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.
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Jwahir Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All290; 29Ind.Cas.146
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he has 'proprietary rights in ten biswas of revenue-free grant in each of the three mahals Nur Muhammad, Farhat Fatima and Intizamuddin in Mouza Lakhimpur,' and that the name of the Government may be expunged. The claim does not appear to foe accurately expressed. What the plaintiff really claims is that in the events which have happened, he is now entitled to be considered as the assignee of the Government revenue payable in rpspect of the 10 biswas. His real claim is that the last assignee of this Government revenue was one Dalpat Rai, who died leaving a daughter Musammat Ram Piare. He claims that now he is entitled, as the heir of Dalpat Rai under Hindu Law, to have the same rights as Dalpat Rai enjoyed.2. The Court below granted the plaintiff a decree declaring that he is entitled, by right of succession to Dalpat Rai as the muafidar or assignee of the Government revenue, to the revenue of the 10 ...
Emperor Vs. Bhajan Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All334
Chamier, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by an Assistant Collector of the first class in the Basti district directing the prosecution of the applicant for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. A question might arise as to whether this application should not have been presented under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not under chapter 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But in the view I take of the case it is unnecessary to discuss the question. It appears that one Bindhachal Tewari obtained a decree for money against Bhajan Tewari and others in the court of the Munsif of Basti. In execution of that decree immovable property was ordered to be sold, and the execution of the decree was transferred under Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Collector of Basti. On the 23rd of October, 1914, a sale took place, and the property was knocked down to one Ramphal Misra. On the 3rd of November, 1914, the judgement-debtor pres...
Mehdi Hasan Vs. Bacha Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All114(1); 28Ind.Cas.691
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, The alienation complained of was made on the 27th of june 1910 to a stranger. The appellant-defendant brought a suit on the 31st of March 1911 and obtained a decree for pre-emption. The present suit was not instituted until the 31st May 1912 that is to say, long after limitation which gave rise to the alleged right of pre-emption. It is perfectly clear therefore, that the present suit is barred by limitation. Reliance is placed upon the case of Raj Narain Rai v. Dunya Pande 5 Ind. Cas. 527 : 7 A.L.J. 259 : 32 A. 340. The fact in that case were quite different. There the plaintiffs had brought the suit for pre-emption well within the year after the alienation had been made. It was true that in the meantime another party had got a decree. The Court held that the suit being within time and the plaintiff not being a party to the suit in which the decree for pre-emption had been made, the plaintiff was not bound by that decree. In our opi...
Bhajan Tewari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All283; 29Ind.Cas.89
Chamier, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by an Assistant Collector of the first Class in the Basti District directing the prosecution of the applicant for an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. A question might arise as to whether this application should not have been presented under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not under Chapter XXXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But in the view I take of the case, it is unnecessary to, discuss the question.2. It appears that one Bindhachal Tewari obtained a decree for money against Bhajan Tewari and others in the Court of the Munsif of Basti. In execution of that decree immoveable property was ordered to bo sold and the execution of decree was transferred under Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Collector of Basti. On October 23rd, 1914 a sale took place and the property was knocked down to one Ramphal Misra. On November 3rd 1914 the judgment-debtor presented a petition under...
Deo Dutt Pande and ors. Vs. Kauleshar Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.843
Rafique, J.1. The relevant facts of this appeal fire as follows: The plaintiffs-appellants are tenants and reside in the village of Karao in the district of Jaunpur. To the west of their house is an old pipal tree, some of the branches of which, over-hang their house. They instituted this suit in the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur against the zemindars of the village for an injunction restraining the latter from preventing the plaintiffs from cutting down the piped tree and appropriating its timber. The plaintiffs alleged that the tree belonged to them and they wanted to cut down the branches overhanging their house, but were prevented by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It was further alleged in the plaint that in case the plaintiffs failed to prove their title to the tree, the defendants should be made to cut down the branches overhanging the house of the plaintiffs as the tree was old and likely to fall down any moment and cause damage to them. The claim was resisted principally by defendan...
Emperor Vs. Gangua
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All245; (1915)ILR37All331; 29Ind.Cas.323
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. In this case it appears that one Gangua was suspected of having taken part in a serious dacoity, committed at a village called Manpore in the Etawah district on the 23rd of October, 1913. He made a confession before a Magistrate and received a conditional promise of pardon. He was produced before the Sessions Judge as a witness against Abadua and others (Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1914, Etawah Sessions). The learned Sessions Judge who tried that case came to the conclusion that Gangua had not given true evidence. We have examined the Judgment in that case, and in some points we find it a little difficult to follow the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. Apparently, however, he was of opinion that Gangua had in any case, whether he was -actually concerned in the dacoity or not, made false statements regarding a certain pair of earrings produced as one of the exhibits in the case. He concluded his order, after directing the acquittal of the accused persons th...
Akbari Khanum and ors. Vs. Afzal Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All326
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the District Judge of Bareilly under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Clause (2) allowing the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit and giving her liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter. It is contended that the learned Judge had no power to act under this rule because it is only the court of first instance that can allow the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and give him or her permission to institute a fresh suit. The applicant relies upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Choragudi China Kotayya v. Raja Varada Raja Appa Row : (1914)27MLJ244 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Eknath v. Ranoji (1911) I.L.R. 35 Bom. 261. These two decisions certainly support the contention advanced on behalf of the applicant, but as long ago as 1885 this Court in Ganga Ram v. Data Ram (1885) I.L.R. 8 All. 82, decided that an appellate court could under Section 373 of the Code of Civil P...
Chhabile Ram and anr. Vs. Durga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All296
Tudball and Rafiq, JJ.This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two persons under the conditions mentioned in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These two persons were Chhabile Ram and Bhagwan Das. They obtained the sanction of the Legal Remembrancer and instituted the suit. The trustee against whom they sued was Babu Durga Prasad, the present respondent in this appeal. While the suit was pending Bhagwan Das died. One Mahant Kanhaiya Lal applied to the Court to have his name brought on the record as co-plaintiff in place of that of Bhagwan Das claiming to be the heir and legal representative of the deceased. Apparently Kanhaiya Lal was not related in any way and could not have been deemed to be the heir and legal representative of Bhagwan Das in his personal capacity. The Court refused the application and dismissed the suit as it was no longer maintainable by one plaintiff. The judge-menu shows clearly that the question of Kanhaiya Lal's obtaining sanction from the Legal Reme...
Chhabila Ram and anr. Vs. Durga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All59; 28Ind.Cas.681
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two persons under the conditions mentioned in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These two persons were, Chhabila Ram and Bhagwan Das. They obtained the sanction of the Legal Remembrancer and instituted the suit. The trustee against whom they sued was Baboo Durga Prasad, the present respondent in this appeal. While the suit was pending Bhagwan Das died. One Mohunt Kanhaya Lal applied to the Court to have his name Rup Chand Ghose V. Narendra. KRISHNA brought on the record as co-plaintiff in place of that of Bhagwan Das, claiming to be the heir and legal representative of the deceased. Apparently Kanhaya Lal was not related in any way and could not have been deemed to be the heir and legal representative of Bhagwan Das in his personal capacity. The Court refused the application and dismissed the suit, as it was no longer maintainable by one plaintiff. The judgment shows clearly that the question of Kanhaya Lal's obtaining sanction fr...
Musammat Afzal Begam Vs. Musammat Akhari Khanam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All123; 28Ind.Cas.857
1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the District Judge of Bareilly under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2), allowing the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit and giving her liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. It is contended that the learned Judge had no power to act under this rule because it is only the Court of first instance that can allow the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and give him or her permission to institute a fresh suit. The applicant relies upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Choragudi Chinna Kotayyaa v. Sri Raja Varadaraja Appa Row Bahadur 25 Ind. Cas. 386 : 27 M.L.J. 244 : 1 L.W. 613 : 16 M.L.T. 186 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Eknath v. Ranoji 10 Ind. Cas. 813 : 35 B. 261 : 13 Bom. L.R. 237. These two decision certainly support the contention advanced on behalf of the applicant; but as long ago as 1885 this Court in Ganga Ram v. Data Ram 8 A. 82 : A.W.N. (1886) 6 decided that an the Code of Ci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »