Allahabad Court November 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.
Haji Muhammad Ismail Khan Vs. Mithu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.656
Henry Richards C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought a declaration of his title to a certain plot of land with the trees thereon and a pucca well. The defendants admitted the plaintiff's title as zemindar and it is quite clear that the issue between the parties was, whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to oust the defendants from the possession of the grove and well. The facts are very clearly stated by the learned Judge of this Court from whose judgment this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. I will nevertheless state then very shortly. The zemindar agreed with one Lekhraj that he should plant the plot in question with fruit trees and should pay a yearly rent which was subsequently slightly enhanced. Lekhraj, in pursuance of the agreement, planted the grove and made the pucca well in question. Subsequently, he sold the grove and well to the defendants and died without leaving heirs. The plaintiff claims that under these circumstances, the de...
Baldeo Singh and anr. Vs. Kalka Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All94
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This suit was one for sale on the basis of a mortgage. The plaintiffs claimed a certain sum as principal with interest up to the date of institution together with pendente lite and future interest and in default of payment, asked for sale of the property. The main defence was that the debt had been satisfied. The first court held in favour of the plaintiffs and passed a decree, which is worded as follows:This suit coming on this 10th of July 1911, it is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiffs on account of principal, interest and costs, calculated up to the 9th day of January, 1912, is Rs. 1,487-7-6 and it is decreed as follows. No order is passed as to future interest.(1) That if the defendant pays into court the amount so declared due on or before the said 9th day of January, 1912, the plaintiff shall deliver up to the defendant or to such person as he appoints, all documents in his possession or power relating to the property and shall...
Baldeo Singh Vs. Kalka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.365
ORDER1. This suit was one for sale on the basis of a mortgage. The plaintiff claimed a certain sum as principal with interest up to the date of institution together with pendente lite and future interest and in default of payment asked for sale of the property. The main defence was that the debt had been satisfied. The first Court held in favour of the plaintiffs and passed a decree which is worded as follows:This suit coming on this 10th of July 1911, it is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiffs on account of principal, interest and costs, calculated up to the 9th day of January 1912, is Rs. 1,487-7-6 and it is decreed as follows:No order is passed as to future interest.(1) That if the defendant pays into Court the amount so declared due on or before the said 9th day of January 1912, the plaintiff shall deliver up to the defendant, or to such persons as he appoints, all documents in his possession or power relating to the property and shall, if so required, re-transfer ...
Angan and ors. Vs. Ram Pirbhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All78
Tudball, J.1. One Ram Pirbhan alias Ram Parpan filed a complaint in the court of a first class magistrate against the present applicants, preferring a charge of defamation against them. The petitioner's complaint was dated the 21st August, 1912, but was filed in court on the 22nd of August. The Magistrate recorded the complainant's statement on oath and forthwith dismissed the complaint. The complainant at once went to the District Magistrate in revision and the latter ordered a further inquiry. The applicants come to this Court in revision against that order and the main contention is that the order was passed behind their back and without notice to them and is therefore bad in law. In my opinion there is no substance in the contention for the simple reason that there has been no order of discharge whatsoever. They at no time had been called upon to appear and defend. The Magistrate has simply dismissed the complaint without any inquiry whatsoever. Under rulings of this Court it would...
Musammat Sundar and ors. Vs. Musammat Saraswati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.518
1. One Mool Chand was a co-sharer in the village of Sunderpur in the District of Bareilly. He died leaving him surviving five sons, one of whom was called Kundan. Kundan's share was sold in 1897 in execution of a decree against him and was purchased by one Basant Rai. The latter obtained symbolical possession through Court on 5th February 1898.2. On the 31st of December 1898, on the verification of the khewat during the recent Settlement, Mool Chand's share was sub-divided into 200 shares and four shares only were allotted to Kundan. On the 25th of January 1910, Basant Rai executed a deed of sale in favour of Musammat Saraswati Kuarin respect of the share he had purchased at auction sale in 1897.3. On the 28th of June 1910, Musammat Saraswati Kuar instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for the recovery of 89 1/3 shares on the allegation that Kundan was entitled to 93 1/3 shares out of 200 shares of his father by right of inheritance and purchase at auction sale in ex...
Pooran Singh Vs. Jai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.522
Chamier, J.1. On June 14th, 1907, the defendant gave the plaintiffs a bond for Rs. 400 and on the same day gave them a lease of his occupancy holding in which it was provided that the rent was to be retained by the plaintiffs on account of the interest payable under the bond. It was conceded by the plaintiffs in the Courts below and it is also obvious that the two documents should be read together and that the intention was to make an usufructuary mortgage of the holding. The plaintiffs entered into possession of the holding but were ejected by the Revenue Authorities. In the present suit, the plaintiffs claim a decree for the principal sum due under the bond. The Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the contract was illegal having been designed to render the provisions of the Tenancy Act nugatory as, no doubt, it was. On appeal, the District Judge held that as the defendant had caused the plaintiffs to be ejected from the holding, he was bound to re-pay the amount advanced on the bo...
Bhadesar Tiwari and ors. Vs. Kamta Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All90
Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Additional Judge of Basti granting sanction for the prosecution of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 471 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal, being one from an order passed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be deemed to be an appeal under that Code and thus a criminal appeal. It should have been registered as such, and I have heard it as a criminal appeal. It appears that a suit was brought on a bond in the court of the Munsif of Basti. In the course of that suit, the appellants produced the original bond, which was the basis of the claim, with an endorsement on it purporting to be an endorsement of payment of the amount due upon the bond. Witnesses were examined to support the endorsement. The court of first instance held that the endorsement was a forgery. An appeal was preferred and was heard by the Additional Judge of Basti. He also was of opinion that the endorsement was for...
The Court of Wards and ors. Vs. Chhabraji Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All92
Tudball, J.1. This case is clearly distinguishable from the case in F.A. No. 197 of 1912, Here various properties have been held separately liable for separate sums of money. The present appellants are transferees of two parts of property which have been held liable for specific sums of money. If they succeed in their appeal it is only those properties which will be released from the operation of the decree and it is only these sums which the decree-holder will lose. The rest of the decree-holder's decree for various other sums and for various other properties will still hold good even if the appellants' appeal succeeds. The correct stamp on this appeal will be Rs. 365. I allow one fortnight to make good the deficiency....
Bhadesar Tewari and ors. Vs. Kamta Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.271
Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Additional Judge of Basti granting sanction for the prosecution of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 471 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal, being one from an order passed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be deemed to be an appeal under that Code and thus a criminal appeal. It should have been registered as such and I have heard it as a criminal appeal. It appears that a suit was brought on a bond in the Court of the Munsif of Basti. In the course of that suit, the appellants produced the original bond, which was the basis of the claim, with an endorsement on it purporting to be an endorsement of payment of the amount due upon the bond. Witnesses were examined to support the endorsement. The Court of first instance held that the endorsement was a forgery. An appeal was preferred and was heard by the Additional Judge of Basti. He also was of opinion that the endorsement was forg...
Phul Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.146a
Tudball, J.1. The record of this case has been submitted to this Court by the Sessions Judge, with a recommendation that the convictions and sentences on the accused be set aside. The matter is a dispute between a landlord and a non-occupancy tenant. The tenant's case was that the landlord cut and removed his crops. The landlord's defence was that he removed the crops because he had jointly cultivated the land and was a part owner thereof. There can be very little doubt, as the Sessions Judge has pointed out, that the accused Phul Singh did share in the cultivation and, therefore, he must be deemed to have been in possession of the property alleged to have been stolen. The case is clearly not one in which the accused could possibly have been convicted of theft. I, therefore, accept the recommendation of the Sessions Judge and set aside the convictions and sentence. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. The order for payment of compensation to the complainant is set aside....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »