Allahabad Court October 1912 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.
Bindhachal Rai and ors. Vs. Gaya Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.290
Tudball, J.1. The circumstances of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The present plaintiff Bindhachal Rai, major son of Lal Bahadur Rai, and the three minor plaintiffs formed with the defendants 2nd party Lal Bahadur Rai, etc., a joint Hindu family, the manager of the family being Lal Bahadur Rai. Lal Bahadur Rai and the other defendants of the 2nd party brought a suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the defendants 1st party from two plots of land Nos. 549/2 and 551, claiming that the defendants 1st party were their sub-tenants and the land was their own sir land. The defence to that suit was that the defendants were proprietors and owners of plot No. 549/2 and occupancy-tenants of plot No. 551.2. The Revenue Court decided all the questions which arose between the parties and held in favour of the defendants therein in respect of both plots. The present suit has been, brought in the Civil Court by the remaining members of the joint family for the ej...
Radha Rawan Vs. Tula Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.647
1. There is nothing in the judgment of the Court below to show that that Court was satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect. It was not shown to us that there was any formal defect or that there was any other sufficient cause. We have, therefore, no alternative but to set aside the order of the Court below and order that the case be returned to that Court with directions that it be restored to the file of pending suits and disposed of according to law. The costs of this application will be borne by the respondent....
Hirdey NaraIn and anr. Vs. M.J. Powell and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All9; 17Ind.Cas.672
Henry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This case was remitted to the District Judge in order that he might ascertain the respective values of the interests of the appellants and Mrs. Powell in the land in question for which the Superintendent of Dehra Dun has awarded under the Land Acquisition Act a sum of Rs. 7,768-8-0. The learned Judge rightly, as we think, set himself to ascertain what were the respective rights of the appellants and Mrs. Powell in the land. He came to the conclusion that Mrs. Powell was what he calls an abadi tenant, having a right to build on the land and to transfer it, that the interest of the appellant in the land was worth no more than Rs. 1,060, and that the balance of the sum awarded by the Superintendent of Dehra Dun, namely, Rs. 6,708-8-0, should be given to Mrs. Powell. But in case this Court did not agree with the view that Mrs. Powell was an abadi tenant, he went on to ascertain the values of the respective rights of the parties in the case on the assumption...
Chuttan Lal Vs. Kanhaya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.836
1. This appeal has arisen out of the following circumstances. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for profits as assignee of the right of a co-sharer against the lambardar in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the first class. The suit, was first of all dismissed for default of appearance and was, subsequently, reinstated on the application of the plaintiff. Various dates were fixed and issues were framed. The 4th of April was finally fixed for the taking of the evidence of the parties and the decision of the suit. The plaintiff's mukhtar, though he had filed an application for summoning the witnesses, apparently had delayed in paying in the necessary diet money. The summonses to witnesses had, therefore, not been served. The patwari, one of the witnesses, had apparently attended at a previous day and was again present on the 4th of April. The plaintiff's mukhtar on that date wished to examine him as a witness. As, however, the patwari had been present for several days at the C...
Munshi Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All65; 17Ind.Cas.783
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The circumstances out of which the present appeal has arisen are as follows: Certain property was put up for sale in execution of two decrees, one of which was for Rs. 11,521 and the other was for Rs. 2,521. Apparently, when the decrees were sent to the Collector for execution, there was an error in the rubkar sent and Rs. 1,521 was shown as the amount due under the one decree instead of Rs. 11,521. The property was duly notified for sale, and on the 22nd of August it was put up for sale. Ram Narain was the highest bidder and offered Rs. 6,400. The sale officer, as his order of the 22nd of August shows, seeing that the total amount apparently due under the decrees was Rs. 3,673, was of opinion that it was unnecessary to sell the whole of this property, and made up his mind to sell it in two lots of one-half each. It is equally clear from his order of the same date that the decree-holder at once informed him that the amount due under the one decree was ...
