Allahabad Court November 1909 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.
Yad Ram and anr. Vs. Risal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.469
Richards, J.1. This and the connected Appeals Nos. 624, 625, 626, 709 and 710 arise out of an application made to Mr. Johnston, Additional Sessions Judge, for sanction to prosecute under Section 1915 and Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted leave to prosecute Yad Ram and Chote under Section 193, but be refused sanction to prosecute under Section 211. It appears that a dacoity was really committed about the 6th of July, 1908, and Ram Chander and Yad Ram were the victims. The dacoity was reported early on the morning of the 6th of July. No names were mentioned in the report; but on the 13th of July a petition was sent to the Magistrate which complained that the police wore taking no steps through the influence of one Radha Kishen. Radha Kishen appears to be a more or less influential zamindar in the neighbourhood. The complainants are banias. The dacoity case was tried by Mr. Lyle on the 7th of December 1908. He does not appear to have thought it ...
Ganga Saran Singh and ors. Vs. Bhagwat Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.471
1. In this case there was a written order and though it may be a defective one still both sides were fully cognizant of it, as appears from the written replies they filed, of the matter in dispute. There was also no doubt a danger of the breach of the peace. This being so, we do not deem it expedient to exercise our power in revision, and, therefore, dismiss the application....
Hargawan Magan and anr. Vs. Baij Nath Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.144
1. The facts of this case are these: One Ghaibi Ram died leaving three sons Baij Nath Das, Sheo Das and Gauri Shankar and a widow Musammat Parbati. After the death of Ghaibi Ram, the three sons separated. Gauri Shankar died leaving some cash and jewellery. His widow Musammat Rambha was at the time a minor. A guardian of the property of the minor was appointed by the Court and he sold the jewellery and with the proceeds of the sale of the jewellery and with the money left by Gauri Shankar he purchased Government promissory-notes of the face value of Rs. 17,600. Upon the death of Musammat Rambha the promissory-notes passed to Musammat Parbati, the mother of Gauri Shankar, as the next heir to his property. On the 1st of August 1904 Sheo Das executed a document in favour of Musammat Parbati whereby he purported to convey to her and release in her favour all his interest in the promissory-notes referred to above. Musammat Parbati is now dead and the only heirs left by her are her two sans B...
Sheikh Sahib Ali and ors. Vs. Musammat Fatma Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.138
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit. The village of Arand prior to 1888 consisted of one mahal which was divided into thoks and pattis. On the 17th April 1888 partition proceedings were filed and the village was partitioned. A number of mahals were formed one of which, namely Mahal Muhammad Makki, is the subject-matter of this litigation. The plaintiff is not a co-sharer in this mahal but is a co-sharer in another mahal. The owners of Mahal. Muhammad Makki sold the entire mahal to the defendants and thereupon the suit was instituted. No new wajib-ul-arz was framed at the time of partition but the plaintiff relies upon the wajib-ul-arz which was prepared in the year 1883, which contains the following provision as to preemption, namely, 'if any co-sharer in any patti wishes to transfer his property, then he shall do so first of all to his co-sharer in the khata, next to the proprietors of the putti, after that to the proprietors of the village, malikan deh.'...
Pandit Parbhu Dayal Vs. Sheikh Ali Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.376
1. This appeal arises in a suit for redemption of a mortgage, dated the 5th of February 1863, executed by one Ram Bakhsh in favour of one Debi Das, in respect of a 10 biswas share of the village Lodhamai. The mortgage was usufructuary and it was provided in it that the profits were to be appropriated in lieu of interest, except a sum of Rs. 100 per annum which was to be paid to the mortgagor. There were other provisions in the mortgage which for the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to refer to. In 1866 Ram Bakhsh sold 7 biswas out of the 10 biswas, that is, his equity of redemption in the 7 biswas, to Abdul Rashid, Abdul Aziz and Mahmud Khan, defendants, sons of Zahur Ahmad Khan. In 1871 Zahur Ahmad Khan purchased at auction 2 biswas 19 biswansis and 10 kachwansis out of the remainder of the mortgaged property. The remaining 10 kachwansis was purchased by Debi Das, who thus broke up the integrity of the mortgage. Zahur Ahmad Khan died in 1873 leaving him surviving the three so...
Chaudhri Ghansham Singh Vs. Emperor Through Mare Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.105
1. The facts out of which this application arises so far as they are necessary for the determination of the point which we have to consider can be very briefly stated.2. One Muhammad Hashim has been convicted, of the offence of forging a sale-deed and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. The principal witness against Muhammad Hashim and the complainant in the case was one Mare Lal. The same Mare Lal has now instituted a complaint against Ghansham Singh for abetment of the forgery of which Muhammad Hashim. was convicted. Ghansham Singh took an early opportunity after he appeared in Court of objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court which was holding the inquiry and said that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaint without the sanction of the Additional Sessions Judge in whose Court Muhammad Hashim was tried and in whose Court at that trial the forged sale-deed was produced. It is admitted on both sides that neither Muhammad Hashim nor Ghansham Singh were parti...
Koer Karan Singh Vs. Gopal Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.123
ORDERTudball, J.1. This matter has come before me in the following circumstances:2. A memorandum of appeal was filed on a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10. The officer, whose duty it was to see that the proper fee was paid, reported that there was a deficiency of Rs. 130.3. This report of his was contested on behalf of the appellant, and this difference having arisen the matter was placed before the Taxing: Officer.4. The latter on the 12th of August last passed an under under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, holding that there was a deficiency and the amount of fee had been correctly estimated by the office. In some manner, which is not apparent from the record, the papers were laid before Mr. Justice Griffin, who thereupon ordered the matter to be placed before the Taxing Judge for orders.5. Mr. Wallach has appeared on behalf of the Crown and takes a preliminary objection that the order of the Taxing Officer was a final order as contemplated by Section 5 of the Court Fees Act.6. Attention h...
Musammat Shamdei Vs. Baljit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.451
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by two plaintiffs, namely Musammat Shamdei and Narain Das, for sale of a 13 biswansi and 61/2 kachwansi share in the village Dyanatpur, under a mortgage, dated the 25th of February, 1874. The said mortgage was executed in favour of one Lachman Das by Baljit Singh, Sarup Singh, Chandan Singh and Gopal Singh. Lachman Das, the mortgagee, died leaving four sons Nand Ram, Dila Ram, Makund Lal and Khushi Ram. The plaintiff Shamdei is the widow of Makund Lal. One of the defendants Musammat Gobindi is the widow of Khushi Ram. The plaintiff Narain Dasis alleged to be the adopted son of Makund Lal but this adoption is denied and the question whether he is or is not the adopted son of Makund Lal has not been raised in this appeal. The learned advocate for the appellants has argued the case as if it were a suit by Musammat Shamdei alone. After the death of Lachman Das, a suit was brought for sale on the basis of the aforesaid mortgage by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›