Allahabad Court January 1913 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.
Kalyan Mal Vs. Samand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1913
Reported in: AIR1914All375; (1913)ILR35All157
Tudball, J.1. This application for revision arises out of the following circumstances: One Abdul Rahman was a zamindar of, plot No 1381, which is involved in the present suit. He cultivated it as his sir land. On the 11th of May, 1892, he gave a usufructuary mortgage to the predecessors in title of the present defendants. In 1897 Abdul Rahman's proprietary rights were sold in execution of a decree and purchased by Kalyan Mal. Subsequently to this the heirs of Abdul Rahman were recorded in the patwari's papers as exproprietary tenants of that plot. The mortgagees under the deed of the 11th of May, 1892, were recorded as mortgagees of the exproprietary tenure. Kalyan Mal brought a suit against the heirs of Abdul Rahman for the rent of this plot and obtained a decree, and the formality of ejectment was gone through, on the 27th of December, 1910. As a matter of fact the mortgagees remained in possession and were no parties whatever to the proceedings in the Revenue Court taken by Kalyan M...
Abdul Hamid Khan Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All156; 18Ind.Cas.282
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Allahabad. The plaintiff, who is the applicant here, is a lessee of a ferry from the Cantonment Committee of Allahabad. The defendants are fishermen, who, according to the plaintiff, are landing their fish on the river bank where his ferry is situate. He claims that as lessee of the ferry he is entitled to a fixed toll of Rs. 8 per boat. The suit was instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Allahabad, and the Judge of that court has held that he had no jurisdiction, as the suit is one which falls under Article 13 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff comes here in revision and urges that the suit is cognizable by the court below. Article 13 contemplates a suit to enforce payment of dues when such dues are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immovable property and the question is whether the plaintiff by reason of his lease o...
Kalyan Mal Vs. Samad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.244
Tudball, J.1. One Abdul Rahman was a zemindar of plot No. 1381, which is involved in the present suit. He cultivated it as his sir land. On the 11th of May 1892, he gave a usufructuary mortgage to the predecessors in-title of the present defendants. In 1897, Abdul Rahman's proprietary rights were sold in execution of a decree and purchased by Kalian Mal. Subsequently to this, the heirs of Abdul Rahman were recorded in the patwari's papers as ex-proprietary tenants of that plot. The mortgagees under the deed of the 11th of May 1892 were recorded as mortgagees of the exproprietary tenure.2. Kalian Mal brought a suit against the heirs of Abdul Rahman for the rent of this plot and obtained a decree and the formality of ejectment was gone through on the 27th of December 1910. As a matter of fact, the mortgagees remained in possession and were no parties whatever to the proceedings in the Revenue Court taken by Kalian Mal. The present suit out of which this application has arisen was brought...
Emperor Vs. Tulsi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All154
Tudball, J.1. The appellants in this case were connoted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Aligarh, some of them of offences under Sections 304 and 147 and some of them under Sections 325 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Of these, two persons, Tulsi Ram and Chotey Lal, were each sentenced to four years' rigorous. imprisonment under Section 304 and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, the two sentences to run concurrently.2. These two have filed their appeals here, and the question arises whether these appeals have been rightly filed, in this Court or whether they lay to the court of the Sessions Judge. Section 408 says that when in any case an Assistant Sessions Judge passes any sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding four years, the appeal shall lie to the High Court. This is in Clause (6) of the proviso; otherwise under the opening clause of the section an appeal would lie to the Court of Session. It has been urged that under Section 35(3) and Section 408 the to...
Shami Nath Sahi and ors. Vs. Lalji Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.251
1. Udit Narain Chaube died several years ago leaving a widow, Musammat Rukmina and two sons, Lalji Chaube and Gopal Chaube, respondents to this appeal. Both sons were minors when their father died. Mutation of names seems to have been effected in favour of the widow as well as the two sons. But it is common ground that the two sons only succeeded to the property with which we are now concerned, namely, a 5-anna 4-pies share in a village called Koelaswa. In September 1690, the widow was appointed by the Court to be the guardian of her two sons and in the following year, she obtained from the District Judge permission to sell half the share in the village. No action, seems to have been taken on that permission. On February 10th, 1906, the widow and the elder son Gopal, who had attained majority, sold a 2-anna 3-pies 13 1/2 chitaks share to the appellants for a stated consideration of Rs. 5,774. The younger son Lalji who alleges that he came of age less than three years before this suit w...
Tulsi Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.679
Tudball, J.1. The appellants in this case were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Aligarh some of them of offences under Sections 304 and 147 and some of them under Sections 325 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Of these, two persons, Tulsi Ram and Chotey Lal, were each sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304, and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, the two sentences to run concurrently. These two have filed their appeals here, and the question arises whether these appeals have been rightly filed in this Court or whether they lay to the Court of the Sessions Judge. Section 408 says that when in any case an Assistant Sessions Judge passes any sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding four years, the appeal shall lie to the High Court. This is in Clause (6) of the proviso; otherwise under the opening clause of the section, an appeal would lie to the Court of Session. It has been urged that under Section 35 and Section 408(3), the tot...
Basant Lal Vs. Chhidammi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All149
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. The suit of the appellant has been dismissed by the court below on the ground that it is barred by Article 91 of the first schedule to the Limitation Act. The view taken by the Subordinate Judge is that the suit is one to cancel or set aside an instrument and that time began to run against the appellant more than three years before the suit was brought. On examining the plaint we find that the suit is not one to cancel or set aside an instrument. The appellant has asked for a declaration in effect that the first defendant whose name appears as lessee in a certain lease has no interest under the lease and that the person really interested under the lease is the appellant for whom the first defendant acted as benamidar. It seems to us that the suit is governed by Article 120 and that the cause of action accrued to the appellant when his position as a lessee was challenged by the first defendant. We allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the court belo...
inamul Haq Vs. Faizul Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.268
1. This matter cornea before us under the Legal Practitioners Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that Faizul Hasan, a Pleader, was engaged by him in a certain case before the Munsif of Deoband, that he received instructions from or on behalf of the petitioner and got possession of certain documents, that subsequently Faizul Hasan accepted a vakalatnama from the defendants and that although Faizul Hasan afterwards withdrew from both sides, the result of his action was that the petitioner's secrets were disclosed to, and his evidence got into the hands of and was made use of by, the opposite side. The Munsif inquired into the matter at the time and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not shown that these documents had ever been in the hands of Faizul Hasan or that he had disclosed the evidence or secrets of the plaintiff to the opposite side. We have heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and he has referred us to the evidence in support of the charge he bring...
NaraIn Das and anr. Vs. Prohit Basant Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.449
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed the sum of Rs. 6,000. This sum of Rs. 6,000 was made up in the following way. The plaintiffs had sold to the defendants certain mortgagee rights in consideration of the sum of Rs. 8,000. Of this Rs. 8,000, Rs. 4,750 was left with the defendants for payment of certain debts due by the plaintiffs. One debt was a sum of Rs. 1,375 to a creditor called Lala Baij Nath. A second sum was Rs. 1,375 to be paid to one Sahu Parshadi Lal. The third was a sum of Rs. 2,000 left for payment to miscellaneous creditors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants never paid the sum of Rs. 4,750 to the creditors, and that as a consequence the plaintiffs suffered a loss of Rs. 1,250. They claimed, therefore, Rs. 4,750, the balance of the unpaid purchase money, and Rs. 1,250 damages.2. The Court below has found, and we entirely agree with the finding, that the defendants neglected to pay the money left in their hands in the manner provided ...
Basant Lal Vs. Chidammi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.698
1. The suit of the appellant has been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that it is barred by Article 91 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act. The view taken by the Subordinate Judge is that the suit is one to cancel or set aside an instrument and that time began to run against the appellant more than three years before the suit was brought. On examining the plaint, we find that the suit is not one to cancel or set aside an instrument. The appellant has asked for a declaration in effect that the first defendant whose name appears as lessee in a certain lease has no interest under the lease and that the person really interested under the lease is the appellant for whom the first defendant acted as benamidar. It seems to us that the suit is governed by Article 120 and that the cause of action accrued to the appellant when his position as a lessee was challenged by the first defendant. We allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remind the case to that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »