Allahabad Court March 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.
Kirpa Ram Vs. Gita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All256
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun division of 1894. The circumstances leading up to the reference are stated fully in the order and need not be repeated. We are asked to give our opinion as to whether a second appeal lay in this case to the Commissioner and if so, whether his decision is correct. Both parties before us admit that the law is as stated in the reference The main question for decision in the case was whether or not the grant of certain land by Mr, Stowell in 1911 was inconsistent with the general wishes and well-being of the community. The land is admitted to be gauchar, or grazing laud. There is a large quantity of other land in the village, part of which is no doubt available for grazing purposes, but part is not available for such purposes as it consists of ' rocky slopes.' The Assistant Collector seems to have been acquainted with the village in question, but he was not prepared to hold that the gr...
ishwari Singh and ors. Vs. NaraIn Dat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All19; (1914)ILR36All312
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division, 1894, asking us to give our opinion on two points mentioned in the letter of reference. It appears that the plaintiffs in the case sued for a declaration of their title in respect of certain laud, of which they were admittedly not in possession, and in fact it was admitted by them that they had not been in possession of the land in suit for at least seven years prior to the institution of the suit. The claim for the declaration sought was based on Mr. Beckett's settlement. It was resisted on the ground, among others, that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act barred it. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs' claim both on the merits and on the ground that it was barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned Deputy Commissioner accepted the appeal and decreed the claim on the ground of title, ignoring the p...
Raj Kishore Das Vs. Jaint Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All227; (1914)ILR36All387
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a reference under Rule 27 of the rules and orders relating to the Kumaun division. The facts of the ease out of which the reference has arisen are as follows. In the year 1844 one Tula Ram Sub was a Government; treasurer at Almora. The village of mauza Nagar, together with its appurtenant hamlets called Bajera, &c.; was lying waste. At the settlement of that year a farming lease of the same was offered to Tula Ram for a period of twenty years, on payment of a sum of Rs. 3 per annum. Tula Ram appears to have been very unwilling to accept this generous offer of the Government. The completion of the matter was delayed for about two years, until in 1846 he was finally forced to accept a patta and to execute an agreement. In 1851 he executed a will under which he left the whole of his estate without specification of its details to his wife for her life and on her death to her daughter, Musammat Gangotri, for her life with reversion to the temple of ...
Mewa Lal and ors. and Podai Tewari and ors. Vs. Indarpal Singh and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All264
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents for sale upon a mortgage executed on the 6th of September, 1895, by one Amir Singh, his four sons and his wife in favour of Mewa Lal and Lachini Narain, plaintiffs. Prior to the execution of that mortgage another mortgage had been executed in favour of the Akhara Panchaiti in 1883, A suit was brought by the prior mortgagees, and a decree was obtained by them under a compromise to which the present plaintiffs were also parties. After the compromise was made, the plaintiffs, on the 29th of March, 1900, brought a suit on the basis of their mortgage deed for a simple money decree, and they did not seek to enforce their right to bring the mortgaged property to sale. In that suit a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs, but, as the amount of the decree was not paid, the plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to enforce the mortgage. Various...
Emperor Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All262
George Knox, J.1. Rameshwar and two others were arrested by the police, presumably in exercise of powers under either Section 54 or 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the 23rd of June, 1913. They were not produced before the court until the 25th of June 1913. The police upon producing them before the magistrate asked for an order of remand, and that order of remand was granted. So far as the record shows, the order of remand was the usual order passed under Section 167 of the Code. Section 167 does not appear to have been framed for cases in which action is taken under Section 112 of the Code. In any case a magistrate acting under chapter VIII of the Code has no power to act until after he has recorded an order in writing under Section 112. If this case had been properly dealt with, the magistrate should, under Section 112, have made an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received the amount of the host} to he executed, the term for which it was to be ...
indar Mal and ors. Vs. Jagan Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All60; (1914)ILR36All259
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money. The plaintiffs allege in their plaint that they had a shop, and that the defendants had another shop, and that money dealings had taken place for a long time between them, With their plaint they filed a copy of their books, so far as it related to their alleged dealings with the defendants, and from this it would appear that the transactions commenced about the 6th of July, 1908, and the 12th of March, 1909, when sums of money were advanced; that from these dates hundis were, from time to time, given and renewed. Assuming the entries to be correct, they show that hundis were given for the principal sum of Rs. 9,100; that when the time came for a renewal discount or interest was paid, and the hundis were renewed for the same principal amount. Jagan Prasad, defendant, met this by a denial of the plaintiffs right and by a special defence, contained in paragraph 12 of his written statement, in...
Gita Ram and ors. Vs. Kirpa Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All370(1); 24Ind.Cas.111
ORDER1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaon Division of 1894. The circumstances leading up to the reference are stated fully in the order and need not be repeated. We are asked to give our opinion as to whether a second appeal lay in this case to the Commissioner and if so, whether his decision is correct. Both parties before us admit that the law is as stated in the reference. The main question for decision in the case was whether or not the grant of certain land by Mr. Stowell in 1911 was inconsistent with the general wishes and well-being of the community. The land is admitted to be gouchar or grazing land. There is a large quantity of other land in the village, part of which is, no doubt, available for grazing purposes but part is not available for such purposes as it consists of rocky slopes. The Assistant Collector seems to have been acquainted with the village in question, but he was not prepared to hold that the grant of two small pl...
Ram Kirpal Vs. Gaya Dat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All533; 25Ind.Cas.80
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit upon a promissory-note executed by the three defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff very frankly stated in his plaint the circumstances under which this promissory-note came to be executed and the nature of the consideration therefor. The defendants seem to me to have induced the Court below to treat the case throughout as if the suit had been one for the recovery of money independently of the promissory note altogether. The real question in issue on the pleadings was simply whether in view of the circumstances of the case the consideration for which this promissory note was executed was unlawful under the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, IX of 1872. It appears that the defendants were tenants of the plaintiff. The tenant of an occupancy holding within the plaintiff's zemindari died, and the defendants took possession of the holding claiming a right to succeed as heirs of the deceased tenant under Section 22 of the Agra Te...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›