Allahabad Court March 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.
Rambodh Singh Vs. Lakhpati,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All350
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. The facts of this case are that Musammat Kalwanti, the widow of a separated Hindu, Jita, mortgaged her husband's property to the appellant by two deeds, dated the 28th of January, 1907, and the 7th of August, 1908. At the time of these transactions there were living Sarju Dei, who is said to be a daughter of Jita, Budhai, the son of a deceased brother of Jita and Ram Raj and Ram Bodh, sons of another deceased brother of Jita. The three nephews were the sole presumptive reversionary heirs of Jita, Ram Bodh was a minor living in union with his brother Ram Raj who joined in executing both mortgages and Budhai attested both as a witness. Ram Bodh who is still a minor, brought this suit in 1910, for a declaration that the mortgages were not binding upon him. The Subordinate Judge held that the earlier mortgage was not proved to have been made for lawful necessity at all and that the later mortgage was proved to have been for lawful necessity to the extent of Rs. 2...
Emperor Vs. Mukhtar Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All353
Piggott, J.1. Mukhtar Ahmad and Amir Ahmad have been, convicted by a Magistrate on the charge of having caused hurt to an Excise Inspector, one Mr. D.D.C. Das, and certain constables in the discharge of their duties as public servants, and have, been sentenced, to imprisonment and fine. The conviction and the sentences have been affirmed by the Sessions Judge on appeal. It seems to me that the courts below have assumed, but cannot be said to have judicially determined, that the persons who were hurt were acting at the time in the discharge of their duties as public servants. They have dealt with the plea of private defence set up on behalf of the accused persons and have excluded that plea by reason of the provisions of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. This finding implies that the Excise Inspector and the constables were resisted at a time when they, being public servants, were acting in good faith under colour of their office. That is not the same thing as a finding that they wer...
Jwala Pershad Sahu Vs. Bigalram Mandwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All196; 28Ind.Cas.905
1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Judge of Gorakhpur dismissing an appeal against an order of the Additional Munsif of Deoria disallowing an application for restoration of a case which had boon dismissed. It appears that the plaintiff was required by the Court to produce some hooks of account. He failed to comply with the order of the Court and on March the 23rd, 1914, the date ultimately fixed for the production of the accounts, he was absent. The Munsif recorded an order which concluded as follows: 'As the plaintiff is absent, order--the suit is dismissed with costs. The defendant shall get his costs from, the plaintiff' It seems to us that there can be no doubt that the Munsif was acting under Order XVII, Rule 2, read with Order IX, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, and that he dismissed the suit because the plaintiff did not appear when the suit was called on for hearing and not because the plaintiff had failed to produce his books. The plaintiff applie...
Chummun Prasad Choube and anr. Vs. Pranpat Choube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All301; 29Ind.Cas.166
1. This and the connected Appeal No. 407 of 1913 arise out of a suit for partition, brought by the son and grandson of Pranpat Choube, defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 is the mother of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and mother of plaintiff No. 1. The defendant No. 4 is, according to the plaintiffs, the mistress of defendant No. 1. According to the defendant No. 1 she is his lawful wife. The plaintiff's main objection to the decree of the Court below is that one-eighth of the estate which has been allotted to the minor plaintiff, has been placed in charge of the defendant No. 1. The case is realjy a very sad one. The family appears to have been quite prosperous, possessed of a considerable amount of irumoveable property and a good deal of produce of the land. The plaintiff No. 1 comes into Court alleging that his father (the defendant No. 1) is an immoral man, in that he is keeping defendant No. 4 as his mistress. The Court below has considered this ...
Musammat Lakhpati Vs. Rambodh Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.218
1. The facts of this case are that Musammat Kulwanti, the widow of a separated Hindu, Jita, mortgaged her husband's property to the appellant by two deeds of January 28th, 1907, and August 7th, 1908. At the time of these transactions there were living Sarju Dei, who is said to be a daughter of Jita, Budhai, the son of a deceased brother of Jita, and Ram Raj and Ram Bodh, sons of another deceased brother of Jita. The three nephews were the sole presumptive reversionary heirs of Jita Ram, Bodh was a minor living in union with his brother, Ram Raj, who joined in executing both mortgages, and Budhai attested both as a witness Ram Bodh who is still a minor brought this suit in 1910 for a declaration that the mortgages were not binding upon him. The Subordinate Judge held that the earlier mortgage was not proved to have been made for lawful necessity at all, and that the later mortgage was proved to have bepn made for lawful necessity to the extent of Rs. 282 out of Rs. 800, but he held that...
Mukhtar Ahmad and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All208(1); 29Ind.Cas.335
Piggott, J.1. Mukhtar Ahmad and Amir Ahmad have been convicted by a Magistrate on the charge of having caused hurt to an Excise Inspector, one Mr. D.D.C. Das, and certain constables in the discharge of their duties as public servants, and Lave been sentenced to imprisonment and fine. The conviction and the sentences Lave been aflirmed by the Sessions Judge on appeal. It seems to me that tLe Courts below have assumed, but cannot be said to Lave judicially determined, that the persons who were hurt were acting at the time in the discharge of their duties as public servants. They have dealt with the plea of private defence set up on behalf of the accused persons, and have excluded that plea by reason of the provisions of Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. This finding implies that the Excise Inspector and the constables were resisted at a time when they, being public servants, were acting in good faith under colour of their office. That is not the same thing as a finding that they were ...
Abdul Salam Khan Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All347
Tudball and Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act. Government acquired an area of four acres, twenty poles, situated in the village of Manakpur Naroli temporarily for a term of two years under the section for the purpose of quarrying kankar. The laud was culturable land in the hands of tenants. Compensation was offered to the tenants for the period of their ouster and a sum of Rs. 105-6-0 was offered as compensation to the zamindar and it was explained to him that on the expiry of the two years term, he would be entitled to further compensation for any damage done to the land, under Section 36, Clause (2), of the Land Acquisition Act. He objected to the amount offered to him and he put forward his plea in this way that by reason of the kankar being dug, the surface of the land would be lowered, earth would have to be brought from' elsewhere to raise if and make it fit for cultivation. This being so he was entitled to two s...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Abdul Salam Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All477; 30Ind.Cas.245
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act. Government acquired an area of four acres, twenty poles, situated in the village of Manakpur Naroli, temporarily for a term of two years under the section for the purpose of quarrying kankar. The land was culturable land in the hands of tenants. Compensation was offered to the tenants for the period of their ouster and a sum of Rs. 105-6 was offered as compensation to the zemindar and it was explained to him that on the expiry of the two years' term, he would be entitled to further compensation for any damage done to the land, under Section 36, Clause (2), of the Land Acquisition Act. He objected to the amount offered to him and he put forward his plea in this way that by reason of the kankar being dug, the surface of the land would be lowered, earth would have to be brought from elsewhere to raise it and make it fit for cultivation. This being so he was entitled to two sorts of compensation, (...
The Collector of Meerut Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All159; 29Ind.Cas.220
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, Umrao Singh, for a declaration that certain decrees which had been obtained against his mother as his guardian were not binding upon him. The suit was instituted in April 1912. The estate of the defendants was taken over by the Court of Wards in February 1913. The Court below made a decree in part in the plaintiff's favour on the 13th of May 1913. The Collector was never made a party to this suit and it is doubtful perhaps whether the decree was quite regular. It is, however, unnecessary to consider this point, having regard to the position which Mr. Ryves has taken up in the present appeal on behalf of the Court of Wards. When the Collector came to know of the decree of the Court below, he filed the present appeal against the decree. Mr. Ryves has stated at the outset that he waives any irregularity and that he is willing to argue the case on the merits, just as he would have done had the Collector been made a party and the...
Emperor Vs. Tilak Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All344
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the prosecution of the applicants on various charges in connection with pleadings verified, and evidence given, by them in two cases tried by the Subordinate Judge. It appears that one Musammat Mohra brought a suit to establish her right to certain property as the daughter of Sheo Narain. The applicants and others brought another suit against Musammat Mohra for possession of property on the ground that she was not the daughter of Sheo Narain. The two cases were tried together, and the Subordinate Judge found that Musammat Mohra was the daughter of Sheo Narain. He waited for a month, probably to see whether appeals would be filed against his decision, and as soon as the month had expired he took proceedings against the applicants under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the part of the applicants it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »