Allahabad Court June 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.
Nithuri Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.466
1. Nithuri has been convicted under Section 307, I.P.C., and sentenced to transportation for life. He has also been convicted under Section 406, I.P.C., and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently. We do not think that the charge under Section 406 ought to have been joined with a charge under Section 307. The only provision enabling this to be done is to be found in Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section provides that if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. It is doubtful whether the provisions of this section could apply to the facts of the present case. The taking of the ornaments can hardly be said to form one transaction with the pushing of Musammat Sahodra into the well. However, it is quite clear that the accused has not been prejudiced in anyway. We think that the evidenc...
Kuar Lal Singh Vs. Kuar Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.496
1. The only question in this appeal which arises out of a suit for pre-emption is that of the interpretation to be placed on the wajib-ul-arz on which the plaintiffs rely as proving the custom set up by them. The vendor and the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the same patti and in the same khata of the Tehewat. The vendee is a co-sharer in the village but in a different patti. The plaintiffs claim a preferential right to pre-empt the property on the ground of being co-sharers in the patti. The wajib-ul-arz of the village is worded in a peculiar manner. It provides that a co-sharer, who wishes to sell or mortgage his share must offer it first to his co-shaier in the village (sharik dehi), after him to a hissadar patti degree by degree and after him to a hissadar in the village degree by degree, and after these persons he may sell or mortgage to a stranger. It is contended on behalf of the vendor that as he is a co-sharer in the village he is a pre-emptor of the first class and takes priori...
Natha Vs. Miankhan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.552a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration that the defendants had no right as against him and to an injunction restraining them from interfering with him in his management of certain zamindari which he held as a lessee. The facts are briefly as follows. The plaintiff and his uncle Laukhi obtained a lease on the 4th of June 1900 of certain proprietary rights for a term expiring in 1315 Fault. On the 18th of October 1907 Laukhi granted a sub-lease of his half share in the theka to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff alleges that they have interfered in his collection and that whenever he sues tenants they plead payment to the defendants Nos 1 and 2. He maintains that his uncle Laukhi had no power under the law to grant a sub-lease of his thekadari rights, that the sub-lease, therefore, is void and that the defendants have no title and should be re-strained from interfering with him.2. The Court of first instance held in favour of the plai...
Charni Vs. Raj Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.495
1. Jassu father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 mortgaged the property in suit to Charni on 8th June 1895. The mortgage was for Rs. 75 and was unregistered. Puttu Lal defendant No. 1 again mortgaged the same property to Raj Bahadur on 2nd January 1902. This mortgage was registered and it has been found by the lower appellate Court that Raj Bahadur had no notice of the former unregistered mortgage on the date on which he obtained the mortgage. The mortgage in favour of Raj Bahadur, therefore, under Section 50 of the Registration Act III of 1877 is to be deemed prior to the unregistered mortgage. This, however, does not extinguish the mortgage in favour of Charni dated 8th June 1895. Raj Bahadur brought a suit for sale upon his mortgage, but did not make Charni a party to the suit. A decree for sale was passed in favour of Raj Bahadur in execution of which he purchased the property. In the sale proclamation the mortgage was notified. The plaintiff, Charm', on the 19th August 1907 brought the s...
Muhammad Zubair Vs. Saiyed Mahmud
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All523
George Knox, Kt., C.J. and Griffin, J.1. This appeal is from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur in a case in which one Muhammad Zubair, the respondent in this appeal brought a suit under Section 77 of Act No. III of 1877, to have it declared that a letter, dated the 30th of September 1906, written by Musam-mat Khudija Bibi is genuine and should be registered. The letter is to be found in the judgment of the court below, page 8 of the paper Book. In that letter Musammat Khudija Bibi writes as follows: 'I am disgusted with all that I got from my father and mother and whatever property you have transferred in my name. All those properties are yours, you are their owner. You may do with them as you like and profit by them. I give the property to you with my pleasure and have made you its owner.' The lady died on the 4th of October 1906, just four days after the letter was written. Muhammad Zubair took the letter to the Sub-Registrar of Ghazipur and wanted it to be registe...
Maulvi Sayid Mahmud Vs. Muhammad Zubair
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.506
1. This appeal is from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur in a case in which one Muhammad Zubair, the respondent in this appeal, brought a suit under Section 77 of Act No. III of 1877, to have it declared that a letter, dated the 30th of September, 1903, written by Musammat Khudija Bibi is genuine and should be registered. The letter is to be found in the judgment of the Court below, page 8 of the Paper Book. In the letter Musammat Khudija Bibi writes as follows: I am disgusted with all that I got from my father and mother and whatever properly you have transferred in my name. All those properties are yours, you are their owner. You may do with them as you like and profit by them. I give the property to you with my pleasure and have made you its owner.' The lady died on the 4th of October, 1906, just four days after the letter was written. Muhammad Zubair took the letter to the Sub-Registrar of Ghazipui and wanted it to be registered. The Sub-Registrar being of opinio...
Hira Vs. Amar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.454
Alston, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is said to have acquired certain property from one Daulat Ram, who in his turn is said to have bought the property at an auction sale in execution of a decree. The defendants are said to have acquired the property by purchase from the original mortgagor at a time subsequent to the auction sale. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that the defendants had succeeded in getting their names entered in the Revenue papers as being in possession of the property, but that in fact they were not in possession as possession was with the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of the property. He sued for this declaration upon the ground that he was in possession. Having some thought, however, in his mind that his alleged possession might be found to be a fiction, he went on to say in his plaint that if it be proved that the defendants hold possession, it may also be delivered.' On hip, plaint he pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›