Shiam Lal Vs. Anant Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.302
1. This appeal and Appeal No. 164 of 1912 can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment. It appears that the plaintiff in the present appeal brought a suit to recover possession of certain immoveable property. He alleged his title to be that of an auction-purchaser, who had purchased the property at a sale made by the Court in execution of the mortgage-decree. It was pleaded by the defendants that the particular property, the subject-matter of the suit, was, not included in the mortgage and that it was not purchased by the plaintiff at the auction-sale. A number of issues were struck which were all decided in favour of the plaintiff. On first appeal, a new point was raised, namely, that the defendants were ex-proprietary tenants of the land in question. The Appellate Court, while agreeing with the finding of the Court of first instance generally, remanded the suit so as to enable the defendants to go in to the Revenue Court and have the question whether or not they were tenants there...
Emperor Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All63
George Knox and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. Badri Prasad has been convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a term of rigorous imprisonment and payment of a fine. He has appealed. We do not go into the facts of the case in view of the order which we propose to make. There has been unfortunately in the trial an irregularity which compels us to set it aside and to order a new trial. Badri Prasad was committed to the court of sessions at Mainpuri. The case was transferred by the court of sessions to the court of an Assistant Sessions Judge. The Assistant Sessions Judge heard the case so far as the evidence was concerned; but did not proceed to judgment, on the ground that one of the issues in the case was at the same time awaiting decision under appeal in the court of the District Judge, and we are told that the case remained pending for a year, when it was taken by the Court of Sessions at Mainpuri sitting at Etawah. The learned Sessions Judge did not ...
Kesho Parshad Vs. Ram Kishen Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.316
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed damages for malicious prosecution. It appears that some time in November 1908, the defendant, who deals in sugar at a place called Lukhiserai, sent & consignment of sugar to one Madho Ram at Agra. Madho Ram did not pay him for the sugar, and the defendant came to Agra, and finding the sugar in the shop belonging to the plaintiff's firm, he lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and Madho Ram alleging that he had been cheated by them. Madho Ram and the plaintiff were subsequently arrested on the charge made by the defendant and tried. After a somewhat protracted trial, they were both acquitted, the Court holding that, so far as the plaintiff was concerned, there was no case against him at all and that he had acted perfectly bona fide, and that, so far as Madho Ram was concerned, the matter was of a civil nature.2. The account given by the plaintiff of the transaction, stated as shortly as possible, is as follows. He sa...
Chimman Lal and anr. Vs. Sikandar Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.641
1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, rejecting an application of the applicants, by which they had asked the lower Court to be brought on the record as defendants in the suit brought by Sikandar Khan against Imam-ud din and others. It appears that one Rao Ghulam Husain Khan was the proprietor of the property which is the subject-matter of the suit of Sikandar Khan. After Ghulam Husain Khan's death, his son, Khadim Husain Khan, entered into possession of the property. After the death of Khadim Husain, there was a dispute as to the succession to the property, between Musammat Latif-un-nisa, widow of Ghulam Husain Khan and Haji Hemu Khan, who described himself as the nephew of Ghulam Husain. Sikandar Khan stated in that suit that he was the son of Ghulam Husain Khan by his second wife. It was decided by this Court that Sikandar Khan was the legitimate son of Ghulam Husain. Subsequently, there was a dispute between Sikandar Khan and Mu...
Badri Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.797
1. Badri Prasad has been convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a term of rigorous imprisonment and payment of a fine. He has appealed. We do not go into the facts of the case in view of the order Which we propose to make. There has been unfortunately in the trial an irregularity which compels us to set it aside and to order a new trial. Badri Prasad was committed to the Court of Session at Mainpuri. The case was transferred by the Court of Session to the Court of an Assistant Sessions Judge. The Assistant Sessions Judge heard the case so far as the evidence was concerned, but did not proceed to judgment on the ground that one of the issues in the case was at the same time awaiting decision under appeal in the Court of the District Judge, and we are told that the case remained pending for a year when it was taken by the Court of Session at Mainpuri sitting at Etawah. The learned Sessions Judge did not hear the evidence at all but proceeded t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »