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.
Ganga Ram Vs. Chiddu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.119
Tudball, J.1. The facts out of which this application in revision has arisen are as follows. The plaintiff (opposite party), Cheddu Singh, instituted a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption against Dhani Ram (vendor) and Ganga Ram (vendee). The present applicant alleged that the real sale price was Rs. 50 but that Rs. 500 had been fraudulently entered in the sale-deed to defeat the pre emptor. Ganga Ram's defence, briefly put, was that by reason of a partition, the plaintiff had no right or at least one inferior to his own and that Rs. 500 was the true sale price. Issues were framed and 6th February 1911 was fixed for final hearing. On that date, the Partition Officer who had been called as a witness by Ganga Ram (vendee) was, by consent of parties, examined first of all to enable him to get away at once to his duties. The case was adjourned to February 7th.2. On this date, the Court examined one of the plaintiff's witnesses only and adjourned the case to February 9 th.3. On February ...
Ram Krishna and ors. Vs. Ram Kirpa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.97
George Knox, J.1. This application for revision arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Banda. The suit in which the order was passed was a suit for sale brought on the foot of a mortgage, dated the 24th of January 1901. The mortgage was one by one Rao Mohan Prasad in favour of one Ram Sahai. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendants had benefited by the loan and were, therefore, liable. The defendants denied the genuineness of the bond and said that there was no legal necessity. The Court of first instance found that the bond was proved and that there was no legal necessity. Thus, the two main points, which bad been put in defence, had been tried out by the Court of first instance. The plaintiffs went in appeal but before the decision of the appeal, they put in a petition to withdraw the suit. The application contains no reason whatever beyond these vague words, for some defects the suit cannot proceed further. No allegation was made what those defects wer...
Heydorn and Co. Vs. Muhammad Shafi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.507
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 authorised to act for Messrs. Heydorn & Co. When the power under which he professed to act was scrutinised, 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 ...
Emperor Vs. Bharosa Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All345
Tudball, J.1. This application for revision arises out of proceedings taken by a Magistrate under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts, as far as they can be gathered from the record and the not very luminous judgment of the lower court, appear to be as follows:--The complainants in the matter are residents and cultivators of Aman and Basarat, two villages, and the opposite party are residents of Barkagaon. Apparently the lands of the latter village lie at a lower level than those of the two former and when excessive rain falls the water from the higher lands flows down upon the lower lands of Barkagaon. Presumably both sets of lands lie in an ill-defined hollow. In 1885, there was civil litigation between the parties in regard to a dam which the Barkagaon people built across their fields to prevent the excess water from the lands above flowing on to their lands. The Civil Court held that the dam was an ancient one and maintained it. The patwari's evidence also shows t...
Bharosa Patak and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.999
Tudball, J.1. This application in revision arises out of proceedings taken by a Magistrate under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts, as far as they can be gathered from the record and the not very luminous judgment of the lower Court, appear to be as follows: The complainants in the matter are residents and cultivators of Amam and Basarat, two villages, and the opposite party are residents of Mauza Barkagaon. Apparently the lands of the latter village lie at a lower level than those of the two former and when excessive rain falls the water from the higher lands flows down upon the lower lands of Barkagaon. Presumably, both sets of lands lie in an ill-defined hollow. In 1885 there was civil litigation between the parties in regard to a dam which the Barkagaon people built across their fields to prevent the excess water from the lands above Rowing on to their lands. The Civil Court held that the dam was an ancient, one and maintained it. The patwari's evidence also sho...
Bela Rani and anr. Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All341
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immovable property. The property originally belonged to one Beni Ram who died in the year 1866. He was succeeded by his wife, Musammat Mathuri, who died in the year 1878. After her death, Musammat Dasodri, daughter of Beni Earn, was in possession. The plaintiffs are more or less speculative purchasers from the persons who would be entitled to the property on the death of Musammat Dasodri, assuming that she had made no valid transfer. The defendants are transferees or the representatives of Musammat Dasodri. The main defence was that the suit was barred by limitation; and the learned Subordinate Judge found that the suit was barred.2. It is common ground that the right to bring the present suit arose on the death of Musammat Dasodri. It is also admitted that neither the plaintiffs, nor their predecessors in title, have ever been in possession of the property in dispute. There can be no doubt, therefore, that it la...
Nathi Lal and ors. Vs. Lala and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.35
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on June 29tb, 1910, by the appellants upon a mortgage made on October 29th, 1873, in favour of two out of four brothers who were joint in estate. The plaintiffs-appellants are the thirteen sons of the four brothers. The defendants-respondents, in their written statement filed on September 25th, 1910, objected that the eleven sons of the plaintiffs should have been made parties to the suit, and that in their absence, the suit could not be maintained. The Munsif dismissed the suit holding that it was too late to make the sons of the plaintiffs parties to the suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge took the same view.2. First Appeal from Order No. 98 of 1911 arises out of a suit brought on August 6th, 1910, upon a mortgage made on December 14th, 1830, in favour of one Chet Ram. The plaintiffs were the two surviving sons and the son of a deceased son of Chet Ram, Objection was taken on September 6th, 1910, that the three sons of the first ...
Musammat Bela Rani and anr. Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.116
Henry Richaeds, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immoveable property. The property originally belonged to one Beni Ram who died in the year 1866. He was succeeded by his wife Musammat Mathuri, who died in the year 1878. After her death, Musammat Dasodri, daughter of Beni Ram, was in possession. The plaintiffs are more or less speculative purchasers from the persons who would be entitled to the property on the death of Musammat Dasodri assuming that she had made no valid transfer. The defendants are transferees (or their representatives) of Musammat Dasodri. The main defence was that the suit was barred by limitation and the learned Subordinate Judge found that the suit was so barred.2. It is common case that the right to bring the present suit arose on the death of Musammat Dasodri. It is also admitted that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors-in-title have ever been in possession of the property in dispute. There can be no doubt, therefore, that it la...
Emperor Vs. Jasauli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All340
George Knox, J.1. Musammat Jasauli has been convicted of an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. She has sent in a petition of appeal from jail and has been represented in this Court by learned counsel. It is contended on her behalf that nothing more is established against her beyond this--that the two girls, Dhanauli and Gidauli, both of them under sixteen years of age, were wandering about and found their way to the village where Musammat Jasauli lives--Both girls admit that they had run away from their houses--and that they remained nearly one or two days in Musammat Jasauli's house; and that these facts are not enough to bring the Musammat within the four corners of Section 366 and do not justify the sentence passed; at the outside the offence is merely a technical offence. I have considered all these points, also the evidence on the record and I consider that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is justified by th...
Basheshar Dayal Vs. Hargobind
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.52
1. In execution of a decree, certain mortgage-bonds belonging to the judgment debtor were sold. He, under Order XXI, Rule 89, applied to have the sale set aside. But he failed to deposit the money within the 30 days prescribed by law. The application was resisted on two grounds: (1) that it was barred by limitation and (2) that there could be no such application when the property sold was moveable. The, first Court came to (he conclusion that the money was deposited beyond time and dismissed the application. The order of dismissal was upheld on appeal by the lower Appellate Court. A second appeal from the order of the lower Appellate Court was preferred to this Court. At the hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was taken that the order of the lower Appellate Court in such a case was final and that there was no second appeal. This preliminary objection is perfectly sound and must prevail, vide Second Appeal No. 874 of 1911, decided on the 3rd of February 1912. The learned Coun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »