Allahabad Court April 1915 Judgments
Ram Raja Dat Vs. Sheo Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All146; (1915)ILR37All439
Piggott, J.1. This is an application under the sixth clause of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asking this Court to revoke an order pissed by the Sessions Judge of Banda, sanctioning the prosecution of one Ram Raja Dat for haying committed the offence of giving false evidence in a deposition made by him on the 12th of August, 1914, in the court of a Magistrate subordinate to that court. The case came before the Sessions Judge in appeal, and hence he has dealt with the application for sanction. He was fully empowered to do so; but it is worth noticing that the evidence given by Ram Raja Dat was believed and acted upon by the Magistrate who heard it. I wish also to note that I look upon an application under Section 195, Clause (6), as standing on a very different footing from an application in revision, The right conferred by the clause abovementioned may not be exactly a right of appeal; but it is strongly analogous to such right. I drink the legislature intended that a c...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All372; 30Ind.Cas.722
Piggott, J.1. The facts disclosed by this order of reference are peculiar. Ram Sarup is a land-holder of a village Darabnagar in the Bareilly District. By an order lawfully passed and promulgated under Section 51 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901), a portion of the rents due from tenants of that village had been suspended. Ram Sarup was aware of the order of suspension but he endeavoured to collect suspended arrears by process of distrait. He has been prosecuted for having disobeyed an order promulgated by a public servant, lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, direction him to abstrain from such act. The learned Sessions Judge has doubted the propriety of the conviction and the sentence of Rs. 150, fine which followed the prosecution and has referred the matter to this Court for orders. The effect of an order suspending or remitting rent under Section 51 of the Tenancy Act already referred to is not to prohibit the zemindar or zemindars affected by such order from c...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Thakurai and ors. Vs. Ugra Nath Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All286; 29Ind.Cas.278
1. The circumstances out of which this present appeal has arisen are as follows :2. The village of Purnian, which belongs to the plaintiffs-respondents, and the village of Chatrapar, which belongs to the defendants-appellants, are situated in the northern part of the Basti District. What is known as the Bilar Nadi flowed between them and at the last Settlement formed the boundary.3. A reference to the Settlement Report and the maps attached thereto shows that what is called the Bilar river is really a bed of the Burhi Rapti, which falls into the larger Rapti river.4. The Banganga, a hill torrent, flows into the Burhi Rapti and it apparently forced the latter river into another and more direct channel towards the Rapti. From the junction of the Banganga the old course of the Burhi Raoti is called the Bilar Nadi. At the time of the last Settlement, however, it was notcid that Burhi Rapti after its junction with the Banganga was sending a greater part of its volume of water down the Bilar...
Tag this Judgment!Risal Singh and anr. Vs. Balwant Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All360; (1915)ILR37All496
Henry Richard, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed property known as the Landhaura Estate. One Raghubir Singh was the last owner. He died leaving a widow Rani Dharam Kuar, who gave birth to a posthumous son named Jagat Prakash Singh. This boy died shortly after his birth and the Rani purported to adopt a number of boys, one after the other all of whom died in infancy. Finally she is alleged to have adopted the defendant Balwant Singh. The Rani died on the : 12th of November, 1912, and the plaintiff No. 1 claims to be the reversioner and entitled to the estate on the death of the Rani. The second plaintiff is an assignee of portion of the estate from plaintiff No. 1 and is probably the financier of the present litigation.2. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that Raghubir Singh never gave authority to his widow to adopt a son. The court below has dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that a previous litigation between Rani Dharam Kuar and Balwant Si...
Tag this Judgment!Nur Jahan Begam Vs. Abdul Ghaffar and Mumtaz-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All434
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the District Judge of Budaun. The facts are that one Najm-ud-din died in July, 1901, leaving a widow Zeb-un-nissa, a brother Hamid-ud-din, and two nephews Abdur Ghaffar and Zahir-ud-din. In March, 1903, Abdul Ghaffar obtained a succession certificate in respect of the debts due to the deceased. Zahir-ud-din died in 1906, and his rights devolved directly or indirectly upon the plaintiff-respondent Nur Jahan Begam, who in July, 1913, brought the present suit against Abdul Ghaffar claiming an account of all sums received by him as holder of the succession certificate, and payment of what might be found due to her. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that it was governed by Article 62 of the first Schedule to the Limitation Act, and was barred by that article, inasmuch as it was proved that no sum had been received by Abdul Ghaffar within three years of the suit. On appeal the District Judge hel...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gaffar Vs. Nur Jahan Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All253; 29Ind.Cas.347
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the District Judge of Budaun. The facts are that one Najmuddin died in July 1901 leaving a widow, Zebunnissa, a brother, Hamiduddin, and two nephews, Abdul Gaffar and Zahiruddin. In March 1903 Abdul Gaffar obtained a succession certificate in respect of the debts due to the deceased. Zahiruddin died in 1906 and his rights devolved directly or indirectly upon the plaintiff-respondent, Nur Jahan Begam, who in July 1913 brought the present suit against Abdul Gaffar claiming an account of all sums received by him as holder of the succession certificate and payment of what might be found due to her. The Subordnate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that it was governed by Article 62 of the first Schedule to the Limitation Act, and was barred by that Article, inasmuch as it was proved that no sum had been received by Abdul Gaffar within three years of the suit. On appeal the District Judge held that the suit was governed, not by Articl...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Shah and ors. Vs. Tula Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All314; 29Ind.Cas.292
Piggott, J.1. The question, raised by this second appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants now before me, on the ground that it was barred by limitation: stated somewhat more strictly, the precise point is whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in so dis-misaing the suit, without, formally recording a certain finding of fact which, it is contended, has not been recorded. The plaint as filed was somewhat curiously drafted. The land in suit was stated to be revenue-free land appertaining to a certain ivaqf created in favour of a shrine, known as the shrino of Hazrat Shah Nandpir in the Ghazipur District. The plaintiffs claimed to be the trustees of the said shrine. They impleaded three defendants, though the allegations in their plaint are entirely directed against Tula Parde, defendant No. 1. There is no explanation of the appearance of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the record, beyond the remark that ...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. Suraj Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All308; (1915)ILR37All429; 29Ind.Cas.998
Piggott, J.1. In this case an appellate order by the District Judge of Cawnpore has been called up by this Court in the exercise of the general powers of superintendence and revision conferred upon it by Section 46, Clause (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No. III of 1907. The order is one sentencing an insolvent named Nand Kishore to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 43 of the said Act. The allegations held to be proved against him are:(1) That in the year 1908, at a time when the business which he was conducting was beginning to fail he fraudulently transferred certain property by w ay of gift to his wife and other members of his family, (2) that in the schedule of assets submitted by him along with his application to be declared an insolvent he fraudulently concealed the existence of the property nominally transferred by him, and also the fact that he was the owner of a shop in what is known as the Kuli Bazar at Cawnpore. Nand Kishore's case wa...
Tag this Judgment!Jhandu Mal and anr. Vs. Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All267; (1915)ILR37All426; 29Ind.Cas.606
Pramada Charan Banerji and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants to enforce a mortgage, dated the 10th of July, 1884, alleged to have been executed by Randhir Singh and Partab Singh.2. Randhir Singh is dead and is represented by his son, Karan Singh and his daughter-in-law Musammat Radha, the widow, apparently, of a pre-deceased son. The share of Randhir Singh in the mortgaged property was sold to Chidammi Lal whose minor sons Daya Kishore and Jai Kishore are the defendants Nos. 4 and 5. The defendant No. 2 is the mortgagor, Partab Singh, and defendant No. 3, Nahar Singh is the son of Partab Singh.3. The case in our opinion was not properly tried. On the first date fixed for hearing the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit for default of appearance of both parties. On the same date, i.e. the 16th of September, 1911, lie restored the case to its file. On that date Partab Singh and Karan Singh filed a compromise and the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathi Noniya Vs. Sukhdeo Noniya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All323; 29Ind.Cas.144
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the learned Munsif was justified in correcting his judgment and decree. What happened was that the plaintiff brought a suit for possession of property left by one Sheoraj, claiming the whole of it on the ground that he was the only son of Sheoraj. The defendant Bhagirathi claimed to be another son of Sheoraj by another wife. This was denied on behalf of the plaintiff, and the Court of first instance found that the defendant was not the son of Sheoraj and that the plaintiff alone was entitled to the property. By a clerical error, instead of recording a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the final order of the Mnnsif was one of dismissal of the suit, a decree was drawn up in accordance with this judgment. It having been brought to the notice of the learned Munsif that an error had crept into the judgment, he corrected the judgment and the decree, and substituted for the word 'dismissed' the word 'decreed'. It is urged ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »