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.
Naqi Ahmad and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.270
Tudball, J.1. The point I find is covered by the decision in Ram Piyari v. King-Emperor 32 A. 153; 7 A.L.J. 103; 5 Ind. Cas. 696; 11 Cr. L.J. 203. Personally, I very much doubt the correctness of this decision as the power of an Appellate Court to grant sanction to compromise is given to an Appellate Court under Clause 5 of Section 345, Criminal Procedure Code. This clause and Clause (d) of Section 423 were placed in the Code at one and the same time, i.e., in 1898. The former was put in to meet the decision in Empress of India v. Thompson 2 A. 339.2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 439, sets forth the powers of a Court in revision. It only grants certain fixed powers and does not mention Section 345 Clause (5). If the Appellate Court has power under Clause (d) of Section 423, to grant sanction to compromise, then Clause (5) of Section 345 was unnecessary.3. However, I am bound as a single Judge to abide by the ruling.4. In the circumstances of the case, I think the sanction ma...
Phulel Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.344
Tudball, J.1. The applicant, Phulel, went to the District Magistrate and made a statement before him that a certain Police officer had beaten him, demanded a bribe from him and locked him in the Police hawalat. He added that he did not wish to make a complaint as it would not be possible to prove the complaint, but he wished the District Magistrate to make an inquiry so as to prevent the Police officer behaving tyrannically towards him. In spite of the fact that he stated that he did not wish to make a complaint, the Magistrate made him take the oath and make a statement. Inquiry disclosed that the charge was groundless. Phulel was put on his trial under Sections 211 and 182, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that Section 211 did not apply as the man distinctly refrained from instituting a complaint, but held that he was guilty of offences under Sections 182 and 193, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to separate sentences for each of those offences. On appeal,...
Chhabraj and ors. Vs. Court of Wards
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.577
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....
Rohan Singh Vs. Ahsani Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.469
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by one of the widows and the daughter of Qudrat Husain for possession of a bagh. The plaintiffs alleged that Qudrat Husain had purchased half the bagh by private treaty and the other half at an execution sale, that he had died leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs, and that the defendant had interfered with their possession. The lower Appellate Court has found that Qudrat Husain acquired the bagh as stated, that he was in possession of the same within 12 years of the suit, and that he left another widow and a son, whose whereabouts ware unknown but whose death had not been proved, but that the plaintiffs as two of the heirs of Qudrat Husain were entitled to a decree for possession of the whole bagh.2. The first point taken in second appeal is that secondary evidence of the purchase of half the bagh was not admissible. It appears to me, on the facts found, that the case falls under Section 65(a) or 65(c) of the Evidence Act and that any secondary evidence of ...
Suranjan Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Bahal Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.912
Chamier, J.1. These appeals arise out of cross suits for pre-emption. In each case, the plaintiffs were given a decree for preemption of half of the property and the decree went on to provide that if they did not, pay the price within a month, their claim would stand dismissed and, in that event, the plaintiffs in the other case were allowed a farther period of fifteen days within which to pay in the price, so that if either set of plaintiffs failed to Ray in the price, the other set would be entitled to take the whole of (he property on complying with the terms of the decrees. The decrees in both cases were made on June 17th, 1911, and the period of one month expired on July 17th--no money was paid into Court in either case by that date.2. On July 19, Kirat Singh and others, the plaintiffs in one case, petitioned the Court to grant an extension of the time limited by the decree, and by an order of July 25th, time was extended to August 4th. Each set of plaintiffs paid into Court the p...
Mithan Lal Vs. Mizaji Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.914
Chamier, J.1. This is a suit by a co-sharer in a village against the lambardar for the profits of the plaintiff's share for rabi, 1315 Fasli and for the years 1316 and 1317 Faslis. The only question for decision is whether the lower Appellate Court was right in giving a decree to the plaintiffs for the profits calculated on the demand and not on the actual collections. The lower Appellate Court was of opinion-that the plaintiffs bad succeeded in showing that the lambardar's failure to collect a larger sum during the years is question was due to negligence. In second appeal, it is contended that, whatever may have been the law previously, according to the present law which is contained in Section 164 of the Tenancy Act, the plaintiff must in a case of this kind prove precisely what sums have remained uncollected owing to the negligence of the lambardar, that is to say, he must in the case of each tenant show that the sum not collected from him remained uncollected owing to the negligenc...
Sant Ram Vs. Allah Dad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All74
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This was a suit upon a mortgage made in favour of one Bahadur Khan by two persons who are now represented by the appellants and others. Bahadur Khan died leaving a son, Farzand Ali, and other heirs. Farzand Ali applied for a succession certificate in respect of several debts due to his father. Some of the other heirs stated that they had relinquished their rights in his favour, and a certificate was issued to Farzand Ali, who some years later assigned the mortgage debt together with his right to sue for the same to the respondent, Sant Ram. It is, on the strength of that assignment, that the present suit was brought. The claim was resisted upon several grounds, one of which was that Farzand Ali was not competent to transfer to another the right conferred upon him by the succession certificate to sue for the recovery of the debt. The court below decided this and other questions against the appellants. Hence this appeal.2. Apart from the provisions of the...
Shyam Chandra Singh Vs. Baldeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.467
1. This was a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage by way of conditional sale, dated May 6th, 1865. The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 99-13-0. The document provided that the said amount should be re-paid with interest on Chait Sudi 15th of the following year, corresponding to March 31st, 1866. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are heirs of the mortgagor. The defendants Nos. 4 to 5 are in possession of the mortgaged property under a foreclosure decree obtained subsequently to the date of the plaintiff's mortgage. The present suit was brought on August 4th, 1910, and by it the plaintiff claimed foreclosure of the mortgage and possession of the property comprised in it. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that it was time barred and this decree has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The Courts below were of opinion that as the plaintiff mortgagee did not take possession within 12 years of March 31st, 1865, the claim was barred by limitation. This appeal h...
Allahdad Khan and ors. Vs. Sant Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.486
1. This was a suit upon a mortgage made in favour of one Bahadur Khan by two persons who are now represented by the appellants and others. Bahadur Khan died leaving a son Farzand Ali and other heirs. Farzand Ali applied for a succession certificate in respect of several debts due to his father. Some of the other heirs stated that they had relinquished their rights in his favour and a certificate was issued to Farzand Ali who, some years later, assigned the mortgage-debt, together with his right to sue for the same, to the respondent Sant Ram. It is on the strength of that assignment that the present suit was brought, The claim was resisted upon several grounds, one of which was that Farzand Ali was not competent to transfer to another the right conferred upon him by the Succession Certificate to sue for the recovery of the debt. The Court below decided this and other questions against the appellants. Hence this appeal.2. Apart from the provisions of the Succession Certificate Act, Farz...
In Re: Har Prasad Singh, Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.539
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This is a Reference with regard to the alleged misconduct of one Har Prasad Singh, a Vakil practising in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Banda. It appears that the Delhi and London Bank obtained a decree and that Har Prasad Singh was acting for the Bank. Certain property was put up to sale. The first sale proved abortive. On the same day, the property was put up a second time and portion of it was purchased by Har Prasad Singh on behalf of his father. There can be little doubt that Har Prasad Singh who was living with his father must in a sense have been interested in the purchase. He might possibly succeed and naturally he would desire to obtain as good a bargain for his father as he reasonably could. He has been reported by the learned Subordinate Judge as having contravened Rule 25 of the High Courts Rules, Chapter XV and Rule 37 of the Civil Courts Rules Chapter XXI. Rule 25 of the High Courts Rules, provides that 'No Advocate, Attorney or Vakil shall, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »