Allahabad Court April 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.
Sundar Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.966
1. This is an application on behalf of one Sundar Lal to quash a sanction granted by the Judge of Agra for the prosecution of the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 193, 199, 209 and 210, Indian Penal Code. At the same time the learned Judge granted sanction for the prosecution of one Musammat Mungo under Section 205, Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are somewhat peculiar. On the 16th of April, 1908, Musammat Janki presented a petition to the Collector of Muttra in which she alleged that it had come to her knowledge that the applicant Sundar Lal had instituted a case against her in the Court of the village Munsif of Bhartiain the Muttra District and having got one Musammat Mungo to personate her and to confess judgment obtained a decree against her, although she never in her life had been indebted to Sundar Lal. In this petition she alleged that she had applied to the village Munsif to take action against Sundar Lal and Musammat Mungo, but no action had been taken...
Ghulam Rabbani Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.228
ORDERAikman, J.1. I agree with the view expressed by the learned Sessions Judge. I quash the conviction of the applicant Ghulam Rabbani under Section 64, Act No. VI of 1808, and the sentence of fine passed thereon. The fine, if paid, must be refunded. The Magistrate is wrong in thinking that the bona fide, order mentioned in Rule 133 must be an order to send the article value payable....
Bansi Dhar and ors. Vs. Ali Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All367
George Knox and Griffin, JJ.1. This first appeal arises out of execution proceedings connected with a decree held by the respondents obtained by them on the 27th of May 1895 and confirmed by this Court on the 22nd of March 1897.2. The respondents, in execution proceedings instituted on the 17th December 1897, attached certain properties with a portion of which we are concerned in the present application. On the objection of Gaud Sahai and Chadammi Lal, the properties with which we are concerned were released from attachment. The decree-holders then instituted a suit under Section 283 and obtained a decree in June 1899, declaring that the attached property be brought to sale in execution of their decree. On the 18th January 1901, Musammat Mohan Kuar, one of the judgment-debtors in the original decree, sold the property in suit to one Bholanath. All Ahmad the present appellant, then instituted a suit for and obtained a decree for pre-emption over the same property.3. The application out ...
Ali Ahmad Khan Vs. Bansidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.951
1. This First Appeal arises out of Execution Proceedings connected with a decree held by the respondents, obtained by them on the 27th of May 1895 and confirmed by this Court on the 22nd of March 1897.2. The respondents in execution proceedings instituted on the 17th December 1897, attached certain properties with a portion of which we are concerned in the present application. On the objection of Gauri Sahai and Chadami Lal the properties with which we are concerned were released from attachment. The decree-holders then instituted a suit under Section 283 and obtained a decree in June 1899, declaring that the attached property be brought to sale in execution of their decree. On the 18th January 1901 Musammat Mohan Kunwar one of the judgment-debtors in the original decree sold the property in suit to one Bholanath. Ali Ahmad, the present appellant, then instituted a suit for and obtained a decree for pre-emption over the same property.3. The application out of which the appeal has immed...
Makund Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.226
Aikman, J.1. The applicants were convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of the offence of defamation and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51 each or in default to 3 month's simple imprisonment. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The applicants have moved this Court to interfere in revision on the ground that the offence of defamation has not been established. The case has been argued at length by the learned Counsel for the applicants and by the learned Counsel in support of the convictions. In my opinion no ground exists for doubting the propriety of the convictions. Had the circular, which is found to have been published by the applicants, been true in fact and published in good faith, the offence of defamation would not under the circumstances have been made out. But the Courts below find that the statements in the preamble to the circular are not true in fact and that the applicants did not act in good faith. There is, in my opinion...
