Allahabad Court April 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.
Puran Atal Vs. Darshan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.698
1. This appeal arises out of a suit purporting to be brought under Section 539 of Act XIV of 1882. The plaintiffs allege that there was a charitable trust for public purposes, that they ware interested in that trust, that the defendant Puran Atal had for some time been a mahant and gaddinashin of the trust, that he had been deposed as being unfit for the office and the plaintiff Darshan Das had been duly installed in his place, and that the defendant Puran Atal had re-taken possession of the trust property. Various reliefs of the nature provided for by Section 539 were then prayed for.2. The first question which arose was whether or not sanction had been given according to the provisions of Section 539. The Court held in favour of the plaintiffs and that question has not been argued here.3. The next question, which is the most important question in the case, was the question whether or not a public charity-existed within the meaning of Section 539. The learned Judge held that such a tr...
Sarnam Singh Vs. Thakur Bisram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.81
Piggott, J.1. This suit was originally filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the first class, the plaintiff, Sarnam Singh, seeking the ejectment of the defendant, Bisram Singh, (his own father's brother), from certain plots of land upon the allegation that the latter was holding the same as tenant-at-will of the plaintiff. The defencs sat up was in the alternative. In the first place, Bisram Singh pleaded that he was in possession of the plots in dispute as proprietor; in the second place, he pleaded that if his possession were held not to be proprietary, lie was at any rate an ex-proprietary tenant by operation of law and, therefore, not liable to ejectment upon the suit as brought. The Assistant Collector found against the defendant on both points and decreed the claim; but his decision has been reversed by the learned District Judge on appeal. I cannot say that I am satisfied with the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. There is first of all a positive finding that the ...
Ghissa Lal Vs. Ram Autar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.438
Chamier, J.1. The appellant was the owner of a 3-pies share in a village and, as such, was in possession of several plots of sir or khudkasht. Long before the passing of the Agra Tenancy Act, the appellant gave the respondent (we usufructuary mortgages of the sir and khudkasht lands and placed him in possession. After that, the appellant gave the respondent a simple mortgage of the whole share. The respondent sued upon the simple mortgage and obtained a decree in execution of which he purchased the share himself. At the auction, the usufructuary mortgages were proclaimed as encumbrances upon the property. Shortly after the sale, the appellant sued the respondent for possession of the sir and khudhasht lands under Section 79 of (he Tenancy Act. The first Court threw the case out as barred by limitation because the respondent had been in undistributed possession of the plots as mortgagee for many years. On appeal, the Commissioner held that the suit was not barred by limitation and he ga...
Ahmad-ud-dIn Vs. Ilahi Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.587
1. The plaintiff appellant in this case is suing to recover possession as the heir of one Musammnt Maksud-un-nisa of certain property in the hands of the defendant, and the defence with which we are concerned is that the lady above-mentioned had, on the 11th of January 1900, that is to say, almost 8 years prior to her death, transferred the property intuit by a registered deed of gift to the first defendant Ilahi Baksh. In the Court below, the execution of this deed of January 11th, 1900, was put in issue, and questions were also raised as to the mental capacity of the lady-donor at the time of the gift and as to the influence exercised over her by the defendant, Ilahi Baksh. In the memorandum of appeal now before us, the question of the factum of execution is again raised. We think it sufficient to say that, after considering the evidence, we find no reason whatever to dissent from the conclusion arrived at by the lower Court on this point. There is a mass of evidence as to the execut...
Bidhata DIn and anr. Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.570
1. This is a petition in insolvency by a debtor. The Court below, after taking the evidence adduced in support of the petition, rejected it, on the ground that it was not satisfied that the applicant was unable to pay his debts. In appeal it is contended that this was not sufficient to reject the application of the debtor. In our opinion, the point taken by the learned Vakil for the appellant is sound. The Court was not entitled to reject the application of the debtor simply on the ground that he could not satisfy the learned Judge that he was unable to pay his debts and that he had concealed some of his properties. A Bench of this Court in Girwardhari v. Jainarain 7 A.L.J. 835 : 7 Ind. Cas. 39 : 32 A. 645 has decided that that is not sufficient to reject the application of a debtor to be declared an insolvent. The same view was taken in Udai chand Maiti v. Ram Kumar Khara 15 C.W.N. 213 : 12 C.L.J. 4C0 : 7 Ind. Cas. S94 and in Kali Kumar Das v. Gopi Krishna Roy 15 C.W.N. 990 : 12 Ind. ...
