Allahabad Court February 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.
Nathu Mal Vs. Kishori Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All69; 28Ind.Cas.886
1. This appeal arises out of the same suit as Raghunath Das v. Kishen Lal 28 Ind. Cas. 854. In that suit a decree was made against the appellant here (Lala Nathu Mal) ordering him to file accounts. The Court below has found a considerable sum as being due by him. It is contended on his behalf in the first instance that it was not competent to the Court, having regard to the fact that the suit was brought under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to make a decree against him for an account. He contends that lie is not and was not a trustee, and that, therefore, an independent suit was necessary against him to establish his liability. We find, however, on looking at the plaint in Suit No. 4 of 1913 that in paragraph 7 the clearest allegations are made against Nathu Mal that lie was a trustee and that he entered into possession of the property as such and misappropriated it. Nathu Mal put in no written statement and he never appealed against the decree ordering hi...
Emperor Vs. Zahir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All283
Tudball, J.1. This application in revision arises out of the following facts. One Tika Ram obtained a sanction on the 3rd of March, 1913, to prosecute Zahir Singh and certain others for offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. An appeal was filed against the order granting sanction, which was dismissed on the 10th of June, 1913. On the 15th of July, 1913, Tika Ram filed a complaint against those three persons. Proceedings in the case were suspended pending the decision of an application in revision to this Court. That application was rejected on the 21st of January, 1914. Tika Ram then waited, practically for four months, until the 15th of May, 1914, when he went into court and asked that his complaint might be taken up and decided. His application was granted and the case came up for hearing at the end of a little over three months, on the 20th of August, 1914. Tika Ram did not appear and the accused were discharged. After the order of discharge had been made Tika...
Emperor Vs. Abdur Razzak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All286
George Knox, J.1. By an order, dated the 3rd of February, 1915, the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore transferred two criminal appeals, Nos. 7 of 1915 and 14 of 1915 pending in his Court to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge for trial.2. The section of the Code which he considered justified this procedure on his part was Section 193, Clause 2. This section provides that Assistant Sessions Judges shall try such cases only as the Sessions Judge of the division by general or special order may make over to them for trial. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge the word 'cases,' as used in this clause is, not defined, and he saw no reason why it should be confined to 'cases ' and not extend to appeals or other matters.3. This Court has called for the records of the cases in question by the powers conferred upon it by Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, So far as I know the word 'case' has never been defined in any General Clauses Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no...
Jadunandan and ors. Vs. Sheobalak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All82; 28Ind.Cas.601
Rafique, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of profits. The plaintiffs-appellants are co-sharers and the defendant-respondent is the lambadar in the village of Arjunpur. The plaintiffs sued for the recovery of profits from 1317 to 1319 Fasli. One of the pleas in defence was that the claim was barred under Clause (3) of Rule 1, Order XXIII. The learned Assistant Collector, in whose Court the suit was tiled, disallowed this plea and disposed of the case on the merits. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the claim was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Clause (3), and accordingly reversed the decree of the first Court. The plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court, and the only point raised in this appeal is whether their claim is barred under the order mentioned above. It appears that the plaintiffs had brought a similar suit in 1912 against the same defendant for the recovery of profits for the three years now in suit. During the pendency of the forme...
Zahir Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All110; 28Ind.Cas.646
Tudball, J.1. This application in revision arises out of the following facts. One Tika Ram obtained a sanction on March 3rd, 1918, to prosecute Zahir Singh and certain others for offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. An appeal was filed against the order granting sanction, which was dismissed on Juno 10th, 1913. On July 5th, 1913, Tika Ram filed a complaint against those three persons. Proceedings in the case were suspended pending the decision in an application in revision to this Court. That application was rejected on January 21st, 1914. Tika Ram then waited practically for four months until May 15th, 1914, when he went into Court and asked that his complaint might be taken up and decided. His application was granted and the case came up for hearing at the end of a little over three months on August 20th, 1914. Tika Ram did not appear and the accused were discharged. After the order of discharge had been made, Tika Ram filed a fresh complaint as against Zahir...
Emperor Through Sessions Judge of Cawnpore Vs. Abdul Razzak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.652
George Knox, J.1. By an order, dated the 3rd of February 1915, the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore transferred two Criminal Appeals Nos. 7 of 1915 and No. 14 of 1915 pending in his Court to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge for trial. The section of the Code which he considered justified this procedure on his part was Section 193, Clause 2. This section provides that Assistant Sessions Judges shall try such cases only as the Sessions Judge of the division by general or special order may make over to them for trial. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge the word 'case' as used in this clause is not defined, and he saw no reason why it should be confined to cases and not extend to appeals or other matters.2. This Court has called for the records of the cases in question by the powers conferred upon it by Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as I know the word 'case' has never been defined in any General Clauses Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor am I...
Kedar Rai and anr. Vs. Sheopal Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All211; 28Ind.Cas.852
Rafique, J.1. In Second Appeal No. 367 of 1914 one of the respondents is a minor and he has been served at the instance of the appellant under the guardianship of the Central Nazir of the Judge's Court, Benares. The Nassir has made an application under Order XXXII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, praying this Court to order payment to him of a sum of money sufficient to enable him to oppose the appeal in this Court. The learned Vakil for the appellant says that ho does not wish to retain the name of the minor among the respondents any longer, as he finds that the minor is not a necessary party. He also objects to any order being made by this Court directing any sum of money to be paid to the Nazir which the latter may have incurred up to this time in connection with the appeal. The appellant is at liberty to release any of the respondents. But I do not think that he can evade payment of actual out-of-pocket costs which the Nazir has incurred in connection with the present appeal. Mr. Har...
Sundar Kunwar Vs. Dina Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All282; (1915)ILR37All280
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Revenue Court in the year 1909 or 1910, in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were her tenants and she sought to eject them for non-payment of rent. In that case the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had given them the property. The Assistant Collector held that the story told by the defendants was correct, namely, that the plaintiff having no issue of her own brought them from their village and established them on the property promising that they should have the property now in suit. Having found that these were the true facts he concludes by saying 'under these circumstances I find the defendants are rent-free-holders of the land in suit which was given to them in gift by the plaintiff.' The plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner (not to the District Judge). The Commissioner held in effect exactly the same as the Assistan...
Musammat Sundar Kunwar Vs. Dina Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.432
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Revenue Court in the year 1910 or 1910, in winch the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were her tenants and she sought to eject them for non-payment of rent. In that case the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had given them the property. The Assistant Collector held that the story told by the defendants was correct, inanely, that the plaintiff having no issue of her own brought them from their village arid established them on the property, promising that they should have the property now in suit. Having found that thesis were tins true facts he concludes by saying, under these circumstances I find the defendants are rent-free holders of the land in suit, which was given to them in gift by the plaintiff'. The plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner (not to the District Judge). The Commissioner held m effect exactly the same as the Assistant Collector had held. Meanwhile a second suit ...
Jamna Kunwar Vs. Ramhit Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All166; 28Ind.Cas.496
George Knox, J.1. The property in dispute in this appeal is property at one time belonging to Bhagwan Singh. To this property some nine years ago Musammat Anari Kunwar, his widow, succeeded and came into possession of the fame.2. On the 13th of April 1909, Musammat Anari Kunwar and with her Musammat Anari Kunwar, who was at that time, had the succession opened out, the next reversioner, executed a deed of gift in favour of Ramhit Singh and Phirae Singh. In this deed of gift they set themselves out as being entitled to and in possession of the property in dispute and they transferred the whole of their properly in favour of the aforesaid Ramhit Singh and Phirae Singh. Ramhit Singh and Phirae Singh alleged that they came into possession and are in possession of the properly in dispute; they add, however, that upon the death of Musammat Anari Kunwar, the patwari of the village made a report and had the name of Musammat Jamna Kunwar entered and their names removed. They applied to the Reve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »