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.
Bhagwanti Vs. Jagarnath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.510
Richards, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises very fully appear from the judgments in the lower Courts. Both these Courts have taken the same view of the facts. The original defendant was one Ram Autar. He left his village on an outbreak of plague leaving his worldly goods with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is said to have misappropriated these goods and after Ram Autar's return ho instituted criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust against the plaintiff. Neighbours intervened: it was found that the plaintiff was indebted to Ram Antar in Rs. 800 or thereabouts. The plaintiff executed hundis for part of the debt of Rs. 800 and sold a house for Rs. 100 (the balance of the debt).2. The prosecution was dropped. This is the view taken by both the Courts below of the general facts. The present suit was instituted to recover possession of the house. it is necessary to refer particularly to the pleadings. The plaintiff pleaded that he was induced to execute the sale-deed by ...
Musammat Hamidunnisa Bibi Vs. Musammat Nazirunnisa Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.795
1. The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the order of this Court of the 8th of January 1909. On the hearing of the appeal we thought it necessary to refer to the Court below for determination of certain issues, and accordingly the two following issues were referred, namely, (1) Whether the transfer of the 6th of December 1904 was a real transaction or merely colourable? and (2) Was the defendant Nazirunnisa a transferee of the property comprised in that transfer in good faith?2. The transfer of the 6th of December 1904 was made by the husband of the parties in satisfaction of the dower debt of the defendant Nazirunnisa, stated to amount to Rs. 20,000. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that this amount was not the true amount of the dower, but that the dower of Nazirunnisa was only 500 dirhams, equivalent to about Rs. 107. It has been found by the Courts below that Rs. 20,000 was the amount of the defendant's dower. The lower appellate Court found that the transfer in question...
Raghubans Sahai Lal and ors. Vs. Birjnandan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.731
1. This second appeal has been preferred by certain persons, who hold the position of judgment-debtors, while the respondent fills the position against them, of decree-holder. The circumstances which led to the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, are as follows:2. The respondent had obtained a decree upon the 21st February 1906 for the recovery of Rs. 2.300. On the 21st of July 1906 in consequence of execution proceedings set on foot by the respondent a 4 anna share in Kaul Modipur, which belonged to the appellants, was sold and purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 1,700; there remained, therefore, a balance still due in favour of the decree-holder.3. Before the sale of the 4 anna share had been confirmed by the Court, the parties, on the 17th of August 1906, entered into an agreement whereby the decree-holder agreed to give up 1 anna share out of the 4 annas purchased by him to the appellants and also to remit the balance due; the appellants on their side agreeing to put the ...
Shah Zahid HussaIn and ors. Vs. Shah Zafar HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.3
1. This is an appeal from an order rejecting a plaint on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to be recorded co-sharers. The plaintiffs applied to the Revenue Court for partition. Thereupon the defendants Nos. 3 to 79 preferred objections claiming different plots of land to which they alleged they were entitled and urging that these plots should not be included in the partition. The Revenue authorities referred the plaintiffs to the Civil Court and. thereupon the present suit was brought. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the plaintiffs ought to have brought separate suits against the different sets of defendants who claim specific plots and accordingly directed the plaintiffs to amend their plaint, and as they failed to do so, rejected the plaint. We are of opinion that the Court below was in error in rejecting the plaint. The plaintiffs as we have said above applied for partition. This was...
Durga Pershad Vs. Hazari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.686
Aikman, J.1. The sole question for decision in this appeal, which arises out of a suit for pre-emption, is whether the clause in the Wajib-ul-arz upon, which the plaintiff's claim to pre-empt is based, is, as held by the Court of first instance, the record of a custom or, as held by the lower appellate Court, the record of a contract. After carefully considering the terms of Clause 8 of the Wajib-ul-arz, which contains the passage relied on, I think the interpretation put upon it by the first Court is right. In that passage the co-sharers say 'for the future we wish to continue the custom of pre-emption. The words in the vernacular are ainda jari rakhna riwaj shufa ka humko manzur hai'. I think the only inference to be drawn from, these words is that there was in existence a custom of pre-emption which the co-sharers wished to continue to prevail just as they might have agreed amongst themselves to abrogate it by covenanting not to enforce it in future. The mere statement in the clause...
Emperor Vs. Intizar Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.475
John Stanley, C.J.1. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was passed clearly under a misconception. The accused appealed against their conviction of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge instead of hearing the appeal was of opinion that the sentence of simple imprisonment was not adequate, if the appellants were really guilty of the offence of which they had been found guilty by the Court below and thereupon he referred the case to the High Court purporting to act under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this he was clearly wrong. He ought to have heard the appeal and come to a determination as to whether or not the conviction of the appellants was justified. Only if he was satisfied as to the propriety of the conviction should a reference have been made under Section 438. The learned' Sessions Judge did not in fact try the appeal. I therefore, make no order on this reference b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›