Allahabad Court July 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.
Kishori Lal and ors. Vs. Kuber Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.503
1. The facts of this case are these:-- The unit is one for the recovery of property which was bought by the plaintiffs at a sale in execution of a decree on the 20th of September, 1901. This sale was set aside by the Munsif on the 26th of September, 1901. On appeal the order of the Munsif setting aside the sale was reversed by the lower appellate Court on the 16th of January, 1902, and this order was upheld by the High Court on the 4th of December, 1902. Then the judgment-debtor on the 23rd of December, 1902, applied to the Munsif under Section 310A of Act XIV of 1882 to have the sale set aside and his application was granted on the 28th of April, 1903, and the sale was set aside. An appeal was preferred and the order of the Munsif setting aside the sale was reversed on the 17th of July, 1903, but on second appeal to the High Court, it was held that no appeal lay to the lower appellate Court and the decision of that Court was reversed. The order of the Munsif of the 28th of April, 1903...
AmIn Beg Vs. Musammat Saman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.342
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff and the defendant both being Muhammadans were married a number of years ago. The defendant Musammat Saman has apostatised from Islam and become a Christian, and has since left the protection of her husband. He now sues for restitution of conjugal rights and the defence is that by the fact of her apostasy the marriage tie became dissolved and a decree cannot be passed for restitution of such rights. Both the lower Courts have held that the suit cannot be maintained in view of the authorities upon the subject.2. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, which was based on a passage to be found in the third edition of Mr. Amir Ali's work on Muhammadan Law. Mr. Ishaq Khan admits that there is no authority to be found in support of his contention outside the writings of the Jurists of Balkh, Samarkand and this apparently is so. In the second edition of Mr. Amir Ali's wo...
Durga Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.411
Chamier, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Agra, confirming the conviction of the applicant by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 223, Indian Penal Code, but substituting a fine for a sentence of imprisonment. Oil behalf of the applicant it is contended that even if the facts are as found by the Courts below, the applicant has committed no offence under Section 223.2. The following statement of facts is taken from the judgment of the Magistrate. The applicant was the officer in charge of Thana Dawki in the Agra District. Seven men, who were subsequently convicted of dacoity and other offences, were arrested by the Circle Inspector on November 10th last and sent to the applicant's Thana. Early on the morning of the 11th, the Superintendent of Police, who was in camp a few miles away, went to the Thana and ordered the applicant to send the prisoners to his camp on their way to Agra and informed him that he (the Superintendent) would ...
Partap Singh Vs. Kewal Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.737
Karamat Husain, J.1. The land in question was the occupancy holding of one Shib Dayal. On his death, Kewal Ram, the plaintiff in the present suit, under Section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act, applied for entry of his name as occupancy tenant. The first Court refrained from directing the entry of Kewal Rani's name because the zemindar Partap Narain had wrongfully taken possession of the land. Kewal Ram appealed to the Collector who directed that the name of Kewal Ram be entered as occupancy tenant in place of Shib Dayal deceased. On the strength of that entry, KewaL Ham instituted a suit against Partap Singh far ejectment on the allegation that Partap Singh was his sub-tenant. One of the pleas taken in defence was as follows: 'Shib Dayal was the occupancy tenant of the land from which the defendant is sought to be ejected. He died in April 1907, childless and without leaving any heir. The answering defendant took the land under his own cultivation without the plaintiff's consent and got an...
Raja Ram and anr. Vs. ThakuraIn Sheorani Kuer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.344
1. The subject-matter of this first appeal is a large estate in the District of Cawnpore known as the Rawetpur estate. It has been in existence for some generations and consists of over .ten villages and the profits that arise out of the estate are said to be Rs. 25,000 per annum if not more. From generation to generation the estate has descended entire from father to eldest son to the exclusion of other sons. In this way, it descended to Rewet Randhir Singh in the year 1872. Rewet Randhir Singh died and within 4 days of his death, his son Rewet Sheo Singh also died. There was now left no direct male descendant of either Rewet Randhir Singh and Rewet Sheo Singh and the estate passed into the hands of Musammat Baghelin, widow of Rewet Sheo Singh. From 1873 to 1891, theestate remained in charge of the Court of Wards. In 1891 it was released from the management of the Court of Wards.2. No sooner had it been released from the management than Rewatain Baghelin began to transfer the property...
Ghaudhri Marha Singh and ors. Vs. Mohammad Umar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.393
1. This appeal cannot be supported. The plaintiffs' suit was to obtain possession of a share of certain property which was comprised in a deed of sale, dated the 12th of July 1908, and alleged to have been executed by the defendant No. 1, Muhammad Umar, The consideration mentioned in this document is a sum of Rs. 12,500, which, according to its terms, was to be applied to the satisfaction of a number of in cumbrances. The parties to the document are Muhammad Umar and his brothers and sisters. Only Muhammad Umar is said to have signed the document. The learned Additional Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the document was not executed by Muhammad Umar on the 12th of July 1908, the day of its date, but that it was executed after that date subsequently, however, to a sale-deed in favour of the defendants Nos. 2-8. Assuming that the document was executed by Muhammad Umar on the 12th of July 1908, it appears to us to be a fatal objection to the maintenance of the suit. Section 17 o...
Damodarji Vs. the Collector of Banda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.418
1. Theonly question involved in this appeal is the question whether or not marriage amongst Sudras is a bar to their adoption. It does not appear to be quite clear whether the plaintiff in this case is a Sudra, but for the purposes of the argument of his learned Vakil, it was assumed in his favour that he was a Sudra. He claimed the property in dispute as being the adopted son of one Ragho Ram. Amongst other pleas, the defendant relied upon the plea that the plaintiff was not and could not have been legally adopted by Ragho Ram. Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiff was not legally adopted, he being a married man at the date of the alleged adoption. No authority has been cited to us for the proposition that amongst Sudras a married man can be adopted. On the contrary, we have the Dattaka Chandrika in which it is without much ambiguity stated that amongst Sudras marriage is a bar to adoption. It is contended that the authority of the Dattaka Chandrika has been impugned and...
Khalik Yar Khan and ors. Vs. Musammat Mobarik Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.388
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiff-respondent for partition of her share in the houses in suit is birred by the rule of res judicata. The plaintiff alleged that these houses belonged to her husband Shams-ud-din and that she was entitled by right of inheritance to an eighth share. The defence was that the houses belonged to Mahbub Ali, the father of Shams-ud-din, and that Shams-ud-din had only a fourth share in them. It appears that in 1899, a suit was brought by the plaintiff against Saadat Ali and others in respect of another house which is different from the houses now in dispute. In that suit, it was held that Mahbub Ali was the purchaser of the house them in dispute. The houses now in Suit and the house which was in dispute in the litigation of 1899, were purchased under a sale-deed, dated the 15th of June 1881, executed in favour of Saadat Ali and Hasan Ali, brothers of Shams-ud-din. It is contended that as in the previous suit it was held th...
Muhammad Alam Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.389
Chamier, J.1. This is a reference by. the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, in which he recommends that an order of the Joint Magistrate of Farrukhabad ordering one Muhammad Alam to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under Section 2 of Bengal Regulation VI of 1825, be set aside The case was taken up at the instance of the Sub-Divisional Officer on whose report the District Magistrate directed that Muhammad Alam should be prosecuted under the section of the Regulation mentioned above The case was made over to the Joint Magistrate by the District Magistrate, who was also, of course, the Collector of, the District. According to Section 2 of the, Regulation, it is only the Collector or other officer acting in that capacity that can impose a fine under that section. Section 4 provides, for the levying of fine by the Collector as if it were arrears of public revenue, and Section 5 of the Regulation gives a right of appeal to the Board of Revenue It seems to be quite clear that proceedings cannot be taken und...
Raghunath Kalwar and ors. Vs. Bala Deen Kalwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.398
John Stanley, C.J.1. I am of opinion that the judgments of the learned Judges of this Court from which this appeal has been preferred are not open to objection. They have very fully dealt with the facts and the law, and it is unnecessary for me to add anything to what they have said, save and except that I desire to make an observation upon the judgment in Achhey Lal v. Janki Prasad 29 A. 66 : 3 A.L.J. 735 : A.W.N. (1906) 274, to which judgment I was a party. In that case it was held that 'Neither a Civil nor Revenue Court can partition or divide an occupancy holding; such partition or division can only be affected out of Court with the consent of the land-holder.' If these words are interpreted as meaning that tenants cannot agree to divide a holding amongst them selves, in my opinion it goes too far. There is no objection to joint tenants agreeing among themselves to occupy and cultivate distinct parts of the joint holding, provided that their so doing in no respect prejudices the ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »