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.
Jasauli Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.764
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 Musamrnat Jasauli lives. Both girls admit that they had run away from their houses. They remained nearly one or two days in Musamrnat Jasauli's house and these facts are not enough to bring the Musamrnat 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 the evidence ...
Pokhpal Singh and ors. Vs. Chhidu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.903
1. This and the connected Appeal No. 50 of 1911 arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for possession of shares in two villages, namely, Momaa Khurd and Sabra, and for certain house property situated in the former village. They also claimed a declaration that a decree obtained by the defendant Chhedu Singh against their father Rudra Singh, on the 19th of July 1908, and the proceedings held in pursuance of that decree are not binding on them, and are as against them null and void. Chhedu Singh, defendant, is the nephew of the plaintiff's father, Rudra Singh, being the son of his brother, Umrao. Chhedu Singh brought a suit against Rudra Singh for partition of zemindari property situated in the two villages mentioned above and also of house property. To that suit the plaintiffs were added as defendants. A decree was passed in favour of Chhedu Singh, declaring him entitled to a half share of the property claimed and for partition of the house property and costs were also ...
Jambu Prasad Vs. Muhammad Aftab Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All331
Henry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on two mortgages; the first executed on the 2nd July, 1882, by Muhammad Ilias Khan, now deceased, the father of defendant 1 and the husband of defendant 2, and by one Syed Muhammad Khan, now deceased, who is represented by defendant 1 and the second executed on the 25th October, 1892, by defendant 1 and Syed Muhammad Khan, now represented by defendant 1. Defendant 3 has been joined as a puisne mortgagee. The suit was defended on various grounds, among others on the ground that the documents on which the suit was based had not been validly registered according to law. The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issue:--Whether or not the documents in suit had been presented for registration by persons authorized to do so; and whether or not they had been validly registered; and whether or not they affected the property sought to be sold; and whether the claim for money was time-barred. The court below has ...
Bhondo Vs. Salig Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.810
George Knox, J.1. The applicant before me is one Bhondo, a decree-holder, who, on the 15th of December, 1893, obtained a decree against one Musammat Pana,. From time to time, he tried to execute this decree and eventually, on the 18th of September, 1909, he applied for execution by bringing to sale certain property which had been hypothecated to him and which is represented as being the property of Musammat Pana. While this application was pending, one Salig Ram intervened with a petition, dated the 8th of February, 1910, stating that he had purchased the property from Musammat Pana, that the decree against Musammat Pana was time-barred before he effected his purchase, and that the property in dispute was no longer the property of Musammat Pana but his (Salig Ram's) property. As a result of his intervention, the application for execution was dismissed on the 7th of March, 1910. No appeal was presented from this order of dismissal, but on the 27th of May, 1910, when an appeal could no l...
Jambu Prasad Vs. Aftab Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.881
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on two mortgages; the first executed on the 2nd July 1882, by Muhammad Rias Khan, now deceased, the father of defendant No 1 and the husband of defendant No. 2, and by one Sayed Muhammad Khan, now deceased, who is represented by defendant No. 1; and the second executed on the 25th October 1852, by defendant No. 1 and Sayed Muhammad Khan, now represented by defendant No. 1. Defendant No, 3 has been joined as a puisne mortgagee.2. The suit was defended on various grounds; among others, on the ground that the documents on which the suit was based had not been validly registered according to law. The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issue:Whether or not the documents in suit had been presented for registration by persons authorised to do so; and whether or not they had been validly registered; and whether or not they affected the property sought to be sold; and whether the claim for money was time-barred3. The Court below has found...
Adanki Teli and ors. Vs. Motichand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.102
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought a declaration that certain sale-deeds and leases were void as against them. One Kesho Das had two mortgages, comprising a large amount of property and including the property which was the subject-matter of the sale-deeds and leases impugned. Kesho Dass obtained decrees in 1898 on foot of his mortgages. In September 1905, the mortgagors sold the property to the plaintiffs, or their predecessors-in-title, for Rs. 72,000 and odd. Out of this purchase-money, Rs. 42,000 and odd went to discharge the mortgage-decrees of Kesho Das and a third mortgage and the balance, amounting to some Rs. 28,000, was paid over to the vendors of the plaintiffs. It would appear that the property, prior to the purchase, had been proclaimed for sale in execution of Kesho Das's decrees and sanction was obtained, under Section 309 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, for a private transfer of the judgment-debtor's property. Between the date of the...
Bikram Singh Vs. NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.59
1. The point raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is that the learned District Judge having exercised his discretion as to applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to an appeal which was admittedly late, that discretion ought not to have been interfered with in second appeal to this Court. It has been decided in the case of Tulsha Kunwar v. Gajraj Singh 25 A. 71 that this Court will not entertain in second appeal a plea that the lower Court was wrong in refusing to apply the provisions of Section 5 unless it is shown that the Court has acted arbitrarily and without exercising a judicial discretion. The same view was taken in the case of Hamid Ali v. Gaya Din 26 A. 327. In the case before us, it is quite clear that the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal as time-barred and refused to exercise the discretion conferred on him by Section 5 of the Limitation Act after considering the whole case. The appellant before him had been given time to file an affidavit to e...
Murli Dhar and ors. Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.121
Karamat Husain, J.1. The plaintiff as co-sharer brought an action against the heirs of a lambardar for his share of the profits for the years 1314, 1315 and 1316 Faslis. It was found that the predecessor-in-title of the defendants was not a lambardar during the year 1314 Fasli and the suit for profits relating to that year was dismissed. In the year 1315 Fasli, there was a deficit of Rs. 339 15 10. The plaintiff's claim in respect of that year also was dismissed, inasmuch as there were no profits in that year. In 1316 Fasli, the amount of profits, it was found, was Rs. 641-0-1. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree for 1/2 of the profits of that year. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court upheld the decree of the first Court so far as the dismissal of the suit for the profits of the years 1314 and 1315 Faslis and the decree for the share of the profits of the year 1316 Fasil were concerned. It modified the decree of the first Court as regards costs, In second appeal, i...
Raghubar Dayal Vs. Rani Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.48
1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that Madan Mohan, defendant No. 2, was not the adopted son of Govind Parsad, the paternal uncle of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 is the widow of Govind Prasad. The Court below has found that Madan Mohan was adopted by Govind Parsad and has dismissed the claim.2. This part of the finding of the lower Court the appellant is unable to impugn in this appeal. The learned Vakil for the appellant, however, contends that the adoption of Madan Mohan by Govind Parsad was invalid under the Hindu Law. This contention is based on the following grounds: 'Govind Parsad's step-mother was Musammat Raj Kumari. She had a brother Munna Lal, whose son was Dwarka, and Dwarka's daughter was Musammat Ganesha, the mother of Madan Mohan; Govind Parsad could not have validly married Musammat Ganesha in her maiden state, and, therefore,; the adoption by him of Ganesha's son, Madan Mohan, was invalid as the effect...
Hayat Ali Vs. Muhammad Sadiq and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.97
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 77 of the Registration Act to enforce the registration of a deed of sale. The deed of sale is said to have been executed by one Muhammad Bakar, on the 29th of December 1909. He died on the 5th of January 1910. The document was presented for registration by the vendee, the present appellant, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, on the 8th of January 1910. The Sub-Registrar, on the 15th January, for reasons, which appear in his order set out at page 2 of the respondent's book, refused registration. Registration was refused on the ground that the heirs of the executant were not summoned under Section 36 of the Registration Act.--Ed. The plaintiff appealed to the District Registrar, who, on the 4th of March 1910, dismissed the appeal. This suit was instituted on the 12th of March 1910. The Court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not performed the preliminaries of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »