Allahabad Court October 1911 Judgments
Mamraj and anr. Vs. Brij Lal Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All106
Chamier, J.1. The respondents, who held a mortgage of certain property from the appellant, Mamraj, brought a suit upon the mortgage against Mamraj and his son, Hanuman Das, and obtained, a decree for sale which was made absolute on May 8th, 1909. The mortgaged property was sold, but the proceeds of the Bale were not sufficient to satisfy the decree. After the institution of the suit but before the decree was passed, Mamraj was adjudicated an insolvent and a receiver was appointed. The respondents applied for a decree for the balance still due to them making the receiver a party to the proceedings. The application was 'resisted on the ground that as the respondents had enforced their security and recovered a certain amount they could claim nothing more. The objection was overruled. Hence this appeal.2. The objection is obviously not sustainable as regards the appellant Hanuman Das, for he has not been adjudicated an insolvent, and the respondents are clearly entitled to continue their s...
Tag this Judgment!Zaib-un-nissa Bibi Vs. the Maharaja of Benares and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All109
Richards, C.J., and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage, dated the 21st of November, 1823. The courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the claim is time-barred. No doubt having regard to the date of the mortgage the claim would be time-barred unless the plaintiff could invoke in aid, as he seeks to do, an acknowledgment said to have been made on the 4th of March, 1868, whereby the mortgage in question was acknowledged by an agent of the predecessor in title of the defendant. This acknowledgment was made when Act No. XIV of 1859 was in force, and under that Act an acknowledgment by an agent was not sufficient to save the operation of limitation. This was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council, whose decision was followed by this and other courts.2. It is, however, contended on behalf of the appellant that as the mortgage was made in 1823 and the right to bring a suit had not become extinct when Act No. IX of 1871 and Act No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bishambhar Nath Vs. Bhullo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All98
George Knox and Griffin, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit brought by one Babu Bishambhar Nath who represents himself as lambardar of an entire mahal and is the owner of one half of it. He sues the defendants for profits, and his allegation is that the defendants hold land sir and khudkosht in excess of what they are entitled to with reference to the shares owned by them. The Revenue Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree as prayed for. On appeal, the District Judge held that the plaintiff could only sue as a co-sharer for the amount of his own share and could not sue for profits due to other co-sharers. He therefore set aside the decree of the court of first instance and remanded the suit for further trial, In appeal before us it is contended that the view taken by the learned Judge is in error and that the plaintiff as lambardar can maintain the suit to recover his share and the shares of other co-sharers out of excess money realized by the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Gur NaraIn Vs. Shadi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All102
H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a mortgage, dated the 25th of June, 1889. The defendants 8--16 held a mortgage, dated the 14th of April, 1888. The plaintiff, however, stated that when the mortgage of the 25th of June, 1889, was executed, two prior mortgages, one dated the 26th of June, 1886, and the other, dated the 28th of June, 1887, were paid off, and he accordingly claimed that to the extent of these mortgages, which were paid off, he had priority over the defendants 8-16, notwithstanding that their mortgage was prior in date.2. The lower court decided in favour of the defendants 8-16 and held that the plaintiff had no priority.3. Two questions have been argued in the present appeal first, the question whether or not the plaintiff had in fact priority over the defendants 8-16; and secondly, assuming that he had such priority, whether he could enforce it in a suit instituted by himself as plaintiff.4. The facts are undisputed...
Tag this Judgment!Emperoe Vs. Ram Naresh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All118
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1 . On the 17th of March 1911, Ram Naresh Singh, Ram Niranjan Singh, Dubri Singh, Dhakelu, Munnu and Jarbandhan were committed to the Court of Session at Mir/apur by a magistrate of the first class exercising jurisdiction in that district on a charge of having committed murder at a place in pargana Bhadohi in the Mirzapur district, which was, both at the time of the alleged offence and at the date of the commitment, part of British India. On the 1st of April, 1911, the state of Benares was constituted, and the village where the offence is said to have been committed became part of that state. For reasons, which it is unnecessary to state, this Court, on the 5th of April, 1911, transferred the case from the court of the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, to the court of the Sessions Judge of Benares. The latter then referred the case to this Court with a recommendation that the order, transferring the case to Benares, should be set aside on the ground that this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Naresh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.921
1. On the 17th of March 1911, Ramnaresh Singh. Rum Niranjan Singh, Dubri Singh, Dhakeln, Mntinii and Jarbatid-han were committed to the Court of Session at Mirzapnr by a Magistrate of first, class exercising jurisdiction in that district on a charge of having committed murder at a place in pargana Bhadohi in the Mirzapur district which was, both at the time of the alleged offence, and at the date of the commitment, part of British India. On the 1st of April 1911, the State of Benares was constituted, and the village where (he offence is said to have been committed became part of that State. Far reasons, which it is unnecessary to state, this Court, on the 5th of April, 1911, transferred the case from the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Benares. The latter then referred the case to this Court with a recommendation that the order transferring the case to Benares should be set aside on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction to make such...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All96
George Knox and Griffin, JJ.1. We have carefully considered the description given of the game which both the courts below held to be not a game of mere skill. The learned Counsel for the applicant who asks us to interfere with the view taken by these courts, has referred us to a Calcutta ruling in Criminal Revision No. 771 of 1907 Hari Singh v. King-Emperor. There is a material difference between the words used in Section 10 of the Bengal Public Gambling Act and Section 12 of Act No. III of 1867, which is the Act which governs the case now before us. We are by no means sure that the game which the Calcutta High Court Judges had under consideration was precisely the same as is described by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore. We are, of course, only concerned with the game described by the latter. From the description so given we find ourselves unable to interfere. We hold that the game described by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore is not a game of mere skill. The application i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Wahid Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All93
Chamier, J.1. The accused was a clerk in the office of the Municipal Board of Pilibhit, and it was his duty to deal with applications for renewal of licences for hand carts. He should have taken a licenee fee of Rs. 1-8-0 for each hand-cart and 6 annas for the preparation of the takhti or board showing the number of the cart. The case for the prosecution was that he had demanded and received Rs. 2 from several applicants, and had thereby cheated each of them out of 2 annas.2. As it was not permissible to charge the accused with more than three such acts of cheating, the prosecution selected three complainants and produced evidence that each of them had been induced to pay two annas more than could properly have been demanded. The prosecution produced also evidence that the accused had cheated a number of other applicants for licences. The accused was convicted and appealed to the Sessions Judge on various grounds, one of which was that he had been prejudiced' by the admission of eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sardar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All115
Chamier, J.1. Hargu obtained a warrant from a Magistrate under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the production of a woman named Daulatia, who was said to be in illegal confinement. The Sub-Inspector, some constables and the chaukidar went to get the warrant executed. The appellants, Wazira and Sardara, refused to allow the police to search the house in which the woman was said to be concealed. Ultimately she was brought to the door, but they declined to give her up to the police. Later, Sardara, Wazira and others made an attack upon Hargu and Mula. There was also an attack of some kind on the police. The first court framed a charge against all the accused under Sections 147/225 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result it sentenced six of them, including Sardara and Wazira, to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147/225, and convicted Wazira and Sardara under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code also, and sentenced each of them to three months' rigo...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gur Prasad Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All91
Chamier, J.1. Gur Prasad Gir was convicted under Section 125 of the Railways Act. On the evidence, there seems no doubt, that he had placed his co-accused Musai in charge of his cattle and that it was due to the negligence of Musai that the cattle strayed on the railway. Following the decision of the Madras Court, reported in Queen-Emperor v. Andi (1894) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 228. I hold that Gur Prasad Gir should not have been convicted. I set aside his conviction and direct that the fine, if paid by him, be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›