Jugal Kishore Vs. ShafiuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.537
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to bring to sale a 10-biswas share in Mouia Mugara. It appears that on the 11th of August 1865, there was a mortgage in favour of Tulsi Ram and Dalchand. Shares in two villages were comprised in the mortgage, namely, in Mouza Mugara and Mouza Chamarpura. A decree was obtained in January 1867 and the property was sold. It was purchased on the 20th of July 1867 by the mortgagees. Since that time, the mortgagees and their transferees have been in possession, apparently without dispute, until the present suit was instituted in 1910, that is to say, over 40 years after the sale to the mortgagees under the mortgage of 1865. The plaintiff's claim is as follows. He says that there was a subsequent mortgage of the 28th of April 1866, which included shares in the same village of Mugara and also in a village called Habibpur. This mortgage was in favour of the plaintiff who instituted a suit in April 1867, obtained a decree in July 1...
Emperor Vs. Ganga
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All451; 15Ind.Cas.991
George Knox, J.1. The attention of the Court has been called by the learned Government Advocate to the case of King-Emperor v. Ganga, charged with an offence under Section 892, read with Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The offence is said to have been committed on the 18th of March, 1910. Two men have already been convicted as having been concerned, in the offence. Ganga was said at the time to have absconded and the case proceeded without his appearance in court.3. So far as I can learn from the papers which have accompanied the record, he was arrested within the Bengal Presidency as being a person without any ostensible means of livelihood. He found his way to prison at Mymensingh. From this prison he was sent for, it does not appear by what authority, and produced before the Joint Magistrate of Mirzapur. The Joint Magistrate inquired into the case falling under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The inquiry began on the 6th of November, 1911, and ended in the committal to ...
Ahmad-ud-dIn Vs. Ilahi Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All465
Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. The plaintiff appellant in this case is suing to recover possession, as the heir of one Musammat Mak-sud-un-nissa, of certain property in the hands of the defendant, and the defence with which we are concerned is that the lady above mentioned had on the 11th of January, 1900, that is to say, almost eight years prior to her death, transferred the property in suit by a registered deed of gift to the first defendant, Ilahi Bakhsh. In the court below the execution of this deed of the 11th of January, 1900, was put in issue and questions were also raised as to the mental capacity of the lady donor at the time of the gift, and as to the influence exercised over her by the defendant, Ilahi Bakhsh. In the memorandum of appeal now before us the question of the factum of execution is again raised. We think it sufficient to say that, after considering the evidence, we find no reason whatever to dissent from the conclusion arrived at by the lower court on this point. The...
Emperor Vs. Thakur Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All449
George Knox, J.1. A magistrate of the first class, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that there was great probability of a breach of the peace.2. There is apparently between the parties a dispute relating to immovable property, and according to the Magistrate one party is trying to set aside a possession of long standing on their own authority, with the result, the learned Magistrate says, that a great riot will take p lace in pargana Duaba ; he accordingly bound down the petitioners before me and required that they should give security for keeping the peace for one year.3. I am asked to interfere with this order on the ground that the dispute being a dispute in regard to immovable property, the Magistrate should not have acted under Section 107, and in support of this contention I am referred to the case of Mahadeo Kunwar v. Bisu. In that case an order had been passed under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without any of the procedure prescribed by Section 14...
Thakur Pandey Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.798
George Knox, J.1. A Magistrate of the first class, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that there was great probability of a breach of the peace.2. There is apparently between the parties a dispute relating to immoveable property, and according to the Magistrate, one party is trying to set aside a possession of long standing on their own authority with the result, the learned Magistrate says, that a great riot will take place in Pargana Duaba; he accordingly bound down the petitioners before me and required that they should give security for keeping the peace for one year.3. I am asked to interfere with this order on the ground that the dispute being a dispute in regard to immoveable property, the Magistrate should not have acted under Section 107, and in support of this contention 1 am referred to the case of Mahadeo Kunwar v. Bisu 25 A. 537 : A.W.N. (1903) 102. In that case, an order has been passed under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without any of the pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »