Allahabad Court July 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.
Hasin-ud-dIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.575
Tudball, J.1. The applicant, Hasin-ud-din, by an order of the Magistrate, dated the 11th of May 1912, was ordered to give security for his good behaviour for three years in his own bond for Rs. 500 and two sureties for Rs. 500 each. He produced two sureties, Karim Bakhsh and one other. The Magistrate has rejected this security for very peculiar reasons. His order runs as follows: 'The applicant, Karim Bakhsh, says he will keep Hasin-ud-din in his village but the other surety lives ten miles away at least from that village, and he is not present. Unless both the sureties live within a radius of five miles, I cannot allow this security.' The order is by no means clear as to the centre from which the radius is to be drawn, whether that centre is to be the abode of the accused or of the sureties. Apparently there is no other defect in this security except that mentioned by the Magistrate, namely, that the sureties do not live within five miles of each other or of Hasin-ud-din. This is no v...
Jagdamba Prasad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.716
Tudball, J.1. This application in revision arises out of peculiar circumstances. It appears that in the absence of the District Magistrate of Pilibhit, a Police report, which is not to be found on the record, was submitted to a Magistrate of the first class who was then in charge. On the basis of that report, the Magistrate, on the 3rd of June, which was a holiday, sent for certain persons and simply ordered them to give security to keep the peace up to the 7th of June. It appears that there was some meeting or other connected with the Arya Samaj, and accordingly the Magistrate was afraid that it might end in a breach of the peace. He accordingly passed the aforesaid order. The period for which the order was given has expired. The matter, therefore, does not call for interference by this Court. But it is necessary to point out that the Magistrate's action was quite illegal and improper in that he has ignored completely all the directions which have been laid down in Chapter VIII of the...
Lala Vs. Nahar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.181
1. We think that the Court was quite justified in finding that the deceased occupancy-tenant Siya Ram was a Sudra and could adopt a daughter's son. This being, so, the only question which remains is whether or not an adopted son is a lineal descendant within Section 22 of the Tenancy Act and, in our opinion, he clearly is. An adopted son is, in the eye of the Hindu Law, just the same as a natural born son. The appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs as no one appears on behalf of the respondents....
Ramhit Misra and anr. Vs. Chandi Prasad Dube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.411
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The evidence in support of the right consisted of a wajib-ul-arz of 1833 and two decrees. The wajib-ul-arz of 1833 records the existence of a right of pre-emption. The first decree was an ex parte decree of 1903. The fact that it was ex parte takes away largely from its significance. It may well have been that the vendee had no desire to retain the property and it is even possible that it was collusive. The second decree was of the year 1904. Looking at the judgment in this case, it appears that the evidence before the Court was the wajib-ul-arz of 1833 and the recent wajib-ul-arz in which the word 'nil' appears against the head of pre-emption, and the ex parte decree which we have already mentioned. In the present case, the defendants adduced in evidence the wajib-ul-arz of 1860. That wajib-ul-arz throws quite a new light upon the situation. This clearly records that there has never been any sale or transfer, and that in future the ...
Sheo Dayal Pande Vs. Musammat Adhari Dubain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.409
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The facts, as ascertained by the lower Appellate Court, are fairly simple. A sale of certain zemindari property was made on the 5th of June 1909. This sale was in favour of one Musammat Dhiraji. Admittedly, Sheo Dayal Pandey, the defendant-appellant in the present appeal, was entitled to pre-empt the property sold to Musammat Dhiraji. On the 4th of June 1910, whilst the pre-emptor's right was still unbarred by limitation, the vendee re-transferred a portion of the property to the present defendant. The present suit has been instituted by Musammat Adhari Dubain claiming that she as a near co-sharer of Musammat Dhiraji is entitled to purchase by way of pre-emption the property which was transferred to Sheo Dayal Pandey. The lower Appellate Court has found that the reason how the property came to be re-transferred to Sheo Dayal Pandey was that he had compromised with the original vendee, Musammat Dhiraji, whom he was about to sue to enf...
Muhammad Ibrahim Rashid Vs. Atkia Begum and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.597
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights, The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.2. The suit was instituted on the 16th of March 1908. The plaintiff made defendant to the suit Musammat Atkia Bagam, his alleged wife, under the guardianship of her uncle Abdul Jalil Khan ; and he also made co-defendant the said Abdul Jalil Khan who had possession of the girl.3. It is necessary to state the history of the girl and her relations at some little length. Musammat Najm-un-nissa alias Arousa Begam (we shall hereinafter refer to her as Arousa Begam) was a lady of respectable parentage, claiming descent from the Rulers of Cabul. She had a daughter named Maimuna Begam who was the mother of Atkia Begam, the alleged wife of the plaintiff. Haji Abdul Jamil Kkan was a brother of the defendant Abdul Jalil Khan, and at one time was a karinda of Arousa Begam. Without saying anything derogatory of the family, to which Abdul ...
Maharaja of Benares Vs. Lalji Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All636
Richards, C.J., and Banerji, J. 1. A suit was brought against certain ' lessees and their surety. The suit resulted in a compromise decree which provided that, in the first instance, the lessees should pay the amount of the decree by instalments and that the decree should be capable of execution against them. If the decree-holder failed to realize the amount of his debt in this way from the lessees, then, he was to be entitled to bring the property which the surety had mortgaged to sale. The decree was granted in May, 1897. The present application for execution was made on the 5th of June, 1910, that is to say, more than twelve years after the granting of the decree. The application was made against the lessees only. It was an application to execute the decree not as a mortgage-decree but as a simple money decree. Section 230 of Act XIV of 1882 provides that where an application to execute a decree for the payment of money or the delivery of other property has been made under this Sect...
Sri Maharaja Parbhu NaraIn Singh Vs. Lalji Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.190
1. The facts connected with this appeal are as follows: A suit was brought against certain lessees and their surety. The suit resulted in a compromise decree which provided that, in the first instance, the lessees should pay the amount of the decree by instalments and that the decree should be capable of execution against them. If the decree-holder failed to realize the amount of his debt in this way from the lessees, then he was to be entitled to bring the property, which the surety had mortgaged, to sale. The decree was granted in May 1897. The present application for execution was made on the 5th of June 1910, that is to say, more than 12 years after the granting of the decree. The application was made against the lessees only. It was an application to execute the decree not as a mortgage-decree but as a simple money-decree. Section 230 of let XIV of 1882 provides that where an application to execute a decree for the payment of money or the delivery of other property has been made u...
Sibt HusaIn and ors. Vs. Munwarulnissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.431
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the proposed appeal does not exceed Rs. 10,000. This Court confirmed the finding of the Court below. The case accordingly does not fulfill the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless we come to the conclusion that the decree of this Court directly or indirectly involves same claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards. The plaintiffs in the suit claimed under a certain deed of gift, the validity of which was denied by the defendants. The Court of first instance found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. There were also parties as defendants certain other claimants who were donees under the same (deed of gift) and the value of the property, the subject-matter of the deed of gift far exceeds Rs. 10,000. The question whether or not under these circumstances the decree involves ...
NaraIn Das and anr. Vs. the East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All656
Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The facts connected with this appeal are shortly as follows:--plaintiffs or their agents consigned certain bars of silver for delivery at Allahabad to the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company at Bombay. The Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company delivered the box intact to the East Indian Railway at Jubbulpore. When the box was delivered to the plaintiffs or their agents at Allahabad, it was found that one silver bar was missing, valued by the plaintiffs at Rs. 2,044-12-0. There can be no doubt that the silver bar was stolen in the course of its transit between Jubbulpore and Allahabad, either by one or more of the company's servants or by an outsider. As to how it was stolen there appears to be no evidence. Section 75 of the Railways Act of 1890 provides that 'when any articles mentioned in the second schedule are contained in any parcel or package delivered to a railway administration for carriage by railway, and the value of such articles in the pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »