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.
Rama and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.682
Tudball, J.1. Certain persons have been convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to pay certain fines. The case has been referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge with the recommendation that the convictions and sentences be set aside and the fines refunded. As far as it is possible to do so from the record, I gather the facts to be more or less as follows: Some officer or other has published an order forbidding the accused, who are Pandas, from going on the Railway Station at Bindhachal except for bona fide purposes of travelling. The record does not show by whom that order was issued and whether he had power to issue it. There is nothing to show that it was issued to the accused personally; apparently it was generally proclaimed. The record shows that the accused went on to the platform and importuned certain pilgrims. The Magistrate has, therefore, held them guilty under Section 188, Indian Penal Code. That section runs...
Prag NaraIn and ors. Vs. Kadir Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All145
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover certain household property situate in the city of Agra. The plaintiffs based their claim on an alleged forfeiture. The acts which the plaintiffs contended constituted a forfeiture were, first, non-payment of rent and secondly, a denial of the plaintiffs' title. So far as non-payment of rent is concerned, the court below has held, and we think rightly, that mere non-payment of rent is not, in itself, sufficient to work a forfeiture of a tenant's interest. The other act was the making of two mortgages. In one of these mortgages the house without the land is mortgaged. In the other mortgage the house as well as the land is mortgaged. The mortgagor states in the mortgage, that he mortgages the house together with the land, which belong to him, without the participation of any other sharers. No further evidence of acts by the lessees denying the plaintiffs' title has been gi...
Chhedi Vs. Muhammad Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All143
Tudball, J.1. In this case one Muhammad Ali made a complaint against the present applicant, Chhedi, charging him with the offence of cheating, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He had prior to that preferred a complaint under Act XIII of 1859, but had withdrawn that complaint and preferred a complaint of cheating. The Magistrate issued process to Chhedi; a date was fixed; evidence of the prosecution witnesses was taken, and then a further date was fixed for their cross-examination. There were a few postponements and the cross-examination did not take place. Then, suddenly, without examining the accused or framing any charge against him or taking any defence, and relying on the statements in chief of the prosecution witnesses, the Magistrate passed an order purporting to be under Act XIII of 1859, to the effect that Chhedi was either at once to repay the advance of Rs. 60 or give security for Rs. 60 with one surety that he would make two pairs of boots every week for Muhammad ...
Prag NaraIn and ors. Vs. Kadir Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.728; ILR(1913)All245
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover certain household property situate in the city of Agra. The plaintiffs based their claim on an alleged forfeiture. The acts, which the plaintiffs contended constituted a forfeiture, were first, non-payment of rent and secondly, a denial of the plaintiffs' title. So far as non-payment of rent is concerned, the Court below has held, and we think rightly, that mere non-payment of rent is not in itself sufficient to work as a forfeiture of a tenant's interest. The other act was the making of two mortgages. In one of these mortgages, the house without the land is mortgaged. In the other mortgage, the house as well as the land is mortgaged. The mortgagor states in the mortgage that he mortgages the house together with the land, which belongs to him, without the participation of any other sharers. No farther evidence of acts by the lessees denying the plaintiffs' title has been given, nor has it been shown that the ...
Chhedi Vs. Mohammad Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.885
Tudball, J.1. In this case, one Muhammad Ali made a complaint against the present applicant Chhedi, charging him with the offence of cheating, under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. He had prior to that preferred a complaint under Act XIII of 1859, but withdrawn that complaint and preferred a complaint of cheating. The Magistrate issued process to Chhedi a date was fixed, evidence of the prosecution witnesses was taken and then a further date was fixed for their cross-examination. There were a few postponements and the cross examination did not take place. Than suddenly without (sic). or framing any charge against him or taking any defence and relying on the statements in chief of the prosecution witnesses, the Magistrate passed an order purporting to be under Act XIII of 1859, to the effect that Chhedi was either at once to pay the advance of Rs. 60 or give security for Rs. 60 with one surety, that he would make two pairs of boots every week for Muhammad Ali, in default of carrying o...
NaraIn Dei Vs. Durga Dei and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All138
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The facts out of which this Letters Patent appeal arises are very clearly stated in the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court. The judgment is reported in 10 A.L.J.R., 97. The suit is to recover, amongst other things, a share in a house by partition, and also for mesne profits. The court of first instance decided in favour of the plaintiff. On first appeal the decision of the court of first instance was reversed so far as the property now in dispute was concerned, on the ground that the claim in respect thereof was barred by the provisions of Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This decision was in due course affirmed by a learned Judge of this Court, and against Ha decision the present Letters Patent appeal has been preferred.2. When the case was before us on a previous occasion we determined that we would consider the evidence in the case without remanding the case and so avoid putting the parties to the expense and delay of ref...
Musammat NaraIn Dei Vs. Musammat Durga Dei and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.246
1. The facts out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises are very clearly stated in the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court. The judgment is reported as Narayan Dei v. Durga Dei 10 A.L.J. 97; 16 Ind. Cas. 489 The suit is to recover amongst other things a share in a house by partition and also for mesne profits. The Court of first instance decided in favour of the plaintiff. On first appeal, the decision of the Court of first instance was reversed, so far as the property now in dispute was concerned, on the ground that the claim in respect thereof was barred by the provisions of Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This decision was in due course affirmed by a learned Judge of this Court, and against his decision the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.2. When the case was before us on a previous occasion, we determined that we would consider the evidence in the case without remanding the case and so avoid putting the parties to the expense and delay of ref...
Emperor Vs. Rama and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All136
Tudball, J.1. Certain persons have been convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to pay certain fines. The case has been referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge with the recommendation that the convictions and sentences be set aside and the fines refunded. As far as it is possible to do so from the record I gather the facts to be more or less as follows: Some officer or other has published an older forbidding the accused, who are pandas, from going on the railway station at Bindhachal except for bond fide purposes of travelling. The record does not show by whom that order was issued and whether he had power to issue it. There is nothing to show that was issued to the accused personally: apparently it was generally proclaimed. The record shows that the accused went on to the platform and importuned certain pilgrims. The Magistrate has therefore held them guilty under Section 188, Indian Penal Code; That section runs as fo...
Sukhbir Singh Vs. Nihal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.232
1. The facts connected with this appeal are as follows. On the 7th of October 1879, one Musammat Jawahir Kunwar made a deed of endowment of certain property. This deed provided that she herself was to be the manager during her life-time. After her death, her husband's brothers were to be the managers. And after them, a member of her husband's family. On the 20th of December 1867, the same lady made a second deed of endowment of other property. In this deed, she stipulated that she should be the manager during her life-time but no further provision was made for the management of the property after her death. On the 21st of May 1898, an elaborate deed was prepared. It set forth that there were no trustees of the property and it appointed some seven persons to be managers and a scheme for the proper administration of the charity was laid down. Amongst the person named as trustees were Lala Nihal Singh, the present plaintiff, Babu Sukhbir Singh, (defendant No. 1), Lala Murli Dhar (defendan...
Rahim Baksh Vs. S.M. Rice
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.708
Chamier, J.1. The appellant is the owner of a house in the Jhansi Cantonment. The respondent occupied the house from October 16th, 1909, till the end of June 1910, and from the beginning of November 1910 till the end of March 1911. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the respondent is liable to pay rent daring the period of his tenancy at the rate of Rs. 75 per mensem as contended by him or at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem as contended by the appellant. The Munsif decided in favour of the appellant. The District Judge decided in favour of the respondent.2. The house was built and became ready for occupation in 1905. A Major Stevens, who was Brigade Major, offered to take the house at a rent of Rs. 100 per mensem but the appellant demanded a higher rent. At the instance of Major Stevens, a notice was issued to the appellant under Section 6 of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1902. The appellant lodged an objection under Section 18 of the Act and a committee of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›