Allahabad Court December 1913 Judgments
Bashir HusaIn Vs. Ali HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1913
Reported in: AIR1914All150; (1914)ILR36All166
Knox and Tudball, JJ.1. In this case the accused came first before the Court of Thakur Hanuman Singh, who at the time was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Amroha. Thakur Hanuman Singh took cognizance of the case and then transferred it for trial to Babu Bir Narain Singh, a magistrate subordinate to him. Before Babu Bir Narain Singh could try the case he was transferred. There is no formal older on the record, but we are told that on Babu Bir Narain Singh's transfer the District Magistrate, under an order dated the 30th of November, 1912, transferred all cases pending before the court of Babu Bir Narain Singh, which had ceased to exist, to the court of Mr. Panna Lal, who at the time was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Amroha. Among the cases so transferred was the present case. Mr. Panna Lal in an explanation furnished by him says that as the case was a petty one he transferred is for trial to Chaudhri Dharam Singh, Special Magistrate of Kanth, and a magistrate subordinate to the Sub-D...
Tag this Judgment!Hashmat Bibi Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All65
Ryves and Piggott JJ.1. These are three connected appeals arising out of insolvency proceedings. Karim Bakhsh applied to the District Judge of Jaunpur on the 28th of August, 1912, for an order adjudicating him an insolvent. While the application was under inquiry the District Judge received information on the strength of which he came to the conclusion that Karim Bakhsh had failed to disclose, or was attempting to conceal, certain immovable property belonging to him. He accordingly passed an order under Section 13 (3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act for the attachment of the said property, viz. shares in a tiled house and courtyard and in certain trees, a zamindari share and a portion of a fixed rate holding, as being property in the possession or under the control of Karim Bakhsh. This wag on the 4th of February, 1913. On the 8th of February, 1913, an order adjudicating Karim Bakhsh to be an insolvent was passed and a receiver was appointed. On the 12th of February, 1913, two persons...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Manorath Singh and ors. Vs. Dilraji Kunwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: AIR1914All169; (1914)ILR36All146
Tudball and Ryves, JJ.1. The plaintiffs appellants brought a suit in the court below for a declaration in the following circumstances. The defendant, Musammat Dilraji Kunwari, is the widow of one Sohrat Singh. The plaintiffs' case is that Babu Sohrat Singh and they themselves were members of a joint Hindu family; that Sohrat Singh died while he was joint; that his widow Dilraji Kunwari applied for mutation of names in her own favour in respect of that property which stood in the name of Sohrat Singh; that her application was contested; that the parties came to a compromise, dated the 19th of May. 1905, which was duly registered, under which Dilraji Kunwari's name was recorded in the place of that of her husband's, and that on an application for partition having been made by a co-sharer in one of the villages Musammat Dilraji Kunwari also applied for partition of the share which stood in her name. The plaintiffs objected to her application on the ground that she was not entitled to part...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Kunwar Vs. Shankar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: AIR1914All42; (1914)ILR36All123
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 302 of 1911 arise out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 5th of September, 1881. It appears that there had been a prior mortgage, dated the 14th of January, 1879. On foot of this prior mortgage a suit was brought and a decree obtained and the property put up to sale some time about the year 1896. To that suit the mortgagee in the mortgage of 1881 was not made a party, and the substantial question in the present appeal is as to the proper order that should now be made. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the mortgagee in the mortgage of 1881 should be entitled to call upon the purchaser to account for the profits from the year 1896 up to the present time, and that if this was done it would be found that the mortgage of the 14th of January, 1879, had been discharged so far as it affected the property which is sought to sell in the present suit. On the other hand, it is contended by...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kharga
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All147
Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Magistrate of Cawnpore, purporting to have been passed under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to proceedings taken against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code. The facts of the case are simple. Proceedings were instituted against Kharga and he was called upon to show cause why he should not give security for his good behaviour. The Magistrate before whom he appeared inquired into the matter and, after recording the evidence, discharged him. The District Magistrate examined the record and directed further inquiry. This was made by another Magistrate who after recording evidence, held that there was no necessity to bind over the man to be of good behaviour. The District Magistrate, without issuing any notice to Kharga, has again sent for the record and has again directed further inquiry.2. We note here that at the second of the two above inquiries the Magistrate d...
Tag this Judgment!Jagarnath Sahi Vs. Kamta Prasad Upadhya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All77
Ryves and Piggott, JJ.1. The appellants before us were defendants in a suit in which an ex parte decree was passed on the 12th of August, 1911. They applied in due course under order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to have the ex parte decree set aside. Under circumstances with which we are not now concerned this application only came up for disposal before the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, on the 31st of March, 1913. After evidence had been taken the learned Subordinate Judge expressed himself as satisfied that the applicants had shown-sufficient cause for having the ex parte decree set aside. He then passed an order the first portion of which formally allows the application, sets aside the ex parte decree and directs the suit to be restored to its original number for re-trial. To this, however, the following direction was appended, ' but the order of restoration will be subject to the payment of Rs. 15 as damages by the applicant within three days to the plaintiff,' The learned Su...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Bahadur Vs. Ganga Bakhsh Sihgh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All101
1. The question in this appeal was as to the construction of a codicil to the will of the Into Maharaja of Balrampur who was a Hindu of the caste, by which he purported to make provision for J. B. his son by a Muhammadan mistress, who, as held by the Courts below, was by birth a Muhammadan, He afterwards, however, became as far as was possible a Hindu. The appellant (plaintiff) was the eldest son of J. B. by a Muhammadan woman, and the second, third and fourth respondents were his brothers, and there were concurrent findings of both Courts in India that there was no valid marriage between J. B. and their mother and that they wore consequently illegitimate. The first respondent was the son of J. B. by a Hindu lady of the caste with whom he had admit tadly gone through a marriage according to the strict Hindu rites; and when that lady died his father got him married to another lady of the same caste. On the death of J. B. in 1899 the first respondent obtained possession of the property i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Lochan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All143
Ryves, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order purporting to have been passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Azamgarh, dated the 3rd of July, 1913. The facts of this case are somewhat peculiar, and, so far as I know, are not covered by any of the very numerous rulings which have been reported under the section. There is a market in the town of Kopaganj in the district of Azamgarh on land which belongs to Musammat Dhan Debi, a lady who resides in Benares. The police reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that a breach of the peace was likely to-take place between some of the servants of Musammat Dhan Debi and one Rameshwar, who had been appointed chaudhri of the market, about the collection of certain dues. The Magistrate instituted proceedings under Section 107. He examined the Inspector as a witness, and on that officer deposing that the servants of Musammat Dhan Debi claimed to collect these dues as part of the...
Tag this Judgment!Partab Singh and ors. Vs. Daulat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All63
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. We think, having regard to the fact that the appellants could not have maintained the suit as against the vendees had they instituted the suit themselves, they cannot take advantage of the fact that their father at the time of the suit had a preferential right as against the vendees on the ground that he was a nearer relation. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prasad and ors. Vs. Ram Jag and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1913
Reported in: AIR1914All356; (1914)ILR36All60
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale in respect of which the plaintiffs brought their suit took place on the 2nd of May, 1910. The suit was instituted on the 2nd of May, 1911. On the 4th of May, 1911, the vendee re-sold the property to Kamta Prasad the appellant. For the purposes of the present appeal it must. be assumed that a custom of pre-emption as set forth in the plaint (paragraph 2) prevails in the mahal in which the property is situated. The original vendee was a stranger. The plaintiff is a co-sharer with the vendor, but the appellant, Kamta Prasad, is not only a co-sharer but a relative. We must take it, therefore, that Kamta Prasad had a superior right of preemption at the time of the sale over the plaintiffs. The real question in the appeal is whether or not the mere fact that the property was resold to Kamta Prasad on the 4th of May, 1911, defeats the right of the plaintiffs to preempt this property.2. We think t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »