Allahabad Court November 1915 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.
Jaswant Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All82
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. A point has been taken on behalf of the respondent that the application was not presented within time. Article 179 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation of was months from the date of the decree. Section 12, Clause 2, of the Limitation Act now in force provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an application 'for leave to appeal' the day on which the Judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree shall be excluded. It is admitted that if this provision applies to an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council the application is within time. Prior to the passing of the present Limitation Act, appeals to His Majesty had to be brought within six mouths from the date of the decree and the applicant was not at liberty to exclude any time for the purpose of obtaining a copy...
Ram Sarup and ors. Vs. Jaswant Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All335(2); 31Ind.Cas.906
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. A point has been taken on behalf of the respondent that the application was not presented within time. Article 179 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation of six months from the date of the decree, Section 12, Clause (2), of the Limitation Act (now in force) provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an application for leave to appeal, the day on which the judgment complained of, was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree shall be excluded. It is admitted that if this provision applies to an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, the application is within time. Prior to the passing of the present Limitation Act, appeals to His Majesty had to be brought within six months from the date of the decree and the applicant was not at liberty to exclude any time for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the decree. Under the old Act, thi...
Lal Bahadur Vs. Sital Prasad and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All75
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which one Lal a Lal Bahadur claimed a declaration, of his title to certain property which originally belonged to three brothers, Raja Lal. Ambika Prasad and Munna Lal. The plaintiff's claim was that he was the daughter's son of one Bhawani Sahai, the paternal grand-father of the three persons we have named. It appears that while this suit was pending there was also pending in the Revenue Court proceedings for mutation of names. The application for mutation and the opposition thereto were based on exactly the same considerations as in. the civil suit. On the 23rd of October, 1913, a petition was presented in the revenue matter signed by Lal Bahadur (plaintiff) and Sital Prasad (the contending defendant). This petition set forth that the revenue matter had been compromised in the manner set forth in the petition. The petition goes on to say that Lal Bahadur and Gobind Prasad had agreed to recognize that Sit...
Sital Prasad Vs. Lal Bahadur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All382; 31Ind.Cas.902
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which one Lala Lal Bahadur claimed a declaration of his title to certain property which originally belonged to three brothers, Raja Lai, Ambika Prasad and Munna Lal. The plaintiff's claim was that he was the daughter's son of one Bhawani Sahai, the paternal grandfather of the three persons we have named. It appears that while this suit was pending, there were also pending in the Revenue Court proceedings for mutation of names. The application for mutation and the opposition thereto, were based on exactly the same considerations as in the civil suit. On the 23rd of October 1913, a petition was presented in the revenue matter signed by Lal Bahadur (plaintiff) and Sital Prasad (the contending defendant). This petition set forth that the revenue matter had been compromised in the manner set forth in the petition. The petition goes on to say that Lal Bahadur and Govind Prasad had agreed to recognise that Sital Prasad had a right to three-fourths of the...
Jawahir Mal and ors. Vs. Udai Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All359; 31Ind.Cas.891
1. The question in this and the connected appeal is the same and arises tinder the following circumstances. One Jugal, Kishore was in possession under a usufructuary mortgage dated November 1868. He had also a simple mortgage on the same property. Jugal Kishore brought a suit on foot of the latter mortgage, obtained a decree and purchased the property himself. Later on the defendants, who held a decree against a judgment-creditor of Jugal Kishore, attached the decree held by that judgment-creditor and in execution thereof applied for the attachment of the property of Jugal Kishore. It is admitted that under these circumstances the defendants were in the same position as if they themselves had a decree against Jugal Kishore. There can be no doubt that if they had attached the interest of Jugal Kishore in the property they would have a right to sell all the interest Jugal Kishore had. In other words, they would have been entitled to attach and bring to sale the absolute ownership which h...
Emperor Vs. Kalka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All42
Henry Richards, C.J.1. Kalka Prasad was charged with offences under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 409 and to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 477A, together with a fine of Rs. 4,000, the sentences to run concurrently. Kalka Prasad has appealed, and it has been argued on his behalf that there was a misjoinder of charges, contravening the provisions of Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that (save as therein mentioned) there shall be a separate charge for every offence and that every such charge should be tried separately. The charge in the court below against the accused was that he being the Tahvildar embezzled a sum of Rs. 3,991-7-11, and further that he omitted to enter arzrisals Nos. 1-120 with intent to defraud, and wrote on three of such arzrisals false numbers with like intent. The allegation is that it was his duty when receiving money to take a form ...
Mumtaz Begam Vs. Khetra and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All72
Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. The first question which arises in this appeal is whether the appeal lies to this Court. For the decision of that question we have to determine what was the value of the subject matter of the suit in the court below. If the amount of that value was below Rs. 5,000, the appeal would not He to this. Court but lay to the court of the District Judge. The suit was brought under the following circumstances. The first defendant, who is the appellant here, holds a decree against the second defendant, the husband of the plaintiff respondent. In execution of that decree he caused the property in suit to be attached as the property of his judgement-debtor. An objection was preferred by the plaintiff claiming the property under a sale deed alleged to have been executed in her favour on the 22nd of May, 1912. Her objection having been overruled, she brought the present suit on the 4th of January, 1913, and asked for a declaration that the property in suit '...
Bishambhar Nath and anr. Vs. Har NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All83
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 355 of 1914. It is a suit for partition brought by Bishambhar Nath and Musammat Chiraunji against Har Narain and his son Aniba Prasad. Bishambhar Nath is the brother of Har Naraia, Musammat Chiraunji is the mother of Bishambhar Nath and step-mother of Har Narain. The only point which arises in the appeal is the sharu to which Musammat Chiraunji is entitled upon partition. The defendants contend that she is only entitled to a share out of the share allotted, on partition, to her son. On the other hand, the plaintiffs contend that the property must be divided into three parts, one part should be allotted to Bishambhar Nath, one part to Musammat Chiraunji and a third part to Har Narain. The court below has acceded to the contention of the plaintiffs. The defendants have appealed. Reliance was placed on the case of Hemangini Dasi v. Kedarnath Kundu Chowdhry (1889) I.L.R. 16 Calc. 758. This no doubt...
Nuri Mian Vs. the Ganges Sugar Works, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All243; 32Ind.Cas.360
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The Ganges Sugar Works Company made an application under Schedule II, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure to file an alleged contract to submit to arbitration. The Court of first instance without recording any evidence, or in any way considering the merits of the case, dismissed the application on the sole ground that the alleged contract not being under the seal of the Company was invalid as an agreement to submit to arbitration. The Company appealed and this Court held that the agreement to submit to arbitration did not require to be under the seal of the Company and made an order remanding the case for decision upon the merits. The decision of this Court will be found reported as Ganges Sugar Works, Limited v. Nuri Miah 28 Ind. Cas. 384; 13 A.L.J. 312; 37 A. 273. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the order of this Court is a 'final order' passed on appeal within the meaning of Section 109, Cla...
Mukand Lal Vs. Har Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All70
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. Mukand Lal presented an application in the Revenue Court against Har Prasad alleging that he was entitled to 1/2ths of the recorded property and claiming partition. Har Prasad tiled an objection that Mukand Lal's share was only one-half and the other half belonged to him. This matter having come before the Collector he made an order under Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act requiring Har Prasad to bring a suit in the Civil Court within three months to determine the question. Har Prasad never brought any such suit. He alleges, however, that there was pending in the Civil Court a suit for partition brought by Mukand Lal in respect of non-re venue-paying property, and that it was decided in that suit that they constituted a joint Hindu family and were therefore on partition entitled to all the joint property half and half. After the expiry of three months, when the case again came b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »