Allahabad Court December 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.
Pargan Singh Vs. Ajkumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.520
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale took place on the 27th July, 1906, and was made in respect of four villages. The question, which arises in the present appeal, is only in respect of the village Mahori Reman. The wajih-ul-arz provides for pre-emption in the village. A co-sharer in a patti has a preferential right over a co-sharer in the thok and a co-sharer in the thok over a co-sharer in the mahal at the price offered by a stranger. The learned Advocate for the appellant admitted that having regard to certain rulings of this Court, the right to pre-emption only arose on a sale to a stranger and that if the sale in the present case had been made to a co-sharer, even one whose right of pre-emption was inferior to the plaintiff's, no suit could have been brought. At the time of the sale the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the same thok as the property sold. At that time the vendee was a complete stranger. However, on the 20th October, 1906, the vendee by an aucti...
Emperor Vs. Corporal Allen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.400
ORDERRichards, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a Commission to take the evidence of certain Mr. H. Frost at present residing at Hiawatha, 73 Belle Vue Road, South-bourne on Sea, England. Section 503 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the issue of a Commission in criminal cases in India where the witness is residing in India or in the territories of any prince or chief in India. There is no provision in the Code for the issue of a Commission for the examination of a witness in criminal cases residing elsewhere. In the case of Empress v. S. Moorga Chatty (1) it was admitted that there was no authority for granting a Commission in criminal case. One of the learned Judges at page 369 pointed out that there was a deficiency in the Indian Law in this respect and he expressed a hops that such a deficiency would be supplied. The learned Counsel on behalf of the accused has admitted that there is no authority for the issue of a Commission. He asks, However, for leave to...
Sheikh Muhammad Ismail Vs. Sheikh Abdul Gafoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.488
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts of the case are briefly these: one Abdul Ghafoor on the 21st of December 1906 sold his share to Musammat Soghra Begum. She admittedly was not a co-sharer in the village. The plaintiff Muhammad Ismail instituted a suit for pre-emption on the 20th December 1907. On 30th March, 1908, Soghra Begum filed her written statement in which she alleged that she was not the real owner and purchaser of the property in suit but that her husband Hamid Husain was the real purchaser. On that very day Hamid Husain, Soghra Begum's husband, applied to be made a party to the suit. His application was granted, and on the 21st of April, 1908, he put in a written statement to the effect that he was the real purchaser of the property in suit, that Soghra Begum was a. mere benamidar, and that the pre-emptor was not entitled to succeed inasmuch as Hamid Husain was a co-sharer in the village. The Court of first instance finding Hamid Husain to be the real purchaser, dismissed the cl...
Jaddu Chaube Vs. Bhagwat Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.519a
1. We think that the conclusion at which the learned Judge of this Court arrived is correct, and we dismiss the appeal....
Pandit Kunj Behari Lal Vs. Kishan Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.491
Banerjee, J.1. In my judgment the Courts below have rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Maharaja of Bhadawar is the assignee of Government revenue of the village Gudhi Barauli in which the parties to the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, are co-sharers. The revenue for the years 1306; 1307 and 1308 having fallen into arrears, the Maharaja brought a suit against the parties to this suit and obtained a decree on the 22nd of March 1902. The plaintiff's allegation is that Rs. 544-14 out of the amount of the decree was realised from him alone, and that this was in excess of the amount for which he was liable. He accordingly brought this suit for contribution in respect of the amount which he alleged had been paid by him in excess of his proportionate share of liability. In the 5th paragraph of his plaint he, however, stated that having regard to the fact that the defendants cultivated some land in the village and collected rent from the tenants &c.;, they were liable to pay...
Baldeo Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.405
ORDERTudball, J.1. One Baldeo Singh has been convicted under Section 19(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5, in that he was in possession of certain empty cartridge cases which had already been used for firing. The Officiating Sessions Judge of Mainpuri has referred the case to this Court because in his opinion such empty cartridge cases do not fall within the definition of ammunition in Section 4 of the Arms Act. The only ground which he gives for his opinion is a Punjab Ruling Jaman Khan v. The Empress 20 P.R. 1890 Cr. I cannot possibly agree with the opinion expressed by the Officiating Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. It requires but the insertion of a percussion cap to make a cartridge case fit for future use. Gun-wads are specifically included within the definition of 'Ammunition' and to hold that cartridge cases were not part of ammunition would in my opinion lead to an absurdity. This point was considered by a Bench of the Bombay High Court in King-Emperor v. Ebr...
inderjit and anr. Vs. Bharat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.407
1. We are of opinion that under the terms of the particular contract embodied in the mortgage-deed in suit the intention of the parties was that the mortgagee should enjoy possession for ten years. The suit for redemption is, therefore, premature.2. We accordingly set aside the order of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs....
Ram Nihora Misir Vs. Ram Rup Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.408
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts are briefly these;--Ram Nihora Misir presented an application to be declared an insolvent. The Court below after a careful consideration of the evidence tendered by him and by his creditors came to the conclusion that the applicant was in a position to pay his debts and rejected his application.2. The learned District Judge at the end of his judgment says: 'it will thus be seen that he is at present worth over Rs. 250 and can liquidate his debts. I find that he has failed to make out a case for a declaration of insolvency, and I reject his petition with costs.' The applicant has preferred an appeal from that order. It is argued by his learned Vakil that the learned District Judge was in error in dismissing the petition under Section 15 of the Insolvency Act. In my opinion the Court below was perfectly right in dismissing the petition under the said section. The learned Vakil for the appellant, however, contends that as soon as an application for a declara...
Moulvi Mutiullah Khan Vs. Banwari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.132
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon two mortgages made respectively on the 11th of July 1897 and the 4th of August 1898 by one Dariao Singh in favour of the plaintiff Bunwari Lal. Dariao owned a 6 biswa share in the village Serai Khas. On the 18th of August 1894 he mortgaged a 4 biswa share to one Bhola Nath. On the 11th of December 1894 he mortgaged 5 biswas to Bhola Nath and on the 14th of September 1895 he mortgaged 1 biswa more to the same mortgagee. After these mortgages he made the two mortgages in favour of Bunwari Lal to which we have referred above. On the 23rd of April 1900, Dario sold to Prag Narain his interest in the mortgaged property and he left Rs. 2,600 with the purchaser for discharge of the mortgages held by Bhola Nath. Prag Narain did not pay off those mortgages but on the 16th of September 1901 he made a mortgage of the property to one Hardwari Lal for Rs. 3,300 and out of this sum Hardwari Lal withheld Rs. 2,200 for payment to Bhola Nath. With this m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›