Allahabad Court February 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.
Makhan Lal Vs. Sri Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All382; 14Ind.Cas.162
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge of Aligarh, whereby he, under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Act III of 1907), sentenced the appellant to simple imprisonment for one month in that he had fraudulently or vexatiously concealed or refused to produce certain books of account before the Receiver appointed in the matter of his insolvency. A preliminary objection is taken that, the appeal does not lie to this Court but to the court of the District Judge. It is urged that the court of the Additional District Judge is a court subordinate to the District Court as contemplated by Section 46 of the Act and that the appeal under that suction lies to the District Court. In this connection we may note that one of the grounds of appeal is that the Additional District Judge had no insolvency jurisdiction in that he has not been invested by the Local Government with powers under the proviso to Section 3, Clause (i), of the...
Hira Singh and anr. Vs. Musammat Amarti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All375; 14Ind.Cas.154
Henry Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond alleged to have been executed on the 25th January, 1881, by Nathu Singh and Kallu, who are now represented by Musammat Amarti, defendant No. 1. The suit was filed on the 8th August, 1910, the 7th August being a Sunday. The original bond was not produced. The plaintiffs alleged that it was in the possession of defendants 2 to 4 and filed a copy. Musammat Amarti, defendant No. 1, pleaded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without first obtaining a succession certificate, and that the original bond had been paid off. In the court of first instance a succession certificate to collect a debt of Rs. 500 in respect of the bond now in suit was filed by the plaintiffs. No evidence was adduced by either party. The court held that, as the execution of the bond was not specifically denied in the written statement, it must be held to have been admitted and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Musammat Amarti, defendant No. 1...
Balwant Singh Vs. R. Clancy and Maharaj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All296
John Edge, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from decrees of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces at Allahabad, dated the 27th of March, 1906, which varied a decree of the dinate Judge of Aligarh, dated the 14th of April, 1903.2. The suit in which these appeals have arisen was brought on the 26th of September, 1901, by the assignee of a mortgage to recover Rs. 5,67,978-8-0 principal and interest, claimed under the deed of mortgage. The mortgage deed, which is dated the 28th of October, 1892, purports to have been made between Raja Sheoraj Singh Bahadur, mortgagor, of the first part, Maharaj Singh, the only brother of the said Raja Sheoraj Singh, of the second part, and the Bank of Upper India, Limited, of the third part. Sheoraj Singh and Maharaj Singh were, with others, made defendants to the suit.3. Sheoraj Singh was the sole mortgagor, and, by the deed of mortgage, Sheoraj Singh, declaring that he was the absolute owner in possession of the several vill...
Musammat Mithani Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.203
George Knox, J.1. This is an application for revision. It appears that Musammat Mithani brought a complaint against one Ganga Pershad charging him with an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed in the Court of one Saiyed Abu Muhammad, who is said to have been at the time Magistrate in charge of the local area known as the Auraiya Sub-Division, District Etawah. He transferred the case for trial to one Suraj Din Bajpei, a second class Magistrate, This last Magistrate tried the case, came to the conclusion that the charge had been established against Ganga Pershad and that it required a severer sentence than he could inflict. He accordingly submitted the record back under Section 349 to Saiyed Abu Muhammad. The case reached the Court of Saiyed Abu Muhammad on the 12th of October 1911. On the 15th of October 1911, the District Magistrate of Etawah issued an order defining the Sub-Division Auraiya as the local area in which one Mr. Nauak Chand was to exercise ...
Hira Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.606
George Knox, J.1. Hira has been convicted of an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. So far as the evidence shows, several articles were found in his possession and those articles have been found to be stolen property. The case for the prosecution fails, inasmuch as there is no evidence to show that these articles were received at different times or from different persons or from the same person at different times, and so there may be room for doubt that they may have been received at one and the same time. It is true that the accused says that he received different articles from different persons, at different times, but care was not taken by the lower Court to separate these articles. Indeed the lower Court seems to have disbelieved the statement of the accused in this respect. The result is that all that is proved against the accused is that he is a receiver of stolen property knowing it to be stolen and the evidence falls short of showing that this offence of receiving was...
Jawala Prasad Vs. Achay Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.132
1. One Kure was originally the owner of the property in suit. He mortgaged it with possession to Sewa and Daya Ram on the 10th of February 1838 for Rs. 49. The plaintiffs are the representatives-in-interest of the mortgagor Kure, and the defendants are the representatives-in-interest of the mortgagees, Sewa and Daya Ram. The suit was instituted on the 22nd of June 1910. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it was alleged that in the Settlement made in 1257 Fasli, corresponding to 1850 A.D., an acknowledgment was made by Sewa and Daya Ram which gave the plaintiff a fresh starting point for limitation. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the suit was barred by limitation. That plea found favour with the Court of first instance which dismissed the claim. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the entry in the settlement papers of 1257 Fasli, corresponding to 1850 A.D., amounted to an acknowledgment and sent back the case for trial on the merits to the first Cour...
Bhagwan Das Vs. Raj Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All365; 14Ind.Cas.790
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. One Kishori Lal was the owner of the property in dispute and other property. On the 5th of August, 1888, he made a simple mortgage of all those properties in favour of Nizam-ud-din. Subsequently, on the 22nd of December, 1888, he mortgaged them to Kirpa Dayal and others, who obtained a decree on their mortgage, on the 3rd of July, 1889, without impleading the prior mortgagee, Nizam-ud-din. The latter, on the 20th of August, 1882, obtained a decree upon his mortgage without impleading Kirpa Dayal and others. Kirpa Dayal and others executed their decree against the mortgaged property and purchased it on the 20th of June, 1891. They obtained actual possession afterwards. When they applied for the sale of the mortgaged property, Nizam-ud-din put in an application to the effect that he had no objection to the sale of the property, provided the sale proceeds were first applied to the satisfaction of his own decree, The court granted that application, and the...
Sheoambar Ahir and ors. Vs. the Collector of Azamgarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All358; 14Ind.Cas.138
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This and the connected appeal arise out of suits in which the plaintiff's sought a declaration that no custom existed in their village which entitled zamindars to take certain fruits and wood, or a right to the use of a plough and a number of other alleged dues, including sugarcane juice from some of the tenants, poppy seed from the Koeries, and various other matters of the same description. The suit was instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh. He decided that the suit was not cognizable in a civil court and he declined to return the plaint for presentation in the proper court. The learned District Judge in first appeal affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal.2. I think that the question whether or not the villagers are liable to these dues is a question of very great importance, no matter what is the proper tribunal to decide it. However, all that we have to...
Ayesha and ors. Vs. Faiyaz HusaIn and Musammat Kulsum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All412
Karamat Husain and Tudrall, JJ.1. This was a suit by Faiyaz Husain against his wife, her mother and brother and a fourth party, for restitution of conjugal rights and for a perpetual injunction against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 restraining them from offering any interference as might prevent Musammat Kulsum, defendant No. 1, from going to the plaintiff's house. The substance of the plaint is, that on the 7th of May, 1906, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 took away defendant No. 1 from the plaintiffs house on the promise that they would send her back after the wedding of defendant No. 3, that when she did not return, he went to defendant's Nos. 2 and 3 and made an inquiry, but was told by them that they had no knowledge of her whereabouts, that, in November, 1909, he learnt that defendant No. 1 had contracted some connection with defendant No. 4 and was at Hasanpur where he resides, and that he (plaintiff) prosecuted him criminally under Section 498, Indian Penal Code. The defence set up by Chh...
Ayesha and ors. Vs. Fiaz Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.124
1. This was a suit by Faiyaz Hmain against his wife, her mother and brother and a fourth party, for restitution of conjugal rights and for perpetual injunction against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, restraining them from offering any interference as might prevent Musammat Kulsum, defendant No. 1, from going to the plaintiff's house. The substance of the plaint is, that on the 7th of May 1906, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 took away defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff's house on the promise that they would send her back after the wedding of defendant No. 3, that when she did not return, he went to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and made an inquiry, bit was told by them that they had no knowledge of her whereabouts, that, in November, 1909, he learnt that defendant No. 1 had contracted some connection with defendant No. 4 and was at Hasanpur where he resides and that he (plaintiff) was prosecuting him criminally under Section 498, Indian Penal Code. The defence set up by Chhida Khan was, that the plainti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »