Allahabad Court December 1911 Judgments
Esther Marie Jackson Vs. Frederick Ormond Layland Jackson
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All203
Chamier, J.1. This is a suit by Esther Marie Jackson for a declaration that her marriage with Frederick Ormond Layland Jackson is null and void.2. The parties, who are Chistians, were married in Allahabad, on the 12th of January, 1910. The respondent, who had been married to another woman, had obtained in the Calcutta High Court a decree nisi for dissolution of that marriage, and the decree had been made absolute on the 6th of December, 1909. He believed that on the decree being made absolute, he was free to marry again and he assured the present petitioner that all the necessary formalities had been complied with. I find it proved that respondent's former wife was alive when the parties were married.3. On the above facts the petitioner claims to be entitled to a declaration that her marriage with the respondent is null and void.4. Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act provides that such a declaration may be made at the instance of a wife on the ground that the former wife of the husban...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Abdullah Beg and ors. Vs. Abdul Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.350
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was a suit instituted by one Mirza Abdulla Beg, claiming a mandatory injunction for the demolition of certain constructions which he alleged the defendants had wrongfully made. He claimed to be entitled to a certain house which he alleged bad been encroached upon. The defendants denied his title and claimed that the house was not his house but their house. Mirza Abdullah Beg was examined, and in the course of his examination he admitted that his sister, one Kulsum Bibi, had an interest in the house. The Court of first instance thereupon made an order, presumably under the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and added of his own motion Kulsum Bibi and other residents in the house as co-plaintiffs in the suit. The learned Judge of this Court before whom the suit came in second appeal had some, doubt as to whether or not Kulsum Bibi really consented to join in the proceedings1, and he says in one part of his judgment t...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Singh and anr. Vs. Hira Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.951
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by the respondent, Hira Lal, for possession of zemindari property purchased by his father, Ranjit, at an auction-sale.2. The facts are as follows: In April 1884, two brothers, Baldeo Singh and Nand Kishore mortgaged the property in suit to Ranjit in order to pay off debts incurred by their father, Indarjit. In 1893, the interest of Nand Kishore in the property was purchased by the respondent, Muhammad Raza, at a sale held in execution of a money-decree. In April 1894, Ranjit brought a suit on his mortgage against the two motrgagors and Muhammad Raza, and obtained a decree for sale, in execution of which he purchased the property himself. The sale was confirmed in January 1898, bat the certificate of sale was not issued to Rinjit till March 1905. In January 1907, he applied to the Court under Section 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, for possession of the property. Nand Kishore had died and his son, Roshan Singh, was not made a party to the proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Jackson Vs. Jackson
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.958
Chamier, J.1. This is a suit by Esther Marie Jackson for a declaration that her marriage with Frederick Ormond Layland Jaokson is null and void.2. The parties, who are Christians, were married in Allahabad, on January 12th, 1910. The respondent, who had been married to another woman, had obtained in the Calcutta High Court a decree nisi for dissolution of that marriage, and the decree had been made absolute on December 6fch, 1909. He believed that on the decree being made absolute, he was free to marry again, and be assured the present petitioner that all the necessary formalities had been complied with. I find it proved that respondent's former wife was alive when the parties were married.3. On the above facts, the petitioner claims to be entitled to a declaration that her marriage with the respondent is null and void.4. Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act provides that such a declaration may be made at the instance of a wife on the ground that the former wife of the husband was livi...
Tag this Judgment!Hardey NaraIn and anr. Vs. Mrs. Powell and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.420
1. This is an appeal against an order or decree of the District Judge of Saharanpur awarding to the appellants 22/40 and to the respondent Mrs. Powell 28/40 of the sum of Rs. 7,768-8 awarded by the Superintendent of Dehra Dun as compensation for certain land taken up under the Land Acquisition Act for public purposes. It is not now disputed that Rs. 7,768-8 represent the fair value of the property taken up, and the only question for decision now is how this sum should be divided between the appellants and the respondent Mrs. Powell. The Superintendent proposed to award to the appellants the whole of the above sum except Rs. 144 which he considered to be the value of Mrs. Powell's interests in the land. She objected to this and the Superintendent referred the matter to the District Judge. Mrs. Powell's case was that she was virtually the zemindir of the land and that the appellants were only nominally zemindars and were entitled at best to cmpensation calculated on the amount of rent pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ajudhia Prasad Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All197
Chamier, J.1. A suit for arrears of rent exceeding Rs. 100, was brought in the court of an Assistant Collector of the first class and was decreed. In the course of execution proceedings in the same court the respondents made statements which, according to the applicant, were false. The applicant then applied to the Assistant Collector for sanction to prosecute the respondents. That officer refused to give sanction, and the applicant then went in appeal to the District Judge, who threw out the appeal on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear it. This is an application for revision of the order of the District Judge. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the case is governed by Clause (6) of Sub-section (7) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that on a proper construction of that Clause the District Judge had jurisdiction. It is contended further that he had jurisdiction even if Clause (c) of the same Sub-section is held to be applicable, and that one ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajodhia Parshad Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.284
Chamier, J.1. A suit for arrears of rent exceeding Rs. 100 was brought in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the first class and was decreed. In the course of execution proceedings in the same Court the respondents made statements which according to the applicant were false. The applicant then applied to the Assistant Collector for sanction to prosecute the respondent. That officer refused to give sanction and the applicant then went in appeal to the District Judge who threw out the appeal on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear it. This is an application for revision of the order of the District Judge. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the case is governed by Clause (b) of Sub-section 7 of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that on a proper construction of that Clause the District Judge had jurisdiction. It is contended further that he had jurisdiction even if Clause (c) of the same Sub-section is held to be applicable and that one or other o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Balmakund
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All192
Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision. The facts are undisputed and very simple. One Mr. Gotting sent a money order for Rs. 34, to the applicant Balmakund. Gotting intended that the Rs. 34 should go in part payment of a certain debt due on a bond. The money was received on the 14th of September, 1910, by Balmakund, who, in the usual way, signed in a duplicate receipt and delivered the same to the post office official. One receipt is in the following form:ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.This is a duplicate receipt which will be returned by the post office to the remitter.I acknowledge to have received payment of money order No. 8438, for the sum specified on the reverse.Date...1910. Signature (in ink) of payee, or thumb impression of payee if illiterate.2. The reverse side is in the following form:ON POSTAL SERVICE.Amount of order (in figures)--Rs. 34-0-0.Name of remitter--Mr. A.W. Gotting.Address--Locomotive Department,Stamp of the office of issue--Mokamah, Patna.3. The o...
Tag this Judgment!Nath Mal Das Vs. Dalip Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.401
1. This was a suit by the appellant upon a bond dated March the 12th, 1889, executed by the respondent Khub Singh and by Khiali Singh and Dalip Singh who are represented by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The bond states that the executants have borrowed Rs. 20 from the appellant and that they have agreed to pay that sum on demand with interest at Rs. 3-2 per cent, per mensem i.e. 37 1/2 per cent, per annum, and in case of default of payment of interest to pay compound interest at the same rate calculated with half yearly rests. According to the terms of the bond there was due to the appellant when this suit was instituted no less than Rs. 23,047. The appellant abandoned Rs. 17, 547 feeling, no doubt, that no Court would award him that sum and has claimed Rs. 5,500. The Court below has given the appellant a decree for the principal sums Rs. 20 with interest at the rate of Rs. 30 per cent, per annum. The appellant contends that he is entitled to he whole sum claimed. He points cut that the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Vs. Musammat Bedo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.436
1. In our opinion the decision of the Court below was quite correct. It is admitted that the plaintiff's title to recover possession of the property in suit upon the terms and conditions mentioned in the decree of the lower Court is established, unless certain statements which the plaintiff made in certain mutation proceedings prevented her from bringing the present suit. In our opinion these statements mean at most that it was at that time the intention of the plaintiff to make a gift of her share in the properly to the defendant. Under Sections 51 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, a sale or gift of an interest in immoveable property must be proved by the production of documents executed and registered according to the provisions of the Act It. cannot for one moment be urged that the statements made by the plaintiff in the mutation proceedings complied with the terms of these Sections or that they estopped her from maintaining the suit. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »