Allahabad Court December 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.
Ganesh Pershad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.283
ORDERTudball, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and arises out of the following circumstances:A civil suit was heard in the Court of the District Judge of Mirzapur in the course of which Ram Daur Lal, Patwari, gave evidence.2. After the decision of the case the District Magistrate applied to the District Judge for sanction to prosecute Ram Daur Lal for the offences of forgery and perjury. The District Judge refused sanction in respect of the forgery on the ground that it was unnecessary and refused sanction in the matter of the alleged perjury on the ground that the words used did not amount to perjury. When applying for sanction, the District Magistrate forwarded to the District Judge the record of a Departmental inquiry made by one of his subordinates. The record of that Departmental inquiry, judging from the Judge's order in the present case, went to show that Ram Daur Lal and one Ganesh Prosad had fabricated false evidence or h...
ishar Das and ors. Vs. Asaf Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All186; 13Ind.Cas.134
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a sale of immovable property in execution of a decree. The property was sold on the 21st of August, 1910.2. On the 20th of September, 1910, the Judgment-debtor, who is the respondent in this appeal, paid into the Treasury the amount which was necessary under Order XXI, Rule 89, to enable him to have the sale set aside. On this date the court was closed and it did not re-open until the 5th of October, 1910.3. It is an admitted fact that subsequently to the auction sale and prior to the 20th of September, 1910, the Judgment-debtor transferred by sale all his interest in the property to a third party, so that on the latter date he could no longer be said to be the owner of the property. On the 5th of October, he applied to the court to set aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 89.4. To this the auction purchaser, who was not the decree-holder, objected. Several points were raised by these objections, the chief one being that as the Judgment-debtor ha...
Muhammad HusaIn Vs. Amir Haidar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.150
1. This was a suit by the appellant for Rs. 5,7o7, arrears of rent and interest thereon, due on a lease granted by him to the respondent on September 13fch, 1906. The claim is in respect of the years 1314 and 1315 F. and the kharif instalment of 1316F. It was a term of the lease that if the rents stated in the papers handed over to the respondent were found to be less than the actual rents payable by the tenants of the villages the amount payable to the appellant would be reduced accordingly. In his plaint the appellant admitted that the rent should be reduced by a sum of Rs. 55-5-6 per annum. At the hearing, this figure was altered to Rs. 88-7-3 per annum. The respondent claimed a further deduction of Rs. 88 8-9 on this account of which the Court below has allowed Rs. 78.2. The respondent also claimed to been titled to set-off a sum of Rs. 524-10-9 which amount he said had been collected by the appellant on account of the rents for years preceding 1314F. which had been assigned to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›