Allahabad Court December 1915 Judgments
NaraIn Das and anr. Vs. Musammat Dhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All366; (1916)ILR39All154
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by Suraj Bhan, a minor, through his guardian and next friend, for possession of a house. It is stated in the plaint that Musammat Radha was the owner of the house and jointly with the defendant and Musammat Jeoni, now deceased, sold it to the plaintiff 'through his father and guardian Narain Das 'under a sale-deed, dated the 1st of April, 1912; that out of the amount of consideration for the sale they received Rs. 51 as earnest money; that they refused to have the sale-deed registered, but the plaintiff got it compulsorily registered; that Musammat Radha and Jeoni are dead and the defendant is in possession of the house; that the plaintiff repeatedly asked the defendant to receive the balance of consideration money, but the latter refused to take it and has withheld possession, lb is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration and it is prayed that it be cause...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Das and ors. Vs. Musammat Dhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.23
P.C. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by Suraj Bhan, a minor, through his guardian and next friend for possession of a house. It is stated in the plaint that Musammat Radha was the owner of the house and jointly with the defendant and Musammat Jeoni, now deceased, sold it to the plaintiff through his father and guardian Narain Das' under a sale-deed dated the 1st of April 1912; that out of the amount of consideration for the sale they received Rs. 51 as earnest money; that they refused to have the sale-deed registered but the plaintiff got it compulsorily registered; that Musammat Radha and Jeoni are dead and the defendant is in possession of the house; that the plaintiff repeatedly asked the defendant to receive the balance of consideration money, but that the latter refused, to take it and has withheld possession. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration and it is prayed that it be caused to be ...
Tag this Judgment!The Ganges Sugar Works Limited Vs. Nuri Miah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All150
Henry Richards, C.J., Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The Granges 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 in I.L.R. 37 Allahadad, at page 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 10D, ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gobind Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All134
Tudball and Walsh, JJ.1. The facts before us are as follows: The applicant Gobind Sahai was called upon by a Magistrate of the first class to show cause why he should not be bound over to be of good behaviour. An order was passed against him and he was directed to furnish security. He appealed to the District Magistrate, but his appeal was dismissed. He then applied in revision to this Court on the 26th of June, 1915. On the 2nd of July, 1915, Mr. Justice Banerji sitting singly, after hearing counsel on his behalf, passed an order rejecting the application. That order was signed by Mr. Justice Banerji, but; was not sealed. On the 6th of September, 1915, the applicant presented an application to the learned Chief Justice on which the following order was passed: 'Lay before Mr. Justice Banerji and let this man be informed of the date fixed for hearing.' On the 10th of November, 1915, Mr. Justice Banerji passed an order referring the question to this Court as to whether or not an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rab Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All294; 32Ind.Cas.656
Piggott, J.1. The appellant, Abdul Rab was a Police constable employed at Police station Man, in the Azamgarh District. He fell out with another constable of the name of Ram Raj, and the latter gave information to the Circle Inspector accusing Abdul Rab of having been concerned in various malpractices. There was an inquiry, with the result that a Magistrate committed Abdul Rab for trial before the Court of Session on two specific charges, each framed under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted Abdul Rab on one of these charges as framed; but with reference to the other has used the powers conferred on the Court by Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to record a conviction for an offence of extortion punishable under Section 384, Indian Penal Code. When a Court finds it necessary to make use of the section above referred to in order to convict an accused person of an offence with which he has not been charged, I think it should be particularl...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Risal Singh and ors. Vs. Balwant Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.194
1. In this application the applicant seeks in effect that the decree, of this Court should now be amended by disallowing a certain sum for costs, on., the ground that the payment of the fee was not authenticated in the manner provided by Rule 22, Chapter XVI, of the High: Court's Rules. It is alleged that it was necessary that there should be an affidavit made by 'the party' or his agent, which ever of them made the payment, and that such an affidavit is absent. There is an affidavit on the file in which the agent of the party states that the payment was made and how, it was made. In this affidavit it is stated that the payment was made by means of a cheque of Dr. Suresh Chander Banerji. The natural inference to be drawn from the words of the affidavit is that the agent who made the affidavit got the cheque and brought it to the Pleader. This, it seems to us, is a sufficient compliance with the rule. There is, however, a further objection to the present application, namely, that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sarju and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All314; 32Ind.Cas.667
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The two accused in this case have been convicted of theft of certain crops. The allegation of the complainant Was that the crops were sown by him and that the accused had wrongfully cut them. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the crops were not sown by the complainant, Mahabir, and that they were sown by the accused. Under this circumstance the crops being the property of the accused, the cutting down of these crops by them could not constitute the offence of theft. The learned Sessions Judge thinks that because an order was made in favour of Mahabir under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be deemed to have been in possession of the crops. This view is not, in my opinion, correct. Besides even if he be deemed to have been in possession of the fields he was clearly not in possession of the crops and, therefore, the accused were not guilty of the offence of theft. I accordingly set aside the conviction of the accused, acquit them of the off...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Ram and anr. Vs. Basdeo Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All178
Tudball and Walsh, JJ.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are briefly as follows: The father of the defendant appellant Basdeo Rai, who is now a minor, gave the plaintiffs permission to build a gola or market place on a certain plot of land, on the latter agreeing to pay him Rs. 6 annually as ground-rent for the same. The plaintiffs thereupon built the gola, but very shortly afterwards a dispute arose between the parties. The defendant's father interfered with the collection of the income of the gola and finally the plaintiffs were dispossessed towards the end of April, 1913. They brought the present suit for possession and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the construction of the gola, and collection of the income thereof. It is evident from the plaint itself that the construction of the gola had not been finished when the dispute arose. The courts below have decreed the plaintiffs', suit for possession and injunction. The defen...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Qasim and ors. Vs. Sri Mahant Sheo Ling Swami Jangam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All153; 32Ind.Cas.192
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 5,000 and interest thereon as haqqi-chaha rum in respect of a transaction entered into between the defendants Nos.1 to, 3 on the one part and the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 on the other. On the 5th of February 1910, the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 executed in favour of the other defendants a deed of usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 20,000 in respect of a house. The plaintiff who is the landlord of the site of the house, states that the transaction was in reality a sale and not a mortgage and that he is entitled to 1/4th of the amount of consideration, according to the terms of a kabuliat executed by the parson who originally took the site for building purposes and also according to custom. The Court below has found against the plaintiff on the question of custom but it has held that the transaction was a sale. According to the terms of the kabuliat on which the plaintiff relies, zar-i-chaharum is payable in the case o...
Tag this Judgment!Basdeo Rai Vs. Dwarka Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All219; 32Ind.Cas.346
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are briefly as follows. The father of the defendant-appellant Basdeo Rai, who is now a minor, gave the plaintiffs permission to build a gola or a market place on a certain plot of land on the latter agreeing to pay him Its. 6 annually as ground-rent for the same. The plaintiffs thereupon built the gola, but very shortly afterwards a dispute arose between the parties. The defendant's father Interfered with the collection of the income of the gola and finally the plaintiffs were dispossessed towards the end of April 1913. They brought the present suit for possession and injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the construction of the gola and collection of the income thereof. It is evident from the plaint itself that the construction of the gola had not been finished when the dispute arose. The Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' suit for possession and injunction. The defendant comes here oh second appe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »