Allahabad Court January 1910 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.
Sheo Saran Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.896
Tudball, J.1. The appellant Sheo Saran Lal was the clerk of the Kasia Co-operative Bank in the Gorakhpur District in the year 1898. He has been charged and tried at one and the same trial for three offences under Section 408, Indian Penal Code and three offences of forgery under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been convicted and sentenced in respect of all the six offences. The case against him is that three different persons seeking to deposit money in the Bank, gave over certain sums to him, (which he embezzled) and for which be gave receipts in his own handwriting, forging thereon the signature of the Manager of the Bank. The primary question arises as to whether the trial of the accused at one trial in respect of six offences is or is not an illegality, under the circumstances of the case. Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down a distinct rule that there shall be a separate charge for every distinct offence and that every such, charge shall be tried separ...
The Collector of Shahjahnpur as Manager of the Court of Wards of the E ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.210a
1. This appeal in an execution case arises out of the following facts. In April 1902, Kunj Bihari Lal, respondent in this Court, obtained a decree against Kunwar Mohendra Singh and Budhpal Singh, the son and grand-son, respectively, of Raja Narain Singh in respect of a debt incurred by the said Raja. The decree-holder in the year 1902 sought to execute this decree by attachment and sale of a village which was found to be ancestral property of Raja Narain ingh. The Court executing the decree held that the decree, as it stood, was incapable of enforcement against the ancestral property of the original debtor, but only against property in the hands of the judgment-debtors by way of inheritance from Raja Narain Singh, and not by way of survivorship as members of the same joint Hindu family. This decision was acquiesced in by the decree-holder, who in fact made an ineffectual attempt to obtain a review of the decree from the Court which had passed it. In the month of March, 1909, the decree...
Jugdip NaraIn Singh Vs. Jokhan Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.256
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff who is a zamindar of the village to have a sale of trees growing in the village set aside and for possession of the bagh. Jokhan who sold the trees is an occupancy tenant of the plaintiff but the trees were not in his occupancy holding but were planted by him. The question in the suit was whether a tenant, who with the consent of the zamindar plants a grove or trees in the village, is empowered to sell them without the permission of the zamidar. The learned Judge, from whose decision this appeal has been preferred, concurring with the lower Courts, found that the evidence established a custom whereby a tenant who plants trees in a bagh outside his holding becomes the owner thereof and can transfer the same without the zamindar's permission. The evidence which was adduced in support of this custom has been laid before us. It consists of the evidence of a few witnesses and also some deeds of sale of trees in the...
Kashi Kunbi and anr. Vs. Sumer Kunbi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.234
1. We think that the view of the law expressed by the learned Munsif in his judgment is correct. It appears that the parties were involved in litigation of Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares. They compromised the suit filling a sulehnama dated the 2nd of March 1892. In this sulehnama the rights of the parties in certain immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 and upwards were declared and the document, therefore, was compulsorily registrable in view of the provisions of Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. In the sulehnama it was provided that either party sold his share of the property, the subject-matter of the litigation, the other party should have a right to pre-empt. A decree was passed upon the compromise but that decree is silent as to fine existence of any pre-emptive right whatever. The present suit arises out of a claim brought by two of the parties to the former litigation to have a right to pre-empt under the provisions of this sulehnama established. The le...
Arthur Flowers Vs. Minnie Flowers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.871
1. This matter comes before us on a reference by the learned District Judge of Meerut, for confirmation of the decree passed by him for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner, Arthur Flowers, and his wife Minnie Flowers, in consequence of her adultery with the co-respondent, Thomas John Moore. The petitioner is a Battery Quarter-Master Sergeant. He and the respondent were married in the year 1898 in the Church of St. Nicholas at Plumstead in Kent. Since their marriage they lived together as man and wife in several places and appear, until the co-respondent came on the scene, to have lived happily. In 1906, the petitioner and the respondent came to Meerut, where the petitioner was stationed with his battery, and there the petitioner met the co-respondent Thomas John Moore, who was also stationed there with his regiment, the 17th Lancers. They became intimate friends, and in consequence an opportunity was given to the co-respondent of making advances to the respondent which unhapp...
Gajadhar Rai and ors. Vs. Ramlakhan Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.273
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of property which formerly belonged to one Gangadan.2. Gangadan was one of the two sons of Salig Ram, Sheo Lal being the other. Garigadan had a son named Khushal Ram, who died in his father's life-time, leaving a widow. Musammat Ishri, him surviving. The other son of Salig Ram, namely, Sheo Lal, had a son named Narain Das and his wife was one Musammat Amri, a defendant in the suit. Gangadan died in the year 1882 or 1883 leaving his daughter-in-law Mnsammat Ishri him surviving, who upon his death entered into possession of his property and continued in, possession until the year 1899 when she died. It has been found by the Court below, and there is no controversy as to this, that Musimmat Ishri acquired an absolute title to the property of Gangadan by adverse possession. The plaintiffs claiming to be the nearest reversionary heirs of Musammat Ishri instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of...
Bakhtawa and anr. Vs. Bhagwana and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.270
1. The main question raised in this appeal is similar to that which was decided by a Pull Bench of this Court in the case of Ramphal Rai v. Tula Kuari 6 A. 116 (F.B.). It was in that case decided that a gift, by a Hindu widow, who succeeded to the separate estate of her deceased husband, of such estate, is not valid and does not create a title which cannot be impeached by the remoter reversioner because it has been made with the consent of the next reversioner. In the case before us, Musammat Kauli, who was the widow of one Kallu, made a gift of property, which belonged to her deceased son, Bhulan, in favour of the defendant, Bakhtawar, the son of Musammat Bharno, a cousin of Kallu. This gift was made with the consent of Jasram who is the nearest reversionary heir to Bhulan. The gift is impeached by the plaintiffs who are remoter reversioners.2. It is contended before us that the ruling in Ramphal Rai v. Tula Kuari 6 A. 116 (F.B.) must be taken to have been overruled by the decision of...
Lachmi NaraIn Sahu Vs. Sheikh Abdul Sattar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.285
1. The suit oat of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs to enforce specific performance of an alleged agreement for the sale of certain immovable property, and in the alternative for the recovery of money allowed to be due to them on foot of two mortgage bonds, one of the 12th of March 1892 and the other of the 1st of 'December 1896. The two mortgage bonds were executed by Kandhaia Sahu, father of the appellant Lachhmi Narain Sahu. The plaintiffs alleged that he (Kandhaia Sahu), agreed to sell them half of the property comprised in the mortgages but failed to perform his contract. The defence set up was first as regards the alleged sale that there was no contract of sale whatever entered into between the parties. As to the bonds sued on. It was alleged that there was no consideration whatever for the bond of the 1st of December 1896; and as to the other bond the defence was that after the execution of the mortgage an agreement was made between the parties whereby ...
Syed Farhat HusaIn and ors. Vs. Mahomed Ibrahim Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.325
Karamat Husain, J.1. In this appeal two points are argued; the first is that the suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the second is that the suit is barred by limitation. Both the above pleas are based on the previous litigation relating to the property in dispute. That litigation briefly stated is as follows: In 1887, Gohar Ali, Anwar Ali and their mother, Husaini Begam, permitted one Nanda to build a house in the serai now in dispute. Enayat Ahmed and Ahmed Ali, sons of Saadat Ali, brought an action against Gohar Ali, Anwar Ali, Husaini Begam, Nanda and Kareem-un-nissa. The parties are unable to state who Kareem-un-nissa was. The suit was instituted on the allegation that the plaintiffs along with Gohar Ali, Anwar Ali, Husaini Begam and Kareem-un-nissa were the joint proprietors of the serai and that no co-sharer could, without the consent of the rest, permit any one to build a house in the serai. The relief which was claimed was that by declaring the ownership and join...
Pandit Umadat Vs. Musammat Bhagwan Dei and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.283
1. Musammat Bhagwan Dei daughter of Hardeva Sahai, instituted a suit for a declaration that a deed of gift, of a house, dated the 10th October 1905, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and a sale-deed, dated 23th June 1907 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favor of defendant No. 3, were null and void so far as they affected the interests of the plaintiff.2. The defence with which I am concerned, with is that the property in suit being an insignificant part of the estate which the widow got from her husband by succession, the alienation was valid and that the transfer was made for the spiritual benefit of the husband and the widows.3. The Court of first instance decreed the claim for the declaration that the deed of gift and the deed of sale so far as they were prejudicial to the plaintiff's rights were null and void; the rest of the claim was dismissed. The decree of the first Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. That Court found that the gift was for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »