Allahabad Court January 1911 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.
Habibullah Khan Vs. Abdullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.804
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed possession of a certain property. The defence was that the property was never at any time the property of the plaintiff. The defendants went on to show that the parties were related, that the property in dispute although purchased in the name of the plaintiff when he was a child of three years was never his and that finally in a family arbitration it was specifically awarded to the defendants. The Court of first instance in an elaborate and careful judgment dealt with all the facts. The judgment of the District Judge is very short and it certainly does not comply with the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I can, however, see that the questions which arose in the case were really decided. The evidence in favour of the defendants was overwhelming and I do not intend to put the parties to the unnecessary expenses of a further litigation. I, however, wish to point out to the learne...
Kantee Chandra Mukerji Vs. Al-i-nabi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.935
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances--One Musammat Shib Kali Debia of Benares made a Will on the 11th of January, 1891, and thereby bequeathed her property for certain purposes and appointed six persons executors, the died on the 8th of April, 1897, and thereupon an application for probate was made by one of the executors, Durga Shanker, now deceased, and probate was granted to him on the 12th of June, 1899. On the 21st of June, 1899, an administration bond was executed by Durga Shanker and the defendants, Saiyid Al-i-Nabi and Saiyid Shah Tasadduk Husain, as his sureties for the due administration of the estate of Musammat Shib Kali Debia. In this bond the executants undertook responsibility for the due administration of the estate by Durga Shanker, and it was provided by it that the obligation under the bond was to remain in force until Durga Shanker had discharged the duties of the administration of the estate. Durga Shanker did not administer the assets as he had ...
Musammat Kulsum Khanum Vs. Ghani Ahmed
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.635
ORDERTudball, J.1. The applicant in this case seeks to obtain sanction to prosecute the opposite party in respect to a statement which he made when examined in the course of a mutation case in a Revenue Court, that is, the Court of a Tahsildar. An application for sanction was made first of all to the Pergana Officer who referred the applicant to the Court of the Tahsildar, The latter Court refused sanction. An application was then made to the District Magistrate of Cawnpore for revision of the Tahsildar's order refusing sanction. That application was rejected by the District Magistrate and the applicant has now come in revision to this Court. In view of the terms of Section 195, Clauses (6) and (7), of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is quite clear that the applicant after the Tahsildar's refusal ought to have applied under Section 195, Clause (6), to the Collector to whose Court appeals would ordinarily lie from the Tahsildar's Court or from the Pergana Officer's Court in matters rela...
Mangal Sen Vs. Musammat Naoli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.478
Karamat Husain, J.1. In this case one Narain Das an occupancy-tenant, executed a simple mortgage-deed on the 25th August 1904 of a grove of mango trees standing upon his holding. Mangal Sen on the 19th July 1909 brought an action on the above-mentioned mortgage-bond for the recovery of his money. Two pleas were urged in defence.2. The first was that as the bond was not registered it was not admissible in evidence and created no charge in favour of the mortgagee, the second was that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the trees which were hypothecated were not immovable property within the meaning of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act or Section 17 of the Registration Act and that, therefore, the bond required ho registration. On the question of limitation the learned Munsif relying, on Ram Ghulam v. Manohar Das A.W.N. (1887) 59 came to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by limitation. The learned Munsif gave the plaintiff a...
Rup Kishen and ors. Vs. Sobhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.537
Richards, J.1. The facts out of which this application in revision arises are briefly as follows: The defendants obtained a decree against certain individuals. In execution of that decree they attached certain crops which the plaintiff in the present suit alleges to have belonged to him. The plaintiff in the present suit objected to the attachment. The Court executing the decree made a somewhat unusual order to the effect that the objection was struck off without any adjudication, but that the handing over of the proceeds of the sale of the crops should be postponed for a month and a half. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the present suit in a Court.2. The Judge of Small Causes gave a decree. It is first objected that the suit was exempted from the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes by reason of Article 20 of the second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That Article excludes from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, a suit instituted under Section 28...
Babu Bharat Indu and ors. Vs. Khetsi Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.848
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for profits brought by a co-sharer against a lambardar under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act in respect of the years 1313, 1314 and 1315 fasli. It appears that one Pahlawan Singh, a co-sharer in the village, was sued by another co-sharer named Mulaim Singh in respect of certain arrears of revenue. The exact nature of the suit has not been clearly put before the Court. But it terminated in a decree for sale of Pahlawan Singh's share which was 10 biswa odd. Pahlawan Singh apparently borrowed money from the present defendant leaving in the latter's hand a certain sum where with to pay off Mulaim Singh. As security he mortgaged 5 biswas of his share. The defendant failed to pay off Mulaim Singh, and then subsequently brought a suit for sale upon his mortgage, obtained a decree, put the 5 biswa share to sale, purchased it himself, and took possession. Mulaim Singh then put the 10 biswa share to sale, purchased it, and took formal possession. But...
Ganga Ram and ors. Vs. Kirtarth Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.319
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The suit is one for the redemption of a mortgage of the 6th of May 1879. This mortgage was executed by two persons Ram Lakhan and Ram Baran in favour of Bharosa Rai, Ganga Rai, and Mahpat Rai. It contained the following provision, namely, that 'When in the month of Jeth in any year the mortgagors paid the principal with Government revenue paid by the mortgagees, the property will be redeemed.' Portion of the property in this mortgage was subsequently sold to the plaintiffs by Ram Lakhan and by the heirs of Ram Baran who was then deceased. Having so purchased portion of the property, it is clear that the plaintiffs would, under ordinary circumstances, be entitled to redeem the mortgage. Their claim, however, to redeem was resisted by the appellants on the ground that a subsequent mortgage of the 24th of October, 1883, was executed whereby the mortgagor undertook, as it is alleged, not to redeem the first mortgage until the mortgag...
Ahmad HusaIn and ors. Vs. Gobind Krishna NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.932
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit out of which the case has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of certain property. It was held by the Court of first instance that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. Bat upon appeal to this Court the decree of the Court below was set aside and the case was remanded to the Court below on the ground that the suit was not concluded by Section 43 of the former Code, and as the questions of fact had not been determined, the Court below ought to re-admit the suit and decide it on the merits. From this order of remand the present application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council is made. We are of opinion that the application for leave to appeal is premature. The order of remand is not in our judgment a decree or final order within the meaning of Section 109 of the present Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of Forbes v...
Durga Prashad and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.277
1. In this case the trustees of the Ava Estate charged the applicant with an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. The complaint was made on the 13th of September 1910. The applicant on the 14th of September 1910 put in an application to the effect that as the treasury of Ava was closed, he put the money in a box outside the treasury and that the money was in the box. The Deputy Magistrate on the basis of that application dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. An application in revision was made to the District Magistrate who allowed the application and directed that the case be proceeded with under Section 204, Criminal Procedure Code, and be decided on the merits.2. The applicant has now applied to this Court for revision of the order passed by the District Magistrate. As the Deputy Magistrate based his order on the application of the applicant which was no evidence, the District Magistrate was, in my opinion, right to set aside the order and orde...
T. Bradshaw Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.278
Karamat Husain, J.1. In this case one Bradshaw, a European British subject, was committed to the Court of Session of Lucknow for trial for offences under Sections 474 and 417, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted on both counts and sentenced to an aggregate term of one year's rigorous imprisonment. He appeals to this Court and one of the points taken is that there was no selection of jurors by lot as required by Section 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that, therefore, the proceedings resulting in his conviction are illegal.2. He, as it appears from the record of the case, claimed to be tried as an European British subject and with a jury composed of Europeans or Americans (See B. 7). The last date fixed for the trial by the Court of Session was the 7th of October 1910 and the record of the case shows that for that date, 10 European jurors were summoned to attend and the remarks of the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated the 7th of October 1910, are to the same effect. He...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »