Allahabad Court December 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.
Ajudhia Pande and ors. Vs. Inayat-ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All111
George Knox and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. It appears that one Ram Phal Man Tiwari executed a deed of mortgage in favour of Guptar Pande and Ajudhia Pande on the 20th of September, 1890. Ram Phal Man executed another mortgage subsequently in 1892 in respect of the same property in favour of Ram Saran. In 1897 Ram Saran brought a suit on the basis of the mortgage of 1892 for the recovery of the mortgage money by sale of the hypothecated property. The suit was brought against Ram Phal Man mortgagor and against Ajudhia Pande and some of the legal representatives of Guptar Pande, who had died prior to the institution of the suit. Some other subsequent transferees were also impleaded in the case as defendants. Ram Saran prayed for the relief, among others, that he should be allowed to redeem the prior mortgage of 1890 in favour of Guptar Pande and Ajudhia Pande. The mortgagor and the prior mortgagees did not defend the suit or put in any appearance in court. The court trying the case of Ram Sara...
Ajodhya Pande and ors. Vs. Inayatullah Chaudhry and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.21
1. It appears that one Ram Phal Man Tiwari executed a deed of mortgage in favour of Guptar Pande and Ajudhia Pande on the 2nd of September 1890. Ram Phal Man executed another mortgage subsequently in 1892 in respect of the same property in favour of Ram Saran. In 1897, Ram Saran brought a suit on the basis of the mortgage of 1392 for the recovery of the mortgage money by sale of the hypothecated property. The suit was brought against Ram Phal Man, mortgagor and against Ajudhia Pande and some of the legal representatives of Guptar Pande, who had died prior to the institution of the suit. Some other subsequent transferees were also impleaded in the case as defendants. Ram Saran prayed for the relief, among others, that he should be allowed to redeem the prior mortgage of 1890 in favour of Guptar Panda and Ajudhia Pande. The mortgagor and the prior mortgagees did not defend the suit or put in any appearance in Court. The Court trying the case of Ram Saran framed two issues only which rela...
Baiju Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.684
Tudball, J.1. The applicant, Baiju, was tried for an offence under Section 511/75 of the Indian Penal Code, jointly with two other persons, Puran and Durjan, who had been charged under Section 457 of the Indian, Penal Code. The facts are briefly as follows:2. The house of Musammat Tulsha was broken into and property stolen daring the night. In the morning, a report was made at the Police Station. On the same morning, Puran and Durjan were arrested at the Railway Station with property in their possession merely on suspicion. On information given by Puran, the Police proceeded to Baiju's house. He denied knowledge of Puran or the property. In the possession of these two men at the Railway Station was found property, which turned out to be part of the property stolen from Tulsha's house. Baiju's house was searched and in it was found some more of Tulsha's property. A. third portion was found at a place pointed out by Puran. Puran stated that he had obtained the property from Tulsha's daug...
Debi Dayal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.672
Tudball, J.1. The fifteen appellants, Debi Dayal and others, have been convicted of dacoity under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment each, together with a fine of Rs. 100 each or in default to undergo one year's further rigorous imprisonment. The fact of dacoity is beyond all doubt. On the 15th of June last, a moneylender in Kuberpur, named Nagarjit, was attacked by some twenty or thirty men at about midnight. He was sleeping outside as also was his son Ram Charan, another son was sleeping on the roof and the other members were sleeping inside. Nagarjit was aroused and found himself surrounded by a number of men. He was beaten and one of his arms was broken and he was seized by the dacoits. Some of them climbed up a tree and from there on to the roof and opened the door from inside. Nagarjit was taken inside, was branded on the face and was made to disclose the money and ornaments. His wife was beaten. His son, Ram Charan, ...
Panna Lal Vs. Kamta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All123
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Tudball, J.1. The facts out of which this and the connected appeal No. 51 of 1912, have arisen are set out at length in our judgment in L.P.A. No. 49 of 1912. Those two appeals arise out of the two suits for rent therein mentioned.2. We find it impossible to hold that the plaintiff respondent is entitled to recover the rent which he claims in regard to the period of time between the two ejectments. Admittedly no rent was fixed as between the present parties, either by agreement or by decree of court. Section 34 of the Tenancy Act (II of 1901, Local) clearly does not, and was never intended to, apply to the circumstances of the present case. It relates to the case of a person taking possession for the purpose of cultivating as a tenant without the consent of the landholder.3. Here the present appellant defendant took possession with the full consent of the landholders Jodha and Hamir Singh in the year 1897. It is true that the latter by operation of law bec...
Kamta Prasad Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.575
1. The facts out of which this and the connected Appeal No. 51 of 1912, have arisen are set out at length in our judgment in L.P.A. No. 49 of 1912. Those two appeals arise out of the two suits for rent therein mentioned.2. We find it impossible to hold that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to recover the rent which he claims in regard to the period of time between the two ejectments. Admittedly, no rent was fixed as between the present parties, either, by agreement or by decree of Court. Section 34 of the Tenancy Act (II of 1901 Local) clearly does not, and was never intended to, apply to the circumstances of the present case. It relates to the case of a person taking possession for the purpose of cultivating as a tenant without the consent of the land-holder.3. Here the present appellant-defendant took possession with the full consent of the land-holders, Godha and Hamir Singh, in the year 1897. It is true that the latter, by operation of law, became the ex-proprietary tenants and...
Baldeo Prasad and anr. Vs. Kunwar Bahadur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All105; 18Ind.Cas.364
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. The plaintiff appellants Baldeo Prasad and Musammat Ram Piari filed a partnership suit in the Subordinate Judge's against the two respondents. The suit was dismissed. They filed an appeal, which was admitted on the 17th March, 1911, in the court of the District Judge. The date fixed for the hearing of the appeal, was the 6th of June. On the 31st of May on the application of the respondents the court fixed the 12th of July instead of the 6th of June. On that date the appeal was not heard, as the District Judge had no time by reason of other work. It was adjourned to the 28th of July. Again the court suo motu adjourned the appeal to the 28th of September. On that date at the appellant's request and with the consent of the respondents the appeal was adjourned to the 8th of November. On the 3rd of November the court of its own motion fixed the 6th of December for the hearing of the appeal. On this date...
Ram Autar Dube Vs. Badal Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.586
1. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who alleged themselves to be the reversionary heirs of one Ramlal, for a declaration that a Will executed by Musammat Munga, widow of Ramlal, was null and void as against the interests of the reversioners on the ground that Musammat Munga had no authority to execute it. The Court below decreed the suit. In appeal, the only ground pressed for our consideration out of the six grounds in the memorandum of appeal is that the plaintiffs had no cause of action for bringing the suit and we are referred to a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pirthipal Kunwar v. Guman Kunwar 17 C. 933 : 17 I.A. 107. In the later case of Thakurain Jaipal Kunwar v. Indar Bahadur Singh 26 A. 238 : 8 C.W.N. 465 : 14 M.L.J. 149 : 6 Bom. L.R. 495 : 31 I.A. 67 the facts of which are almost on all fours with those of the present case, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the execution of a Will by a limited owner, such as a Hindu ...
Prag and ors. Vs. Ram Niranjan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.734
Chamier, J.1. The facts found by the lower Appellate Court are as follows2. In April 1887, Akbar Ahir mortgaged his share in a fixed-rate holding to the respondent, Ram Niranjan, for Rs. 40. In May 1892, he mortgaged the same property to one Bhagwan Das. In June 1893, he mortgaged the same property along with a house, trees etc., to Ram Niranjan for Rs. 150, out of which the sum of Rs. 61-8-0 was due upon the mortgage of 1887. In 1899, the heirs of Bhagwan Das sued upon the mortgage of 1892 and obtained a decree for sale in execution of which they themselves bought the holding in August 1901. In that suit, they impleaded Ram Niranjan as a puisne mortgagee. Ram Niranjan had at the time a minor son, Bhagwan Prasad, who was joint with him and was interested in the mortgage. The decree shows that Ram Niranjan did not defend the suit. It is said that he was in Jail and that he sent a petition from Jail claiming to be a prior mortgagee of the property. The fact that he was in Jail was admitt...