Allahabad Court May 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.
Hingu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.482
1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Mirzapur suggesting that the order of a Magistrate of the first class purporting to act under Sections 133, 134 and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be set aside. The facts are shortly as follows: The Magistrate having received information, (which we will assume was sufficient within the meaning of Section 133) that a certain public way was obstructed by a chabutra constructed by Hingu, made a conditional order requiring Hingu to remove the alleged obstruction or appear and move to have the order set aside or modified. Hingu appeared, and the Magistrate, being of opinion that the duty lay upon Hingu to show that the conditional order was not justified, called upon him to produce evidence. Hingu did produce three witnesses. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence of no weight, and at once made his conditional order absolute. Hingu applied to the Sessions Judge in revision, one of the grounds taken being that the learn...
Hira Lal and anr. Vs. Bansidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.262
1. We think the Courts below are right and this appeal must fail. The facts are those : Chhabbe Mal, the father of the defendants executed a sale-deed on the 6th of November 1902 in favour of the plaintiffs Bansidhar and Ram Dayal and their father Sanwal Das. The sale comprised zamindari property and arrears of profits for the years 1308 and 1309 Fasti, alleged to have been due by Ram Ghulam the lambardar. The sale-deed contains this recital: 'If through any act on my part the vendees sustain any loss in regard to the profits, I shall make good the loss with legal interest from my person and every kind of property.' The plaintiffs brought a suit against the lambardar for the profits sold to them; but their suit was dismissed on the 16th of October 1903 on the ground that the profits had been collected by one Dhunni Mal who was the agent for the vendor and the lambardar and that the lambardar had not received more than his share of the profits. This decree of the Court of first instance...
Shib Lal and ors. Vs. Chatarbhuj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All450; 2Ind.Cas.363
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two plaintiffs, namely Shib Lal and Badri Das, to recover money alleged to be due on two hundis. The suit was brought against two defendants Chatarbhuj and Ganga Prasad. Chatarbhuj defended the suit. An application was made to refer the disputes between the parties to arbitration. This application was made by Chatarbhuj alone among the defendants and not by Ganga Prasad. On behalf of the plaintiffs the reference to arbitration was made by one Bhag Chand and a pleader appointed by him. It has been found that he had a power of attorney from Shib Lal, which authorized him to abide by the oath of any person, but it has not been found whether it gave him authority to refer any matter to arbitration. It has also been found that Bhag Chand had no authority from Badri Das to make a reference to arbitration on his behalf. As we have said above the case was referred to arbitration on behalf of the plaintiffs by Bhag Chand and...
Dassu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.408
1. Ten persons have been convicted of an offence under Section 168 of Act I of 1900 (Local) and sentenced each of thorn to pay a line of Rs. 3. The convictions and sentences of fine have been upheld by the lower appellate Court and the ten men have applied to this Court in revision, asking that the orders of the Courts below be quashed and they be acquitted. Section 168 of. Act I of 1900 provides for the punishment of persons who without the permission of the Municipal Board, alter, obstruct or encroach upon any street, sewer, drain or water-course. In this particular case the ton men have been convicted of obstructing without the permission of the Municipal Board, Allahabad, a drain which after passing through what is known as the Katra Bazar, eventually finds its outlet upon certain land situate within the village of Rajapur. The drain in question is a pucca drain for a long part of its course, but after reaching the village of Rajapnr continues its course through a channel which may...
King Emperor Vs. Ganesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All448
Alston, J.1. This is a jail appeal from a conviction under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. I took time to consider this case, because I was not satisfied that the findings of fact at which the learned Sessions Judge arrived were correct. On those findings it seemed to me that the appellant, however improperly he may have acted, had committed no criminal offence; but having listened to the learned Government Advocate; who put the case for the Crown before me with great pains, I am convinced that the appellant did commit an offence, but not one under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.2. I find as a fact that there was no abduction. I believe, however, that the appellant took the girl, who was undoubtedly a minor, to his village without having previously obtained' the consent of either her father or of her uncle Sander in whose charge she was for the time. I can see nothing that justifies the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that Sunder consented to the girl's going in the f...
Ganesh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.480
Alston, J.1. This is a jail appeal from a conviction under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. I took time to consider this case, because I was not satisfied that the findings of fact at which the learned Sessions Judge arrived were correct. On those findings it seemed to me that the appellant, however improperly he may have acted, had committed no criminal offence; but having listened to the learned Government Advocate, who put the case for the Crown before me with great pains, I am convinced that the appellant did commit an offence but not one under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.2. I find as a fact that there was no abduction. I believe, however, that the appellant took the girl, who was, undoubtedly, a minor, to his village without having previously obtained the consent of either her father, or of her uncle, Sunder, in whose charge she was for the time. I can see nothing that justifies the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that Sunder consented to the girl's going in th...
Bharath Singh Vs. Debi Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.261
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:The plaintiff and his uncle, Dwarka Singh, are members of a joint Hindu family. On the 6th of June 1903 the defendants first party executed what purported to be a perpetual lease of their sir lands in certain villages in favour of the plaintiff Bharath Singh, who is a minor. On the 10th of June 1903 those defendants executed a sale-deed of their zamindari in those two villages for the consideration of Rs. 2,294-6 in favour of Dwarka Singh, the uncle. Both documents wore registered on the same day. A sum of Rs. 1,105 is entered in the lease as nazrana, which was paid by the lessee to the lessor after the registration. Subsequently to this the defendants, second party, who are members of the same family as the defendants first party, brought a suit to set aside the lease and the lease was as a result of that litigation set aside. On this the lessee has now brought the present suit to recover the sum of Rs. 1,105 ...
Nanak and ors. Vs. Sibba and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.536
1. The question in this appeal is whether the claim is barred by the law of limitation. The property in dispute belonged to one Khazano, who died in 1891. He was succeeded by his mother Musammat Nauli, who continued in possession till her death. The plaintiffs claimed to be the reversioners to the estate of Khazano after Nauli's death and sued to recover possession. They alleged in their plaint that after the death of Nauli, Jit was the person entitled to possession but ho took no steps to take it. This has been found to be untrue as Jit had predeceased Musammat Nauli. The plaintiffs next alleged that Musammat Nauli died in the end of December, 1895. They brought their suit on the 23rd December, 1907. The Court of first instance found that Nauli had died on the 25th of October, 1895, and as the suit had been brought after 12 years from that date, it held that under article 141 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act, 1877, the claim was time-barred. The suit was accordingly dismissed. On ...
Ram Bakhsh Vs. Chanda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.306
Karamat Husain, J.1. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for ejectment. In the eighth paragraph of his plaint he said: 'Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the plaintiff's co-sharers but they did not join in the suit, on the other hand it appears that they avoid the suit to some extent. Hence they have been made pro forma defendants and the plaintiff is also legaly entitled to do so.' The first relief sought by the plaintiff was a decree for absolute possession of the house against defendant No. 1 subject to the rights of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The pro forma defendants Nos. 2 and 3 made no appearance before the Court of first instance which decreed the suit against defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 appealed to the lower appellate Court. The first plea in the memorandum of appeal was that the Court below was in error in decreeing the claim when the co-sharers who admittedly had let in the defendant did not join in the suit. The first contention urged in lower appellate Co...
Ram Lal Vs. Tasaduk Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.260
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for profits brought by a co-sharer against another co-sharer under the provisions of Section 165 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The plaintiff stated in his plaint that the defendant had realised the whole of the rents for the years in question but in order to evade payment of profits, he had in bad faith been showing in the papers that arrears were due by tenants. This was denied by the defendant. The Courts below framed no issue on the point and did not determine whether the plaintiff's allegation was true or false. They were of opinion that the defendant had neglected to collect the rents and accordingly based the account of profits on the gross rental. They relied upon the analogy of Section 164 (2) of the Act. It was, however, held by a Divisional Bench of this Court in Abdul Rashid v. Abdul Latif A.W.N. 1908 p. 68 that in a suit under Section 165 only the actual collections made by the defendant are to be taken into account in determining the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »