Allahabad Court December 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.
Abdul Aziz Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All63; 32Ind.Cas.151
Piggott, J.1. The appellant Abdul Aziz has been convicted on charges framed under Sections 409 and 467, Indian Penal Code, in connection with a fraud perpetrated at the City Post Office of Barreilly where the appellant was at the time serving as Head Clerk. That a fraud was committed and committed by the aid of forgery is proved beyond doubt and I need not recapitulate the details given in the careful and well considered judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The fraud was rendered, practicable by a practice which had been permitted to grow up in contravention of departmental rules. The Sub-Postmaster is ordinarily in charge of the Savings Bank rack in an office of this class, but he has been permitted to delegate his responsibility to the Head Clerk for three hours every day during his absence from duty. Assuming that the Post Office can secure the right class of men for the post of Head Clerk there would be no particular objection to this, provided the matter were so arranged that t...
Ham NaraIn Vs. Jagannath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.184
1. The plaintiff Jagan Nath is the son of one Sheo Dayal, who had a brother named Mata Din. The defendants are the sons and grandsons of Mata Din. The appellant Ram Narain applied to the Revenue Court for a partition of his 1/10th share in the village Upon notice being issued to the recorded co-sharers, the plaintiff Jagan Nath raised an objection to the effect that the village had already been privately partitioned, that a definite portion of it had been allotted to his share, and that that portion could not be partitioned again. He thus raised a question of proprietary title and the Revenue Court was competent, under the provisions of Section 112 of the Land Revenue Act either to try the question itself or to refer the parties to the Civil Court It elected to adopt the latter course and directed the plaintiff to bring a Suit in the Civil Court to have a question of title raised by him determined. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, and the pr...
Janu Bhar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All298; 32Ind.Cas.662
Piggott, J.1. This is an application for revision by one Janu Bhar, who has been convicted of an offence under Section 24 of the Criminal Tribes Act, III of 1911, and whose appeal against his conviction and sentence has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge.2. As a matter of fact two men Janu and Banu were tried together and the irregularities which I am about to notice were committed at the trial of both of them. I propose, however, to distinguish between the cases of the two men and to confine my interference to the case of Janu. Banu did not appeal to the Court of the Sessions Judge and the statement made by him in the Magistrate's Court shows that he had no real defence. On that statement alone it would appear that a charge could have been framed and a conviction recorded under Section 22, if not under Section 24, of the Criminal Tribes Act. Dealing with the matter, therefore, as if Janu had been the only person on his trial, I note as follows.3. The Magistrate took up the case on t...
Masiti Vs. Haidar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All8; 33Ind.Cas.810
Rafique, J.1. The parties to this appeal are brother and sister and the dispute between them relates to their ancestral house. It appears that their father Raza Husain, who was the proprietor of the house, died long ago leaving him surviving two sons, a daughter and a widow. One of the sons, namely, Ahmad Hasan executed a deed of sale in favour of his sister Musammat Masiti, the plaintiff-appellant in the present case, in respect of his share in the ancestral house. Musammat Majidan, the mother of the parties, died some time ago, and Musammat Masiti inherited one siham out of the five sihams from her mother. Ahmad Hasan who had inherited two sihams from his mother died after her and 1/3rd siham went to the plaintiff-appellant. In this way the latter obtained 22 1/3 sihams out of 40 sihams in the house. She instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen in the Court of the Munsif of Saharanpur on the 16th of December 1911, for a declaration that she was entitled to 22 1/3 siham...
Jadubansi Kunwar and ors. Vs. Mahpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All111
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immovable property. The property originally belonged to one Rampal Singh. He was succeeded by his widow, Musaramat Zamira. Rampal left four daughters, Musammat Raghubansi Kunwar, Musammat Jadubansi Kunwar, Shyam Rani Kunwar and Bahuria Brij Raj Kunwar. The present suit was instituted by Bahuria Brij Raj Kunwar. She alleged herself to be entitled to the property upon the death of her mother, to the exclusion of her sisters, because she was unmarried whilst the others were married. She made her sisters pro formed defendants. Whilst the suit was pending she died, and thereupon an application was made by the surviving sisters that their names should be changed from the array of defendants to that of plaintiffs. The application was granted, apparently without any opposition on the part of the defendants. The evidence was taken, but on the case coming up for decision it was contended by the defen...
Jadubansi Kuer Alias Gulab Koer and ors. Vs. Mahpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All34; 32Ind.Cas.104
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immoveable property. The property originally belonged to one Rampal Singh. He was succeeded by his widow Musammat Zamira. Rampal left four daughters (Musammat Raghubansi Kunwar, Musammat Jadubansi Kunwar, Shyam Rani Kunwar and Bahuria Brij Raj Kunwar). The present suit was instituted by Bahuria Brij Raj Kunwar. She alleged herself to be entitled to the property upon the death of her mother to the exclusion of her sisters, because she was unmarried whilst the others were married. She made her sisters pro forma defendants. Whilst the suit was pending she died, and thereupon an application was made by the surviving sisters that their names should be changed from the array of defendants to that of plaintiffs. The application was granted apparently without any opposition on the part of the defendants. The evidence was taken but on the case coming up for decision and during the course of the arguments, it was contended by the defendants t...
Rahmatullah Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All97; 32Ind.Cas.157
Piggott, J.1. The essential facts connected with this application for revision are simple The applicant Rahmatullah was sent up for trial on a charge under Section 295, Indian Penal Code, and in the course of his trial evidence was given against him by a Sub-Inspector of Police of the name of Jaigobind Pershad. His defence was that a false case had been got up against him and that the Sub-Inspector had lent himself to the prosecution knowing it to be false. He gave certain reasons for the alleged conduct of the Sob-Inspector--reasons which involve specific allegations of fact. The Sub-Inspector in the witness-box denied the existence of the facts thus alleged. The trying Magistrate came to the conclusion that the charge against Rahmatullah was not proved. He seems to have thought that a false case had been brought against the man and with regard to the matters of fact as to which the Sub-Inspector had been cross-examined he recorded his opinion that the Sub-inspector had not spoken the...
Fatmatus Sughra Begam Vs. Mariamunnisa Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All6; 32Ind.Cas.49
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff alleges that on the 27th of April 1908, she agreed with one Musammat Najmunnisa for the purchase of a village called Dunka. It is alleged that the price was Rs. 5,110, that Rs. 4,500 was paid as earnest money at once and that the balance was paid on the 18th of June 1908. It is alleged that Najmunnisa never completed the sale but shortly before her death made a gift of the property in favour of her daughter. The plaintiff claims proprietary possession of the property and in the alternative a refund of the purchase-money. The Court below has held that the suit is barred by limitation and farther that the alleged payments are fictitious. On these findings the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff appeals.2. It seems to as that on the allegations contained in the plaint the only relief which the plaintiff was entitled to (had the suit been brought within time) was a decree for specific performance or a return of the purchase-money. Th...
Dat Prasad Singh Vs. Gopal Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All124; 34Ind.Cas.234
1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-respondents, as tenants of a certain holding, are bound to pay to the defendant-appellant an annual rent of Rs. 180 or of Rs. 200. It is clearly established that in the year 1907 the present defendant was taking steps for the ejectment of these plaintiffs from their holding. A compromise was arrived at, under which the zemindar consented to drop the ejectment proceedings, thereby allowing the tenants to acquire occupancy rights, and the latter agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 200, instead of Rs. 180, per annum. The compromise embodying the above terms was endorsed upon a paper bearing a general stamp of Re. 0-8-0, but the document was not registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act of 1877. It was filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector who was conducting the ejectment proceedings. That officer proceeded to dismiss the ejectment suit accordingly, but has not framed his decree so as to em...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›