Kanahaiya Lal Vs. Kishen Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.355
Griffin, J.1. The plaintiff in this case was process-server in the Court of the Munsif of Kasganj. The defendant in execution of two decrees obtained issue of warrants of arrest against his judgment-debtors. These warrants were made over to the plaintiff for service. On the 13th September, 1905, the defendant put in an application before the Munsif asking that another process-server be deputed to execute the warrants upon the allegation that the plaintiff had told him he would not execute them unless he were paid the sum of Rs. 8. An affidavit was put in support of his application.2. An inquiry was held by the Munsif who formed the opinion that the defendant's allegations were true and who then reported the matter to the District Judge with a recommendation that the plaintiff be transferred to some other Court, and that an unfavourable entry be made in the process-server's service book.3. The District Judge, however, took a more serious view of the matter and directed the prosecution o...
Bandi Vs. Rama Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.424
Richards, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows: Owing to the exertions of the plaintiff certain dacoits were convicted. It was alleged that two of the original defendants had harboured the dacoits, and the same two defendants were subsequently prosecuted by the Police for harbouring one of the dacoits. The plaintiff alleged that these defendants instigated the third defendant who is the appellant here to bring a false charge of forging a bond against the plaintiff. The prosecution was instituted against the plaintiff in respect of the alleged forging of the bond. His house was searched. Warrant was issued for his arrest. The matter was investigated by a Magistrate and the plaintiff was discharged. He then instituted the present suit against all three defendants for malicious prosecution. Two of the defendants pleaded that they had nothing to do with the prosecution. This issue was found in their favour and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed against them...
Rambrichh Rai Vs. Sarbanand Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.466
Richards, J.1. This appeal raises a question of considerable difficulty. The suit was one for redemption. The plaintiff mortgagor obtained a decree on 30th September 1907. The amount ascertained to be due on foot of the mortgage was the sum of Rs. 575, and the plaintiff was directed to pay in this sum within 60 days. Accordingly the time for payment of the money expired on 29th November 1907. The money was paid in on 30th November, one day late. The Court of first instance ordered restitution. The lower appellate Court reversed that decision and refused the plaintiff relief on the ground that the money was paid in too late. It is evident from the pleadings and the form of the decree that the mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage, and it is so stated by the respondent's vakil. The decree provided that if the money was not so paid the property should be sold. Section 93 of the Transfer of. Property Act which was in force at the date of the present proceedings, provides that if payment of ...
Girdhari Lal and anr. Vs. Khushali Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All364; 1Ind.Cas.744
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of property which had passed into the hands of an auction-purchaser under a sale in execution of an ex parte decree which was subsequently set aside. The property in dispute belonged to one Tori Singh who left him surviving his widow, his sister-in-law, and a minor son named Chait Singh. These relatives were recorded as owners upon his death. In 1883 the widow and sister-in-law purporting to act for themselves, and also as guardian of the minor Chait Singh, mortgaged the share in question to the respondent Khushali Ram. A suit for sale was brought on this mortgage and on the 23rd of July 1895, an ex parte decree for sale was passed and in execution of this decree, the property was sold and purchased by Khugali Ram on the 20th of December 1897. Chait Singh then applied to have the ea parte decree set aside and on the 9th of December 1899, his application was granted and the ex parte decree was set ...
Siraj-ud-dIn Vs. Musammat Mumtaz-un-nisa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.81
Richards, J.1. This was a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs who are mortgagees had made a lease to the defendant which was to continue up to the end of the year 1312 Fasli. It appears that there was a prior mortgage on the property, in favour of one Janki Prashad who sued on foot of his mortgage, obtained a decree which was duly made absolute and the property was add to an outsider, Ali Ahmad, on 24th March 1905. The sale was confirmed on 25 May 1905. The defence to the suit was that on the date of the sale, 24th March 1905, the title of the plaintiffs had come to an end, and that therefore they were not entitled to recover any rent after that date. Both sides in this Court (and apparently in the Courts below) have treated the case as turning entirely upon the question, when did the plaintiff's title come to an end? The plaintiffs contend (relying upon Section 316 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act No. XIV of 1882) that their title did not come to an end until the sale was confi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »