Allahabad Court May 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.
Shiam Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.347
Banerji, J.1. Shiam Lal has been convicted under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30. The case has been submitted to this Court by the Additional Sessions Judge with the recommendation that the conviction and sentence be set aside. It appears that a decree was transferred to the Collector by the Civil Court for execution inasmuch as the property to be sold was ancestral property. In the course of the proceedings held in this execution case a Tahsildar, who is an Assistant Collector of the second Class, issued a summons to Shiam Lal to attend his Court in order to enable the Tahsildar to ascertain whether there was any incumbrance on the property ordered to be sold. Shiam Lal did not attend and thereupon he was prosecuted and sentenced as stated above, In order to sustain a conviction under Section 174 it must be shown that the summons issued was issued by a public servant legally competent as such public servant to issue the same and the accused inten...
Ram Sarup Saha Vs. Karam Ullah Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All158(1); 25Ind.Cas.403
1. The only question in this appeal is that of consideration. The consideration according to the sale-deed was Rs. 399. Evidence was given in the Court below to show that the market-value put at the very highest would not amount to Rs. 200. So far as the finding of the lower Appellate Court is a finding of fact as to the consideration, it is binding upon us in second appeal.2. It is argued, however, on behalf of the appellant that as Rs. 399 was actually paid before the Sub-Registrar and inasmuch as there was no evidence that any of this sum was given back, the Court was bound to hold that that was the true consideration. Reliance is placed upon the case of (O'Conor v. Ghulam Haidar 28 A. 617. : 3 A.L.J. 365 : A.W.N. (1906) 155. This ruling is, in our opinion, contrary to a series of rulings of this High Court, and was expressly dissented from in the case of Abdul Majid v. Amolak 29 A. 618 : 4 A.L.J. 531 : A.W.N. (1907) 202. In our opinion when it is alleged that the sale price is fict...
Kedar Nath Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All328; 25Ind.Cas.405
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claims an injunction to restrain the defendants from causing water to flow through the plaintiff's premises. The defence was a right of easement by prescription. It was necessary for the defendants to show that the right of easement claimed had been peaceably and openly enjoyed without interruption for a period of 20 years. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the Court of first instance holding that the defendant had a right of easement. The learned Judge of this Court held that the decision of the lower Appellate Court was a finding of fact and dismissed the appeal.2. No doubt so far as the decision of the lower Appellate Court rested on a finding of fact, it is binding on this Court in second appeal. We find, however, that in the year 1894 the predecessor-in-title of the defendants brought a suit claiming that the flow of the water had been interfered wit...
Dwarka and ors. Vs. Rampat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.235
1. The first point taken in this Letters Patent Appeal is that the decree of the Court below which was affirmed by this Court is not a decree for partition. In our opinion the decree can be read as a preliminary decree for partition. It was so interpreted by the learned Judge of this Court and we have not the least doubt when the case goes back to the Court below it will act accordingly.2. The next point argued was that amongst the items of property there is an occupancy holding and that under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act no suit can be brought for the division of an occupancy holding. This matter is, in our opinion, also covered by the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court. There can be no doubt that a suit for partition of property can be brought even if the family property includes an occupancy holding. It does not at all follow that the Court must necessarily sub-divide the holding in contravention of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The Court can either give the occupancy...
Shams-un-nissa Bibi, Kulsum Bibi Vs. Muhammad Ahsan-ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All456
Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff in the plaint alleged that under the wajib-ul-arz there was a right to pre-empt. There was also a reference made to the ordinary Muhammadan law of preemption. In our opinion the reasonable and fair interpretation of the plaint was that the plaintiff baaed her claim alternatively under custom, contract or Muhammadan law. An extract from the wajib-ul-arz of 1881 was adduced in evidence. If the entry in this document can be accepted as establishing the existence of a custom of pre-emption the plaintiff would be entitled to succeed. If this document could not be accepted as establishing the existence of a custom of pre-emption, it certainly was evidence of an agreement or arrangement between the co-sharers that during She period of the settlement a right of pre-emption should be recognized and enforced between them. The court below finding that there was no reference to pre-emption in an earlie...
Zainab Bibi Vs. Wahid Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All458
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a Muhammadan widow to recover her dower-debt and legal share in the estate of her deceased husband, as also her wearing apparel or its value, which she alleged was retained by the defendants. The suit was brought against her two step-Sons called Wahid Khan and Majid Khan, She stated in her plaint that she was the second wife of Mehrab Khan, to whom she was married some six or seven years ago on a dower of Rs. 500, and that she lived with him until his death, which occurred on the 2nd of November, 1910. After his death her two step sons turned her out of the house, retaining all her personal goods and declining to give her any share in the estate of her deceased husband or to pay her dower-debt. The suit was resisted on various grounds. It was urged in defence that the plaintiff was not the lawfully married wife of Mehrab Khan, bud was his mistress, and that she herself had taken away articles worth Rs. 1,000 ...
Durga Prasad Pande and anr. Vs. Fateh Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All192; (1914)ILR36All451
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This and the connected Appeal No. 257 of 1912 arise out of two pre-emption suits brought by rival pre-emptors to secure property in the village of Khartam Sarai, which was transferred by the defendant, Fateh Bahadur Singh, on the 8th of November, 1910, to the second defendant, Pandit Govind Prasad.2. The appellants in the present appeal are the plaintiffs, Durga Prasad Pande and Ganga Prasad Pande. Their case is that there is a custom of pre-emption prevailing in the village under which they have a right to pre-empt the property sold as against the vendee, Pandit Govind Prasad, who is an entire stranger to the village community. Musammat Adhar Kunwari, the plaintiff in the connected suit, is a co-sharer also in the mahal. She also pleaded the existence of a custom of pre-emption and claimed that she had a right preferential to that of the other plaintiffs, Durga Prasad and Ganga Prasad. Each set of plaintiffs was made a defendant to the other part...
Wahid Khan and anr. Vs. Zainab
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All218; 25Ind.Cas.387
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a Muhammadan widow to recover her dower-debt and legal share in the estate of her deceased husband as also her wearing apparel or its value, which she alleged was retained by the defendants. The suit was brought against her two step-sons called Wahid Khan and Majid Khan. She stated in her plaint that she was the second wife of Mehrab Khan to whom she was married some six or seven years ago on a dower of Rs. 500, and that she lived with him until his death which occurred on the 2nd of November 1910. After his death her two step-sons turned her out of the house retaining all her personal goods and declining to give her any share in the estate of her deceased husband or to pay her dower-debt. The suit was resisted on various grounds. It was urged in defence that the plaintiff was not the lawfully married wife of Mehrab Khan, but was his mistress and that she herself had taken away articles worth Rs. 1,000 from the house when Mehrab Khan died....
Tirkha Vs. Itwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All417; 25Ind.Cas.344
1. In this case one Tirkha was ordered by the Joint Magistrate of Cawn-pur to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 2 of Act XIII of 1859 and at the conclusion of the sentence to work for one and a half month for his employer, Itwari, and also to re-pay his employer Rs. 20, which had been advanced to him.2. It appears that, on November 22nd, 1911, Tirkha took an advance from Itwari and agreed to work for him for twenty months. At the end of about fourteen months he ran away. Itwari complained to the Magistrate under Act XIII of 1859 and on June 19th, 1913, the Magistrate ordered Tirkha to work for six months more. Tirkha worked on and off for four and a half months and then ran away again. Itwari complained to the Magistrate again and on February 9th, 1914, the Magistrate sentenced Tirkha to one month's rigorous imprisonment and ordered him to work' for one and a half month more and also to re-pay the advance. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court w...
Muhammad Ahsan-ullah and ors. Vs. Shams-un-nissa Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.425
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff in the plaint alleged that under the wajib-ul-arz there was a right to pre-empt. There was also a reference made to the ordinary Muhammadan Law of pre-emption. In our opinion the reasonable and fair interpretation of the plaint was that the plaintiff based her claim alternatively under custom, contract or Muhammadan Law. An extract from the wajib-ul-arz of 1881 was adduced in evidence. If the entry in this document can be accepted as establishing the existence of a custom of pre-emption the plaintiff would be entitled to succeed. If this document could not be accepted as establishing the existence of a custom of pre-emption, it certainly was evidence of an agreement or arrangement between the co-sharers that during the period of the settlement a right of pre-emption should be recognised and enforced between them. The Court below, finding that there was no reference to pre-emption in an earlier wajib-ul-arz, and also tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »