judgment-debtor applied to the Assistant Collector offering to pay in the sum decreed in accordance with the provisions of Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure as made applicable to Rent Courts. The Assistant Collector of the second class rejected his application and there is no doubt that he did so wrongly. Chhakauri Khan then got a sale certificate in his favour and obtained formal possession over the house on the 5th November 1905.3. The judgment-debtor appealed to the Collector who set aside the order of the Court below and gr...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Parbhu NaraIn Singh Vs. Sheo Karan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All276
John Stanley, Kt., C.J., Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen His Highness the Maharaja of Benares sued for arrears of rent, relying on a kabuliat, dated the 7th of December 1899, executed by the defendants and registered on the 8th of December 1899. By the kabuliat the rent reserved for the holding was an annual sum of Rs. 4,701 and the term of the lease was nine years. The defendants were let into possession of the property on the faith of the Kabuliat. No lease was executed by the plaintiff. In the plaint the plaintiff sets out the terms of the kabuliat and says that in accordance with the agreement entered into thereunder the gum which he claimed was due. The defendants in their written statement did not deny that a tenancy subsisted between them and the plaintiff, but they raised various objections to portions of the claim. In a supplementary written statement, however, they pleaded this defence, namely that 'a mere kabuliat without there being...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »