Allahabad Court December 1914 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.
Ram Chandra Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All8; 28Ind.Cas.103
George Knox, J.1. The learned Judge in making this reference appears to have overlooked the provisions of Clause 7 of Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This forbids the composition of an offence being accepted, except as provided by Section 3452. Section 345 specially allows a case in which an appeal is pending to be opened to composition with the leave of the Court before which the appeal is to be heard, but init there is no mention of cases which come up in revision and similarly there is no provision made in Section 439 of the Code as to applying the powers granted in Section 345 to cases in revision. The recommendation of the Judge, therefore, must submit to arrest and complete the sentence imposed upon him when he was convicted.3. Let the record be returned....
Muhammad Wali Khan Vs. Muhammad Mohi-ud-dIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All129(2); (1915)ILR37All124
Henry Richard and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The value of the subject matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises and of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council exceeds Rs. 10,000, but this Court affirmed the decree of the court of first instance. We have, therefore, to see whether the case fulfils the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or is otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The question which is involved in Appeal No. 29 is involved in the proposed appeal. Both appeals arise out of the same suit. To a large extent at least the decree of this Court will be wrong in the event of their Lordships of the Privy Council differing from the view taken by this Court in Appeal No. 29. We think, therefore, under the special circumstances of this case, that we are justified in certifying that the case is 'otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council' and we so certify....
Mangal Sen and ors. Vs. Muhammad HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All115
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Benerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed zamindari dues. They made defendants to the suit a certain muafidar and also two lessees from the muafidar. It is admitted that the zamindars were entitled to dues (though not the amount claimed) from the muafidar. Under the terms of the lease the other defendants, that is to say, the lessees from the muafidar, undertook to pay the zamindari dues. The plaintiffs mainly claimed against the lessees but stated that for the sake of precaution the muafidar was also made a defendant and that if they were not entitled to a decree against the lessees they might have a decree against him. The lessees (the respondents to the present appeal), pleaded, first, that they were not liable to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as they had never entered into any contract with them, and, secondly, that if they were at all liable the dues were not as claimed by the plaintiffs. The court of first in...
Ram Dulari Vs. Balak Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All111; (1915)ILR37All120
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. The first respondent obtained in a Munsif's court a decree against the second respondent, in execution of which, some time before the end of March, 1908, he attached the second respondent's one-sixth share in a house. In September, 1908 while the share was under attachment, she brought a suit in a Subordinate Judge's court against the appellant and others for partition and separate possession of her share, and in March, 1909, she obtained a decree, which was subject to a condition that she should pay Rs. 237 into court. She has never paid in the money, and consequently the decree has not been executed. In July, 1911, the first respondent brought to sale in execution of his decree and purchased himself the specific share allotted to the second respondent by the decree in the partition suit. In February, 1912, he paid Rs. 237 into the court of the Subordinate Judge and immediately afterwards he applied to the Munsif for delivery of possession of the specific sh...
Datti Lal and anr. Vs. Abdul Haq and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All144
Piggott, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are the proprietors of a mahal in village Atarauiya situated on the outskirts of the city of Allahabad. The second defendant, being the owner of a house situated in the plaintiff's mahal, has executed a deed of sale transferring the same to the first defendant. In the suit as originally framed the plaintiffs simply claimed one fourth of the sale price, on the basis of their alleged customary rights as proprietors of the soil. The plaint was subsequently amended so as to claim another relief in the alternative. This was that the defendants should be ordered to remove the materials of the house within a time to be fixed by the court and that the plaintiffs should thereupon 'be put in proprietary possession of the site in question together with the kachcha-built walls.' I think it worth while to lay stress at the outset on two points regarding the frame of the plaint. One is that the second relief is claimed only in the alternative, in case the fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›