Allahabad Court June 1910 Judgments
Mutsaddi Lal Vs. Chaudhri Dalip Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.442
1. The learned Advocate for the appellant has addressed us at considerable length and laid before us all the facts of this case and also cited a number of authorities bearing upon the questions to be decided in the appeal. The facts are sufficiently stated in the clear and lucid judgment of the lower appellate Court, and it is unnecessary here to recapitulate them. We think that the decision arrived at by that Court, is not open to objection.2. The facts are substantially the same as those to be found in the case of Mahmed Mozuffer Hossain v. Kishori Mohun Roy 22 C. 909 : 22 I. A. 129. No real distinctions are we able to discover between the case before us and that case. It is, so far as we are aware, the latest pronouncement by their Lordships of the Privy Council upon the question which is now before us. In that case the plaintiffs and the defendants, holding separate decrees against the same estate, had by leave of the Court purchased the estate in execution. Both parties claimed pr...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ibrahim Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.186
1. This is an application in revision filed by the Local Government seeking to have cancelled the order of the Sessions Judge of Meerut whereby he set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge of that district, upon one Ibrahim Khan, in respect of an offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, and ordered a re-trial of the case. The question raised in the case involves the true construction of Clause (2), Section 222, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The accused Ibrahim Khan was a naib daruga employed in the Meerut Cantoments, and the charge against him is that in that capacity he realised the total sum of Rs. 208-12 as grazing fees, from various persons who grazed cattle on the Cantonment grass lands, between the 1st July and 1st November 1909 and embezzled the same, failing to pay it into the Treasury.3. The sum of Rs. 208-12 consists of some 18 items which the accused is said to have collected on dates (somewhat uncertain) between the 1st July and 1st Nov...
Tag this Judgment!Balkaran Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.185
1. Balkaran a Chaukidar and Musammat Chabraji were committed for trial to the Court of Session, Azamgarh, for an offence under Section 302-114, Indian Penal Code. The allegations against them were that on the 6th of October 1909, they administered poison to one Tahal Kahar. In the original case as sent in by the police, there was a third person charged, viz., Ram Surat. He was tendered a pardon by the Committing Magistrate and turned King's evidence. The learned officiating Sessions Judge in a very long judgment, in which he has gone most fully into the evidence, convicted Balkaran, but acquitted Chabraji. Balkaran appeals and his case has been represented to us by learned counsel. We have been taken through the whole evidence. The main evidence against the accused is the evidence of the approver Ram Surat. We find ourselves in this difficulty that the learned Sessions Judge believes the evidence of the approver so far as it is against Balkaran, but he refuses to believe the approver s...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaya Lal and ors. Vs. Kunwar Lal Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.284
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of property alleged by the plaintiffs to be joint ancestral property. The property belonged to one Munshi Durga Prasad, who died at Bareilly on the 6th of April 1894, leaving three sons, namely Kanhaiya Lal, Lal Bahadur and Jagdamba Prasad. Prior to his death, namely, on the 3rd of April 1893, Durga Prasad executed a Will whereby in substance he gave the whole of property to his eldest son Kanhaiya Lal and provided annuities for his younger sons. He executed another Will on the 11th of December 1895, which in substance also gave the entire of his property to his eldest son, provision being made out of the profits of the property for the younger sons. On the death of his father, Kanhaiya Lal applied to the Court of the District Judge of Barreilly for Letters of Administration in respect of the property and Letters of Administration were granted. His brothers, Lal Bahadur and Jagdamba Prasad, appealed against the order of the District Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Lal and anr. Vs. Hajira Jan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.404
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption in respect to three separate mahals, being portions of three villages, Jarthal, Rasulpur Gadhouli and Bidhuni, in the district of Etah.2. The plaintiff-respondent, Musammat Hajira Jan, is the own sister of Musammat Zobaida Jan, defendant No. 3.3. The claim is based on Muhammadan Law. The plaintiff, while admitting that the shares of her sister and herself had in each village been partitioned and separate mahals had been formed, pleaded that the partitions had been made 'khetbat' and not 'chakbat;' that the village site of Jarthal had not been divided; that the mahals were contiguous to each other and that certain rights of way, watercourses and other rights had been left common to the mahals in each village. She, therefore, claimed the right of pre-emption.(1) As a shafi-i-sharik or co-sharer in the thing sold,(2) As a shafi-i-khalit or co-sharer in the appurtenant rights,(3) As a shafi-i-jar or contiguous neighbour.4. The sale-deed w...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Ram Kishen Vs. Babu Piare Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.101
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in the suit against a decree passed by the District Judge of Aligarh. The plaintiff-respondent is the proprietor of the copyright in a book called Kok Shastra. The defendant-appellant has printed and is or was selling a work on the subject and under the same title. The Court below has found that the appellant's book is an infringement of the respondent's copyright and has decreed that the appellant shall either deliver up all the pirated copies of the book now in his possession or pay the respondent Rs. 600 as damages for the detention thereof. It has also granted an injunction restraining the appellant from further infringing the copyright.2. The appellant contends that the suit was not maintainable in the Court of the District Judge of Aligarh inasmuch as the appellant resides at Lahore and the cause of action arose there. Section 7 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1847, as it now stands, provides that 'if any person shall print or cause to be printe...
Tag this Judgment!Ata Muhammad Chaudhry Vs. Musammat Saiqul Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.820
Karamat Husain, J.1. This was a suit by two daughters of Musammat Rakima by Hashmat Ullah for their share in the property left by Hash matullah. The defence was that they were illegitimate. The first Court decreed the claim and that decree was upheld by the lower appellate Court. The defendants prefer a second appeal. It is argued on their behalf that the plaintiffs are illegitimate. It appears that Musammat Rakima, while a minor, was first given in marriage to a minor, Shafi. After a week, she was given in marriage to another minor, Zakaria. After a time, a divorce was pronounced either by the minor husbands, Shafi and Zakaria or by their fathers. Musammat Rakima after being divorced was married to Hashmatullah and gave birth to the plaintiffs by him during the life-time of Shaf and Zakaria. The above facts are admitted on both sides, and it has been found by the lower appellate Court, in answer to the issues remitted, that Hashmatullah when he married Musammat Rakima was familiar wit...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prasad Vs. Jodha Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.99
1. The present suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Orai. Before he decided the case, the parties referred the case, to arbitration. The submission to arbitration is on the record. It shows that the plaintiff was to appoint two arbitrators, the defendant was to appoint two others and one umpire was to be appointed. In the event of the arbitrators disagreeing, the decision of the majority was to prevail. The case was sent to the arbitrators nominated by the parties. None of the arbitrators refused to act. Several meetings took place in a temple and the arbitrators talked over the case. They got so far that the two arbitrators of the defendant and the umpire cams to an agreement as to the view which should be taken of the matters in dispute. The two arbitrators named by the plaintiff came to an opposite conclusion. The length to which matters had proceeded may be inferred from the fact that the money necessary to purchase the stamp paper on which the award was to be written was d...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Ram Chand and ors. Vs. Behari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.646
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts are as follows:Behari defendant No. 1 on the 15th of December 1896 executed a mortgage with possession in favour of the plaintiffs. In that deed the recitals are that they received the entire mortgage money as detailed below, that they put the mortgagees in possession and that they from that date should continue in possession thereof and should sublet the said property. The plaintiffs, on the basis of that mortgage, instituted a suit for recovery of possession on the l4th of December 1908, which was the last day for instituting the suit. The first plea in defence was as follows: 'The defendant did not receive the amount of consideration of the mortgage-deed; and consequently the plaintiff never demanded possession during the long period of 12 years; nor did he make an application for mutation of names. The mortgage-deed is without consideration.'2. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim. That Court at the end of its judgment observes: 'I presume ...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Vs. Tej Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.100
1. Tej Singh and Baldeo Dass were summoned as witnesses in a Civil suit. It appears that they did not attend in answer to the summons with the result that first a warrant of arrest was issued to enforce their attendance and when that did not suffice, a fine was imposed upon them in their absence, their property was attached and an order was passed to sell the same for the purpose of satisfying the fine imposed and the costs incurred in consequence of the attachment. Although the Court ordered the attachment of both the immovable and movable property, only immovable property was attached. The amount of immovable property attached was far in excess of the fine imposed and the costs incurred. The property was put up to sale and purchased by the appellant for Rs. 250. There is no dispute that the property attached is of far greater value than the amount paid by the appellant at the sale. The learned counsel, who appears for the appellant, boldly and frankly allowed that his client was in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »