Allahabad Court February 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.
Emperor Vs. Wajid Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.589
1. Eleven persons were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Gronda of various offences falling under Sections 195, 196, 211 and 218, Indian Penal Code. They appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh. The appeal was heard before the Judicial Commissioner and the Additional, Judicial Commissioner sitting together. There was difference of opinion between the members of the Court regarding the guilt of seven of the appellants, viz., Wajid Husain, Muhammad Hashim, Najab Ali, Ghaus Ali, Ram Kuber, Mata Din and Lachman. In consequence of this the learned Judicial Commissioner and the Additional Judicial Commissioner acting under Clause (b) of Section 9 of Act No. XIVof 1891, have jointly stated the question as to which they have differed, and have forwarded such statements with their respective opinions to this Court. The question on which the members of the Court differed is whether the accused who are constables should be acquitted on the ground that they acted und...
Tulsi Ram and ors. Vs. Shiam Sunder and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.588
1. In this suit, the plaintiffs prayed for the relief that the defendants may be ordered to render an account of the purchases and sales and the moneys sent by the plaintiffs, as well as of the profit and loss in the business. The plaintiffs described themselves as having a commission agency at a shop in the Bazar of the city of Bareilly. The defendants are described as having a shop at Bombay. An application was made under Section 24 of Act XIV of 1882, for transfer of the suit which the plaintiffs had instituted in the Court at Bareilly, to Bombay. This Court decided under Section 24 that the suit should proceed in the Court at Bareilly. The Subordinate Judge accordingly heard the case and decreed a part of the claim. The defendants then went in appeal to the Court of the District Judge at Bareilly, and that Court found as a fact that the cause of action arose in Bombay, then he says, the 'respondents have failed to show that their cause of action arose at Bareilly. It appears to me ...
Bachan Singh Vs. Kamta Pershad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.585
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover certain property sold by his mother Musammat Bhawani, during his minority on the 7th of July 1896. The plaintiff attained majority on the first of July 1901 and instituted the suit on the 14th of August 1907. His allegation was that his mother had no authority to sell the property and that there was no necessity for the sale. He asked for a declaration that the sale was void and could not affect his interests, and, as stated above, he sought to recover possession of the property comprised in the sale. The Court of first instance decreed the claim in part. The lower appellate Court held that the sale by the mother was for the benefit of the minor to the extent of Rs. 285, that is to say, that there was necessity for raising that sum for the benefit of the minor and to save his other property, and that to that extent the minor was liable. It made a decree for possession subject to the condit...
Makund Sarup Vs. Richard Ross Skinner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.583
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council: The amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the proposed appeal does not amount to Rs. 10,000, but the same question is involved in it as is involved in several appeals in which certificates have been granted to the effect that the same complied with the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We think in view of the fact that the same question is involved in this appeal as in those appeals that the case is a fit one far appeal to His Majesty in. Council and we so certify....
Mahadeo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.563
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in Revision against the conviction of the applicant of an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code, by a Magistrate of the first class of Mirzapur. The conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The applicant was employed as an agent by a firm in Mirzapur. Goods were entrusted to him for sale in various districts in Lower Bengal, and from time to time as he sold goods, he remitted money to his employers at Mirzapur. Finally, at the end of the cold weather, he was called upon to furnish accounts. He offered Rs. 500 as a deposit, but did not submit any account. It has been found that he failed to submit any account and that he failed to pay even the Rs. 500 which he had first offered to deposit. There can be no question or doubt that the applicant had t) account for either the goods or the money, and that he failed to produce either.2. Objection is taken that the Courts of Mirzapur...
Kalian Das and ors. Vs. Bhawani Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.546
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The decree-holder put into execution a decree which he had obtained against one Debi Das under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. In pursuance of these proceedings the mortgaged property was sold and proved insufficient to satisfy the decree. Thereupon the decree-holder put in an application under Section 90 of the same Act, and as Debi Das had died in the meantime, in the names of the legal representatives of the said Debi Das. On the 14th of February 1903, he obtained an order under Section 90 which directed the sale of such property as the decree-holder might show that Kalian Das and others, these representatives, had inherited from the original judgment-debtor Debi Das. He tried to obtain execution of this order first on the 18th of February 1903 again on the 3rd of September 1915 and the third time on the 15th of January 1906. Apparently upon all these proceedings execution had been ordered but for some reason or other, ...
Har Charan and ors. Vs. Bindan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.559
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for their share of profits of shamlat that is common land. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiffs had not received their share of profits within 12 years preceding the date of the suit. The lower appellate Court found that there was no evidence of any adverse claim or repudiation of the plaintiffs' title by the defendants and held that the mere non-payment of profits did not extinguish the plaintiffs' right. It accordingly decreed; the claim.2. On appeal to this Court, the learned Judge before whom the case came disagreed with the view of the lower appellate Court and restored the decree of the Court of first instance. From this judgment the present appeal has been preferred under the Letters Patent.3. We are unable to agree with me view or the learned Judge of this Court. He draws a distinction between the case of a lambardar and the case of co-sharers ma...
Bhola Pandey Vs. Chandi Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.666
Piggott, J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff claims a share in the estate of one Ram Dial deceased. Ram Dial left a widow Musammat Indrani who held possession of his property for a number of years with a widow's estate. There were four brothers of Ram Dial all of whom predeceased him except the youngest whose name was Salik. Musammat Indrani in her life-time sold a share in the property to a son of the second brother and also got the names of the sons of the fourth brother recorded as in possession of another portion. The plaintiff is the surviving son of the third brother. He claims as a reversionary heir, and in the 5th paragraph of his, plaint he distinctly stated that at the time of Musarnmat Indrani's death the persons then living who were entitled to succeed as reversionary heirs of Ram Dial were as follows:(a) The plaintiff himself together with his own brother since deceased. (b) The defendants Chandi and Dukhai, the sons of the fourth brother, (c) The defendant Hannu, t...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Usuf Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.566
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent in a pre-emption case. The appellants are the vendees who purchased shares in 8 villages under a sale-deed of the 11th of June 1907. They were at the date of this purchase admittedly strangers to the villages in question. The suit to pre-empt this sale was instituted on the 5th of October 1907. Before this suit was instituted, namely on the 21st of August, 1907, the appellants purchased shares in 5 of the 8 villages) and thereupon became co-sharers in those villages. A suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent to pre-empt the sale of the 21st of August 1907, and a decree for pre-emption was passed in his favour, but he failed to pay the purchase-money and consequently the suit was dismissed. The effect of this decree is that the appellants have now an indefeasible interest in the five villages in question and this interest they acquired prior to the institution of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. Their title accrued at the d...
Janakraj Kuari Vs. Pateshri Partab NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.565
1. One Hnsammat Janakraj Kuari, 11, pardanashin lady, applied to the District Judge of Grorakhpur, asking that she may be appointed guardian to her minor son Pashpat Nath. The Judge fixed the 10th of July, 1908, for hearing the application. Upon that date the lady was entitled to produce evidence in support of her application, and according to law the Court was bound to hear such evidence as might be adduced by her. The lady produced no evidence so far as we can ascertain from the record or from the learned Vakil, who appears here on her behalf. The District Judge sent, as he was entitled to do under Section 46, to the Munsif calling upon him for a rep in as to the fitness of the lady for guardianship. The Munsif took evidence, and apparently all the evidence produced before him, and in due course, submitted his report to the District Judge. The Judge, it then appeal's, treated the report submitted to him as evidence. He also examined the minor, and the minor objected to his mother bei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »