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.
Sarnam Kunwari and anr. Vs. Raghunath Kunwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.187
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Musammat Raghunath Kunwari, respondent, for possession of certain property which originally belonged to her father, Ram Autar Sahi, who died in 1832, leaving him surviving Musammat Genda Kunwari, his widow, Musammat Sheonath Kunwari and Raghunath Kunwari, his daughters, and a third daughter, Jailakh Kunwari, whose son is Ram Saran Pal alias Chillupal. Jailakh Kunwari is dead and so are Genda Kunwari and Sheonath Kunwari. On the 6th of April 1890, Musammat Genda Kunwari executed a deed of gift in favour of Musammat Sheonath Kunwari and to that deed of gift Raghunath Kunwari, the plaintiff, and Ram Saran Pal, the son of Jailakh Kunwari, were parties as executants so that these persons consented to the gift made by Genda Kunwari, who was the only person entitled at that time to the estate of her husband, Ram Autar Sahi. Genda Kunwari died in 1897, and Sheonath Kunwari died on the 20th of April 1902. Jhanakraj Kunwari, the mother-in-law of She...
Narayan Das and anr. Vs. the East Indian Railway Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.369
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 Companies' 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 certain articles mentioned in the Schedule II are contained in any parcel or package delivered to the Railway for carriage, and the value of such articles exceeds Rs. 100, the Railway shall not be responsible for th...
Emperor Vs. Paimal Nai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.571
George Knox, J.1. Paimal Nai is reported to have been arrested by the Police acting under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was arrested as being a person who had been concerned in a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint had been made or credible information received or reasonable suspicion existed of his having been SO concerned. The offence is apparently theft or possession of stolen property belonging to one Mohan.2. The value of this information or suspicion may be appraised from the fact that when he was arrested, no attempt whatever was made to charge him with the offence. The Police, instead, had resort to Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they placed Paimal before a Magistrate with a view of action being taken under that section. They appear to have given the Magistrate some information of the vaguest possible description that Paimal had been concerned in several cases, that he was in the habit of consorting with bad characters...
Khurshed-un-nissa Vs. Alim-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.868
1. This and the connected Appeal No. 1386 of 1911, arise out of one and the same preemption suit. The claim is based upon a custom of pre-emption. The plaintiff challenged the accuracy of the price entered in the sale-deed. The Court of first instance held that the custom was proved and the consideration entered in the sale-deed was correct. It granted a decree conditional on the plaintiff paying into Court the amount of the purchase-money within one month. The plaintiff appealed against that decree simply in regard to the condition laid down by the Court of first instance as to the payment of the purchase-money. The defendant also appealed against the decree pleading that the plaintiff had failed to establish the custom. By the time the appeals came on for hearing in the Court below, the one month allowed in the original decree had elapsed. The plaintiff had not paid into Court the amount as ordered by that decree. The lower Appellate Court there upon held that as he had failed to do ...
Gopi Nath and ors. Vs. Ishri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All631
Richards, C.J., and Tudball, J.1. Ram Bakhsh and Ors. mortgaged certain property to the present respondents on the 21st of August, 1894. On the 30th of May, 1896, they mortgaged the same property to Bindraban. Both mortgage-deeds were unregistered. Bindraban brought a suit for sale on his mortgage and purchased the property himself in execution of his decree. His son sold the property to Bal Kishan. The latter's heir sold it to Ishri Prasad, the present appellant. It must be clearly noted here, that though Bindraban purchased at the auction sale the right, title and interest of his mortgagors, what was sold to Ishri Prasad by the heir of Bal Kishan was the full right of ownership and not the mere right, title and interest of the transferor. An examination of Ishri Prasad's sale-deed makes this clear. That sale-deed was registered. Ishri Prasad's vendor was the full owner if the mortgage of the 21st of August, 1894, was out of the way, but we may assume for the purposes of this appeal t...
ishri Pershad Vs. Gopi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.19
1. The facts of this case are as follows:2. Ram Baksh and others mortgaged certain property to the present respondents on 21st August 1894. On 30th May 1896, they mortgaged the same property to Bindraban. Both mortgage-deeds were unregistered. Bindraban brought a suit for sale on his mortgage and purchased the property himself in execution of his decree.3. His son sold the property to Bal Kishen. The latter's heir sold it to Ishri Prasad, the present appellant.4. It must be clearly noted here, that though Bindraban purchased at the auction sale the right, title and interest of his mortgagors, what was sold to Ishri Prasad by the heir of Bal Kishen was the full right of ownership and not the mere right, title and interest of the transferor. An examination of Ishri Prasad's sale-deed makes this clear. That sale-deed was registered. Ishri Prasad's vendor was the full owner of the mortgage of 21st August 1894, was out of the way, but we may assume for the purposes of this appeal that the v...
Moti Ram and ors. Vs. Manday Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.356
1. The plaint, in the suit put of which this appeal arises sets forth that in Kasba. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar,' there are two parties of Jains of the Digambari sect, namely, Vaishya Agarwal 'Bisas (to which the defendants belong) arid Vaishya Agarwal Dasas (to which the plaintiff belongs); that there are five Jain temples, and that all Jains of the Digambari sept; have an equal right to worship in them. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it is alleged that one of these temples is situated in Mohalla Kanungoyan, which was constructed by the plaintiff's ancestors while the rest of, the temples were constructed from the joint subscriptions of the whole brotherhood. In paragraph 3, the plaintiff alleges' that he was the manager of the temple in Mohalla Kanungoyan, Khas, while the defendant No. 1 was the treasurer. In paragraph 4, it is alleged that a' disagreement took place in Kasha Sardhana, and that thereupon the defendants, the Bisas, sought to bring pressure upon the Dasas of Khata...
Emperor Vs. Lalta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All654
George Knox, J.1. A forgery is alleged to have been committed with reference to deed of sale. From the deed it would appear that if a forgery was committed it was committed on or about the 8th of September, 1911. At that time no proceedings were pending with reference to this particular document. The District Magistrate of Bareilly has, by an order, dated the 16th of February, 1912, directed the prosecution of Lalta Prasad for forgery and made the case over to one Mr. Karar Husain, for hearing. An objection is raised to this order based upon Section 195, Clause (c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It is true that the Magistrate has not stated under what Section he has directed the prosecution, but a prosecution for forgery would ordinarily run under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. As I read Section 195, Clause (c), courts are prohibited from taking cognizance of an offence described in Section 463 when such offence has been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court...
Lalta Prosad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.799a
George Knox, J.1. A forgery is alleged to have been committed with reference to a deed of sale. From the deed it would appear that if a forgery was committed, it was committed on or about the 8th of September 1911. At that time, no proceedings were pending with reference to this particular document. The District Magistrate of Bareilly has, by an order, dated the 16th of February 1912, directed the prosecution of Lalta Prasad for forgery and has made the case over to one Mr. Karar Hussain, for hearing. AN objection is raised to this order based upon Section 195, Clause (c) of the Cods of Criminal Procedure.2. It is true that the Magistrate has not stated under what section he has directed the prosecution, bat a prosecution for forgery would ordinarily run under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. As I read Section 195, Clause (c), Courts are prohibited from taking cognizance of an offence described in Section 463 when such offence has been committed by a party to any proceeding in any...
Emperor Vs. Shama Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.1004
1. The appellants, Shama Charan and Jamna Sahai, have been convicted under Section 466 and Shama Charan sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500; Jamna Sahai was sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. Ram Lal was also tried at the same time and convicted and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000. Ram Lal has not appealed but Government has applied in revision for enhancement of sentence in the case of all three. Notice has duly issued to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced and Mr. Satya Chandra Mukerji appeared to show cause on behalf of Shama Charan and Ram Lal, while Mr. Gulzari Lal appears to show cause on behalf of Jamna Sahai.2. On another charge, all three persons were also convicted bat the sentence was limited to one day's simple imprisonment in each case. Jamna Sahai and Shama Charan have appealed from that conviction. We do not think that it was unreasonable not to inflict substanti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »