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.
Budhu and ors. Vs. Dewan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All34; 28Ind.Cas.265
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The Facts connected with this appeal are fully reported See Dewan v. Buddhu 25 Ind. Cas. 30 : 12 A.L.J. 837. It appears that a suit was brought before the Additional Subordinate Judge claiming damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was decreed in part on the 2nd of December 1912. Copies of the decree and judgment were delivered to the defendant on the 10th of December. The defendant had up to the 3rd of January 1913 to appeal to the District Judge. No appeal was tiled until thirty-seven days after that date. An application was then made to admit the appeal though late. The appeal was admitted. The only facts that the learned District Judge had before him when admitting the appeal were set forth in an affidavit, in which it was stated that instructions had been given to Mr. Weston, a Barrister, together with a sum of Rs. 40 for the purpose of filing an appeal. No affidavit of Mr. Weston, was filed. No explanation was given why Mr. Weston did not tile the appe...
Kallu and anr. Vs. Parbhu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.438
George Knox, J.1. This is an appeal brought by Kallu find Karamat-ul-lah who were defendants in the Court of first instance. The plaintiff was one Parbhu Lal. The lower Appellate Court has found upon evidence certain matters to which 1 shall presently refer, and the learned Vakil who appeared for the appellants has more than once stated in his argument that he accepts the findings of fact as found by the lower Appellate Court. His contention is that the lower Appellate Court has drawn wrong inferences of law, and not that it has arrived at wrong findings of fact. It is admitted in the case that the appellants executed a kabuliat on the 4th of November 1909 in favour of the respondent and that that kabuliat was afterwards registered.2. The findings of fact are that one Abdullah was co-sharer in the village, that the land in suit was Abdullah's sir land, that Abdullah's proprietary rights passed by sale to Ahmad Bux and that Ahmad Bux in turn transferred the rights, whatever they were, t...
Mallah Vs. Behari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All138; 28Ind.Cas.276
1. This is an appeal against an order of the First Additional Judge of Aligarh remanding for trial on the merits a suit which been dismissed as barred by limitation by the Munsif of Bulandshahr. The plaintiffs and the defendant were co-sharers in an occupancy holding. The plaintiff's brought this suit for recovery of Rs. 189-6-O on account of profits of their share for the years 1318 to 1321 Fasli, on the allegation that the defendant had wrongfully taken possession of the entire holding and refused to give the plaintiffs any portion of the profits. The Munsif found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove possession or enjoyment of profits within 32 years of the suit. On appeal the Additional Judge hold that as the plaintiffs and the defendant had been admittedly joint occupancy tenants of the land, it was for the defendant to prove that he had ousted the plaintiffs from their share. In appeal it is contended that tin's view of the law is erroneous. In Ahmad Roza Khan v. Ram Lal 26 Ind...
Abdul Khaliq Vs. Emperor Through Khalaq Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All144; 28Ind.Cas.329
George Knox, J.1. In the month of May 1914, a case under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending before a Magistrate of the first Class of Mainpuri.2. The person against whom proceedings were instituted was Khalaq Singh, a thakur, and he was called upon to show cause why security should not be taken from him on the ground that he was a habitual dacoit and an associate of dacoits and the people of the neighbourhood were in terror of him.3. The case was partly heard by Babu Raj Bahadur and partly by Thakur Hukum Singh. Thakur Hukum Singh came to the conclusion that none of the charges alleged by the prosecution had boon made out or established against the accused. He found, him to be a man of position, good life and family and he was not a person to he bound over under Section 110, and he accordingly discharged tint order made against him calling upon him to show cause.4. These proceedings came to an end on the 19th of May 1914.5. Somewhere in July 1914 Khalaq Singh app...
Har NaraIn and ors. Vs. Balwant Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All172(1); 28Ind.Cas.452
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of remand passed under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. the dispute out of which this suit arose was one between two sets of tenants with regard to the boundary between their respective holding's. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants have unlawfully encroached upon their holding and appropriated land belonging herein. The first Court seems somehow to have arrived at the conclusion that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs from a portion of their land acting on behalf of the zemindars, so that the dispossession must be held to have been effected by the zemindars and the plaintiffs' only remedy was one by a suit under Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act 11 of 1901). We agree with the learned District Judge that no suit under that section could have-been brought on the facts stated in the plaint. We notice, moreover, the lower Appellate Court has found that there is nothing to show that t...
indraj Vs. Brother Clement, Missionary
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All51(1); (1915)ILR37All262
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The alleged custom is that the co-sharer wishing to sell must first offer the property to his co-sharers. In the present case the court below has found that the vendor, wishing to sell first offered the property to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff offered only Rs. 160 and 'refused to give more.' The vendor then went to the vendee and sold the property for Rs. 235. The court below has found-under these circumstances that the plaintiff refused to purchase the property, and on that ground dismissed the suit. If this finding is justified it concludes the appeal. It seems to us that the court below was not only justified but was perfectly right in holding that the conduct of the plaintiff amounted to a refusal to purchase the property when it was offered to him. The vendor was entitled to assume that the plaintiff would not give Rs. 235 when he had refused to give more than Rs. 160.2. Reliance is pl...
In Re: Stamp Reference by the Board of Revenue
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All264
George Knox, Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. On the 15th of May, 1914, two brothers, Tribhuwan Dat Sukul and Maharaj Sumeshwar Dat Sukul, executed each of them a document. The deed of gift executed by Tribhuwan Dat Sukul has been endorsed by us as exhibit A, and the 'deed executed by Maharaj Sumeshwar Dat Sukul has been marked as exhibit B, and they will be alluded to in the course of this Judgment in these terms.2. Deed A is said to bear a stamp of Rs. 1,125. Deed B bears a stamp of Rs. 10. When the two documents were taken to the registration office, deed B was impounded, and on its coming before the Deputy Commissioner, Sitapur, that officer came to the conclusion that the stamp required was a stamp of Rs. 360. He also considered that penalty of Rs. 700 should be paid by Maharaj Sumeshwar Dat. Sumeshwar Dat appealed from the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to the Board of Revenue.3. The Board of Revenue were unable to come to any conclusion as to what was the right and proper stamp to ...
In Re: Mahraj Someshar Dut
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All198; 28Ind.Cas.348
1. On the 15th of May 1914 two brothers, Tirbhuwan Dut Snkul and Maharaj Someshar Dut Sukul, executed each of them a document. The dead of gifn executed by Tirbhuwan Dut Sukul has been endorsed by us as Exhibit A find the deed executed by Maharaj Someshar Dut Sukul has been marked as Exibit B and will be alluded to in the course of tins judgment in those terms.2. Deed A is said to bear a stump of Rs. 1,125. Deed B bears a stamp of Rs. 10. When the two documents wore taken to the Registration Office, deed B was impounded and on its coming before the Deputy Commissioner, Sitapur, that officer came to the conclusion that the stamp required was a stamp of Rs. 700. He also considered that a penalty of Rs. 700 should be paid by Maharaj Someshar Dut. Someshar Dut appealed from the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to the Board of Revenue.3. The Board of Revenue, were unable to come to any conclusion as to what was the right and proper stamp to impose and have referred the matter to this Cou...
DIn Dayal Vs. Ramdhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All143(1); 28Ind.Cas.306
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff and the vendee are both co-sharers and the former stated in his evidence that he was also a relation. An entry in the wajib-ul-arz records a right of pre-emption first in the hissadar kuribi and then hissadar baidi. It appears that at one time there were a number of subdivisions of the mahal which have now ceased to exist. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that a custom giving the plaintiff a preferential right over the defendant was not proved. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decrees of the Court of first instance and remanded the case. The vendee comes here in appeal.2. We think that the decree of the Court of first instance was correct and ought to be restored. It lay upon the plaintiff to prove not only that a custom of pre-emption existed, but that there was a custom under which he had a right to pre-empt aa against another co-sharer. The only evidence he adduced was the ext...
Dina Vs. Harkishen Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All140; 28Ind.Cas.298
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent granted a perpetual least to the appellant in respect of fourteen plots of land covering an area of 12.54 acres. The appellant sublet two of these plots, the area of which is 1.58 acres, to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of rim king bricks and setting up brick-kilns. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 converted these plots into a brick-field, and thereupon the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff against all the defendants for their ejectment from the entire holding, on the ground that the defendants had done an act detrimental to the land in the holding and inconsistent with the purpose For which it had been let. The suit purported to be one under Section 57, Clause (b), of the Agra Tenancy Act. The Court of first instance decreed the claim for ejectment, but ordered the defendant-appellant to pay compensation to the plaintiff and directed that upon payment of compensation ejectment shall not take place...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »