Allahabad Court April 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.
Ahsanullah Khan Vs. Mansukh Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All211; 25Ind.Cas.350
Piggott, J.1. I have before me a series of connected applications by one Ahsan-ullah Khan arising out of the following' circumstances. Mansukh Ram brought a criminal charge against Ahsanullah Khan and others, alleging commission by them of offences punishable under Sections 427 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. After a very careful trial the accused persons were acquitted. Some two months after the order of acquittal Ahsanullah Khan presented to the Court of the trying Magistrate a Series of applications asking for sanction to prosecute Mansukh Ram and his principal witnesses for the offence of giving false evidence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. In connection with the said prosecution the Magistrate found that one of Mansukh Ram's witnesses had made a statement in support of which he produced, a certain document, and that an examination of that document affords strong reasons for supposing that the statement made by him was false. He sanctioned the prosecution ...
Bidhachal Prasad Rai Vs. Lal Bihari Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.330
Piggott, J.1. In view of the definition of the word 'offence' in the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that a person in respect of whom information has been laid before a Magistrate to the effect that he is likely to commit a breach of the peace or is otherwise liable to the provisions of Section 107 of the Code, is not a person accused of any offence. An order for payment of compensation cannot be made against a man who has petitioned a Magistrate to take action under Section 107 of the Code. The objection is one which should have been taken before the Magistrate when the petitioner, Bindhachal Prasad, was called upon to show cause why the order under Section 250 should not be made against him; but the order complained of being, in my opinion, illegal, I cannot allow it to stand now that it has come before ma in revision. I set aside the order directing Bindhachal Prasad to pay. compensation to each of the four persons in respect, of whom proceedings, under Section 107 of the Co...
Ali Ahmad Vs. Sohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All534; 24Ind.Cas.6
Piggott, J.1. The appellant in this case is the decree-holder in a suit on a mortgage The mortgage was executed in 1893 by one Parsadi Lal, who was at the time the head and manager of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and his sons and he thereby hypothecated a portion of the joint ancestral family property. The suit on the mortgage was brought many years later and a preliminary decree was obtained on the 1st of March 1910, which was followed by a final decree for sale, dated the 10th of December 1910. In the month of February 1912 Parsadi Lal died. On the 7th of March 1912 the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree absolute for sale. Parsadi Lai's sons then came into Court claiming that the property sought to be sold, being joint ancestral family property, was not liable for sale in execution of the decree against Parsadi 'Lai. They laid their case before the Court originally in the form of a separate suit for a declaration : but the matter has been dealt with as an...
Gobind Bao and ors. Vs. Kamta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All376
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by certain judgment-debtors in an execution case. The suit in which the decree in question was passed was a suit for foreclosure on a mortgage by conditional sale, dated the 11th of March, 1877. There was a long array of defendants; but for the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to say that the first defendant was the heir of the original mortgagor, whereas another set of defendants, who are now appellants before us, were the heirs of one Gopal Rao, who acquired by a transfer subsequent to the mortgage of 1877 a portion of the equity of redemption. Before the court in which the suit was instituted the defendants of both these sets pleaded that they were members of an agricultural tribe within the meaning of the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act (Local Act II of 1903). The court held that this was a point to be considered after a preliminary decree for foreclosure had been passed, and such a decree was passed on the 26th o...
Bishrup Vs. Nil Kanth
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All265; 29Ind.Cas.595
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff Bishrup by his guardian, Ram Sarup, seeks to set aside a sale-deed dated the 6th October 1906 and a decree which was subsequently obtained by the defendant for possession of the property, the subject-matter of the sale-deed. It is alleged iu the plaint that Bishrup was at the time of the sale a person of unsound mind incapable of understanding what he was doing; that the defendant fraudulently took advantage of his infirmity and induced him to execute the sale-deed : that no consideration was given : that the property was worth Rs. 10,000, while the a;mount of consideration was only Rs. 5,500. Then follows paragraph 5 of the plaint, which contains allegations which under certain circumstances might have been of considerable importance. It is there alleged that the defendant brought a previous suit on the 4th of May 1909 against Bishrup as a person of sound mind, while he well knew that he was a person of unsound mind, that by f...
Gobind Rao and ors. Vs. Kamta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All177(2); 25Ind.Cas.400
1. This is a second appeal by Certain judgment-debtors in an execution case. The suit in which the decree in question was passed was a suit for foreclosure on a mortgage by conditional sale dated the 11th of March 1877. There was a long array of defendants; but for the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to say that the first defendant was the heir of the original mortgagor, whereas another set of defendants, who are now appellants before us, were the heirs of one Gopal Rao who acquired by a transfer subsequent to the mortgage of 1877 a portion of the equity of redemption. Before the Court in which the suit was instituted the defendants of both these sets pleaded that they were members of an agricultural tribe within the meaning of the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act (Local Act II of 1903). The Court held that this was a point to be considered after a preliminary decree for foreclosure had been passed, and such a decree was passed on the 26th of January 1910. When the decree-holde...
Musammat MaIn a and anr. Vs. Madho Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.105
ORDERTudball, J.1. This application in revision arises out of a suit brought to recover a sum of Rs. 400 principal with Rs. 30 interest by the plaintiff in the Court of Small Causes at Benares against three defendants Madho Prasad, Sita Ram and Raja Ram. The plaintiffs' case was that the sum of Rs. 400 had been deposited with the three defendants who constituted a firm. Raja Ram admitted the plaintiffs' claim, Madho Prasad contested it and Sita Ram was absent. Raja Ram and Sita Ram are own brothers. Madho Prasad is a cousin. As against Raja Ram the Court decreed the claim in full. As against Madho Prasad who contested the suit it held that only half the claim was proved, that only Rs. 200 had been deposited and not Rs. 400 as claimed by the plaintiff. In respect of Sita Ram the Court held that as he was the brother of Raja Ram and the latter had confessed judgment, he was liable with his brother for the amount claimed. As a result the Court gave a decree to the plaintiff for the sum of...
Bahadur Singh Vs. Shiam Sundar Tug
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All365
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the following circumstances: The plaintiff was the registered holder of certain shares in a concern known as the Indian Co-operative Bank, Limited. On the 18th of July, 1911, the plaintiff executed a deed of transfer of the shares to the defendant in consideration of Rs. 500. On the same date the defendant executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff whereby, after reciting that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 500, being the price of the shares transferred to him, he covenanted to pay Rs. 500 with interest at 12 per cent, par annum. The money has not been paid, and the plaintiff instituted the present suit to recover the amount due under the bond. The defendant pleaded, first, that the transfer and the bond were obtained from him by undue influence and, secondly, that there bad been a failure of consideration inasmuch as the company had refused to recognize t...
Gaya DIn Kalwar and ors. and Aisha Bibi and ors. Vs. Balkaran Upadhya ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All370
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by certain defendants in a suit for sale upon a mortgage. The mortgage was one dated the 24th of May, 1893, and it was somewhat peculiar in its provisions. The mortgagors, Bhole Khan and Faulad Khan, were said to be the proprietors of a certain share in a mahal known as that of Bhole Khan in mauza Chak English Zorawar Khan. There was a further recital to the effect that the sir and Khudkasht lands in this mahal were divided by private arrangement amongst the co-sharers and that certain specified plots had been assigned under this arrangement to the mortgagors. The deed purported in the first place simply to mortgage specified plots of sir and Khudkasht land with possession in return for the money advanced as consideration for the deed. There was, however, a stipulation to the effect that, if the mortgagees failed to obtain possession under the deed, or were disturbed in their possession, they were to be entitled to sue the mortg...
Birbal Vs. Kishori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All851(1); 25Ind.Cas.88
1. In disposing of this second appeal we are bound by the findings of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, We take it then that in the month of July 1907, Tilok was the agent of a zemindar named Tara Chand. There was a person named Hanuman Prasad who was indebted to Tara Chand to the extent of Rs. 416-4-0 on two items of account. One of these was a small sum due on account of costs of a certain decree. The other item was one of Rs. 390-4-0 due on account of arrears of revenue which had been paid by Tara Chand on behalf of Hanuman Prasad, Tara Chiuid being lamlardar, Under these circumstances on the 6th of July 1907, Tilok joining with himself his cousin, Chhiddu Lal, entered into a contract of sale with Hanuman Prasad. By this contract the latter purported to transfer certain immoveable property to Tilok and Chhiddu Lal and covenanted that a sum of Rs. 416-4-0 out of the consideration was to be left with the vendees to pay off a debt due from Hanuman Prasad to Tara Chand. The pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »