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.
Nath Mal and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahid Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All355
Henry Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. Paragraph 1 of the plaint, which alleged that the plaintiffs were mortgagees of the property, was admitted in the written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge, how-ever, dismissed the suit upon the ground that the mortgage deed had not been properly 'presented' for registration. The presentation of a mortgage deed for registration is a proceeding which is prescribed by Section 32 of the Registration Act of 1877, which was in force at the time when this document was registered. A deed must be 'presented' for registration by some person executing or claiming under the deed, or by his agent, or representative or assign duly authorized in the manner prescribed by the Act. The name of Kundan Lal appears on the endorsement on the deed, which was in fact registered. It also appears from the endorsement that the mortgagors were present and were identified before the Registrar. Kundan Lal was examined a...
Nathumal and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahid Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.812
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. Paragraph 1 of the plaint which alleged that the plaintiffs were mortgagees of the property was admitted in the written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, dismissed the suit upon the ground that the mortgage-deed had not been properly presente.3' for registration. The presentation of a mortgage-dead for registration is a proceeding which is prescribed by Section 32 of the Registration Act of 1877, which was in force at the time when this document was registered. A deed must be 'presented' for registration by some person executing or claiming under the deed or by their agent, or representative or assign duly authorized in the manner prescribed by the Act. The name of Kundan Lal appears on the endorsement on the deed which was in fact registered. It also appears from the endorsement that the mortgagors were present and were identified before the Registrar. Kundan Lal was examined as a witness and he stated that he was p...
Beni Madho Singh and ors. Vs. Jagat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.337
1. This is the plaintiffs' appeal in the suit out of which First Appeal No. 167 of 1910, decided by us yesterday, arose. The Court below has dismissed a part of the claim on the ground that Musammat Makhana Kunwar made a gift of the property of which she stood possessed in favour of Baldeo Singh, with the consent of the reversioners who were alive at the time of the gift, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to this property. As regards the property which passed to Chhab Nath Singh and from him to his daughter, Dulari Kunwar, the claim has been dismissed on the ground that the relinquishment alleged to have been made by Dulari Kunwar in favour of the plaintiffs and others was invalid, because, in the opinion of the learned Subordinate Judge, the deed was not properly registered inasmuch as it did not contain a sufficient and specific description of the property to which it related.2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in regard to the part of the claim which, as stated abo...
Ram Singh Vs. Mathura and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All354; 14Ind.Cas.599
George Knox, J.1. This case has been rightly reported. I find that the learned Magistrate in his judgment says:--'The case is utterly false and I acquit all the accused.' Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not intended to meet the case of false accusations. It was meant to meet with frivolous and vexatious accusations. Where a person complains that he was kept in confinement for three days, he is going a long step beyond making a frivolous or vexatious accusation. Over and above this, the words contained in Section 250 are clear. If a Magistrate wishes to direct payment of compensation in frivolous cases, he is to give the direction by his order of discharge or acquittal. In other words, before pronouncing the order of discharge or acquittal, he has to call upon complainant and to record and consider any objections that the complainant may make. After having done so, and not before, should he place on record or, at any rate, only then, pronounce his order of discharge or...
Balakdhar Dube Vs. Ramanand Shukul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.125
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed to have a declaration that Bisheshar Dhar Dube was separate at the time of his death from his family and that a certain decree, dated the 26th of March 1901, was void against him. A pedigree of the family will be found at the foot of the plaint. It there appears that Jagar Nath Dhar Dube had three sons, Rajpat Dhar Dube, Bisheshar Dhar Dube and Balak Dhar Dube. Bisheshar Dhar Dube died in the year 1888, leaving three wives Musammat Dilbansi, Musammat Chattarpali and Musammat Durpati, Musammat Dilbansi had a daughter, Musammat Surajkali, who was the mother of the plaintiffs respondents.2. In the year 1900, a suit was instituted by Balak Dhar Dube and Manorath Dhar Dube, the son of Rajpat Dhar Dube, against the widows of Bisheshar Dhar Dube and the daughter of Musammat Dilbansi (the third widow) for a declaration that Bisheshar Dhar Dube died joint with his brothers, and that the estate was joint fami...
Ram Dial and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.607
George Knox, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, acting under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, says that he has gone through the record and that in his opinion the evidence for the prosecution made out a prima facie case against the accused. He accordingly ordered a further inquiry to be made and ordered the further inquiry to be made by the District Magistrate or some Subordinate Magistrate. It is not usual with this Court to interfere with interlocatory orders of this nature. The inquiry ordered is a further inquiry. 1 purposely abstain from making any pronouncement upon the case, but I wish to guard the Magistrate against a possible error which has already been painted out in other cases by this Court, viz., that a further inquiry does not mean proceeding on the evidence already taken; that evidence or other evidence, if there be any, should be taken do novo by the Magistrate, who holds the further inquiry. It is unfortunate that the Magistrate, who tried the case, should...
Heydorn and Company Vs. Muhammad Shafi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All348
George Knox, J.1. A suit was instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore on the 24th of May, 1911. The plaint was signed and verified by one Mumtaz Ahmad. Mumtaz Ahmad purported to be acting and to be authorized to act for Messrs. Heydorn & Co. When the power under which he professed to act was scrutinized, it was found that it did not bear the stamp required by Act No. II of 1899. The result was that the power could not be admitted in evidence for any purpose. Apparently the defect in the power was not realized by the court until some time after the plaint had been brought upon the register. But when the case came on for hearing a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the defence to the effect that the suit was not entertainable, as the plaint was not properly signed and verified, and there was no proper presentation of the plaint. The Court of Small Causes arrived at the conclusion that Mumtaz Ahmad had no locus standi and the pleader appointed by Mumtaz Ahmad had no l...
Risali and anr. Vs. Balak Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All351; 14Ind.Cas.639
Henry Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought a declaration that a will said to have been executed by one Ramji Lal shortly before his death was not a genuine document, but was a false and fraudulent will. The plaintiffs in the suit were Musammat Shibbo, the widow of Ramji Lal, and Musammats Baldai and Risali, minors, under the guardianship of their mother. The defendants were fifteen persons who would take the property under the will of Ramji Lal, if genuine. It is admitted that possession is still with the widow, Musammat Shibbo. The defendants pleaded that the will was genuine and also that there was a custom prevailing amongst Jats, to which class Ramji Lal belonged, which prevented the daughters inheriting any right in their father's property. They also pleaded, as to Musammat Shibbo, that she had no interest in the suit because her rights as widow were not interfered with by the alleged will.2. The learned Subordinate Judge...
Mithan and anr. Vs. Paltu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.51
1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a bill of exchange payable after 31 days. The drawers of the bill were Kamta and Garhu; it was drawn on the firm of Mattru Mal-Lachmi Narayan of Hatras and the payee was one Birju. The bill passed from the hands of Birju to Paltu and from Paltu to Mithan and Kanchan. All these transfers were for consideration.2. The bill was drawn on December 31st, 1907. Mithan and Kanchan allege that they presented the bill for payment to Mattru Mal-Lachmi Narayan, who refused to accept it. They then gave notice to Paltu from whom they had received it and on the 18th of February 1910, instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises. They arrayed as defendants Kamta and Garhu, the drawers and Paltu, a holder in due course from whom they received it. All the defendants raised, inter alia, the defence that the plaintiff did not present the bill within a reasonable time. Paltu added that notice was not given to him of non-acceptance for nearly three years.3. The...
Sri NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.123
ORDER1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Benares under Section 195 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The facts are briefly these. After the constitution of the Benares Raj, His Highness the Maharaja of Benares under Section 4 of the Pargana of Kaswar Raj Act of 1911, which came into force on the 25th of February 1911, brought a suit for arrears of rent on the 23rd of June 1911 in the Court of the Assistant Collector first class. From the decision of the Assistant Collector, an appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge. In his opinion, it is doubtful whether he has or has not jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and his doubts are based upon the provisions of Sections 6 and 9 of the Pargana of Kaswar Raj Act. There can be no doubt that under the provisions of that Act, the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to decide the appeal for the simple reason that the suit was instituted by the Maharaja under Section 4 of that Act after the Act had come into force. It is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »