Allahabad Court June 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.
Prag Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All456(1); 30Ind.Cas.143
Chamier, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 60 of the United Provinces Excise Act of 1910 of having cultivated hemp plants and also of having sold them. He was sentenced by the Magistrate to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100 or in default to one month's imprisonment more. On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and the sentence of imprisonment, but reduced the fine to Rs. 50. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Counsel referred to Section 70 of the Act, which provides inter alia that no Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 60 except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer. This case is said to have been started on the report of an Excise Officer, The report in question was made by the Police Officer in charge of the Cantonment Police Station. Under Section 3 of the Act 'Excise Officer' in...
Bachicha Singh Vs. Jafar Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All358; 30Ind.Cas.173
Tudball, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant, Jafar Beg, and others with whom we are not concerned in this appeal, to recover damages for malicious prosecution. His case was that a riot occurred and a report was made by certain complainants in the course of which they named one Bachcha Ahir. At the instigation of certain persons the defendant, who vas the Sub-Inspector, put the name of Bachcha Singh in place of Bachcha Ahir, proceeded to make an inquiry against him, arrested him, and sent him for trial in Court where he was finally acquitted. The present suit was decreed as against one of the other defendants. As against Jafar Beg it was dismissed by the Court of first instance, on the ground that under Section 42 of the Police Act the suit had not been instituted within three months of the unlawful act alleged. The pin in tiff appealed. The lower Appellate Court upheld the decree of the Court of first instance but for a different reaso...
Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All312; 30Ind.Cas.508
Tudball, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal which arises out of a suit brought by him in an attempt to maintain his right of easement. The map tiled with the plaint will explain the case. The plaintiff's case was that there was a hole in the wall between his compound and the compound of the defendants, that through this hole the rain water which fell in his compound and also the rain water which came from the roof of the house of one Mohammad Raza Khan and also the daily dirty water used in his house used to flow, through the mohri A on to the defendants' land and thence to the public drain which runs in front of defendants' house, that this easement had been in existence for many many years and that shortly before the suit the defendants had blocked up the hole with stones and bricks and thus prevented the flow both of the daily water and the rain water. The defendants denied that they had blocked up this hole in the wall or that they had blocked up any drain. They admitted that the pl...
Daljit Singh Vs. Shambhu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All452; 30Ind.Cas.189
Piggott, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether this suit was barred by the provisions of Section 233(k) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, Local Act No. III of 1901. According to that Section the Civil Court is debarred from taking cognizance of any suit with regard to the partition or union of mahals. The section itself is drawn up in broad terms and it has been applied broadly by this Court ever since the Full Bench decision in Muhammad Sadiq v. Laute Ram 23 A. 291 (F.B.) : A.W.N. (1900) 86. That decision was under the former Land Revenue Act, No, XIX of 1873, the wording of which differed somewhat. The provisions of Section 233(k), as they now stand, were considered by two Judges of this Court in Lachman Das v. Hanuman Prasad 8 Ind. Cas. 807 : A.L.J. 1156 : 33 A. 169. I understand that ruling as laying down the broad principle that where there has been a partition of a certain mahal by a Revenue Court, resulting in a certain distribution of the lands o...
Damodar Das Vs. Tilak Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All416; 30Ind.Cas.941
Tudball, J.1. The sole question in this appeal is whether the defendant has increased the burden within the meaning of Section 23 of the Easements Act. The facts are simple. The defendant had a single-storeyed house with a thatched roof. One portion of the thatched roof discharged the rain water on a small lane between the houses of the two parties. He has removed his thatched house and has now built a three-storeyed pucka house and he has put spouts on the roof of the house to discharge water on to the land between the plaintiff's wall and his wall The Court of first instance held that there was really no increase in the burden except where the water from one spout fell on to the wall of the plaintiff's house. That spout, the Court ordered, should be altered in its direction. The lower Appellate Court has held that the spouts clearly threw an additional burden on the servant heritage. It seems to me that there can be no question that there is a considerable difference between the burd...
Musammat Kazmi Jan Vs. Pandit Shib Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All297; 29Ind.Cas.757
Piggott, J.1. It appears that one Imdad Ali mortgaged, in the year, 1897, a house to a person whose heirs subsequently transferred their rights under the mortgage to the present plaintiff-appellant. Imdad Ali died and his widow, Musammat Iradatunnissa, in the year 1907, mortgaged the same house to the present defendant-respondent. The plaintiff brought a suit upon his mortgage impleading the present defendant as a subsequent mortgagee of the property in suit. For reasons which have not been made apparent, the Court gave the plaintiff and simple money-decree enforceable against the assets of Imdad Ali in the hands of any of the defendants. In execution of this decree the plaintiff attached the house in question, brought it to sale, and purchased it himself obtain hip; possession on June the 23rd, 1913. In the meantime the defendant had brought a suit upon his mortage against Musammat Iradatunnissa, and on the 24th of September 1912 had obtained a decree for sale of a fractional share in...
Gaya Prasad Vs. Sarfaraz Chaudhri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All209; 29Ind.Cas.972
Piggott, J.1. On the 25th of February 1909 the plaintiff, Gaya Prasad, being at that time just over 18 years of age, executed in favour of the defendant, Sarfaraz Chaudhri, a mortgage-deed for Rs. 349-13-6, hypothecating a 6-pie zemindari share of his own in village Lohraula. Out of the consideration only Rs. 56 was paid in cash at registration, and the balance was said to represent principal and interest on two older bonds executed by Gaya Prasad. As a matter of fact the two older bonds in question, one for Rs. 99 and the other for Rs. 81, were produced and apparently purported to have been executed jointly by Gaya Prasad and his mother. It has been found that Gaya Prasad's mother had obtained a certificate of guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act prior to the date of the execution of the mortgage--deed in suit. Under the law, therefore, Gaya Prasad was a minor on the 25th of February 1909. He brought the present suit for a declaration that the document in question is null an...
Lachman Das Vs. Muhammad Yusuf Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All454; 30Ind.Cas.192
Tudball, J.1. The facts of the cape out of which this appeal has arisen appear to be as follows. One Ram Ratan Lal obtained a decree against the defendants and in execution of that decree, he attached and sold the house which is in dispute in the present suit. It was purchased in the name of Lachman Dass, who is connected in some way with Ham Ratan Lal. It appears that after the sale, Ram Ratan Lal and the auction-purchaser had a considerable amount of difficulty in getting possession of the house from the judgment-debtors; finally on the 22nd of September 1905, a document was executed by both sides under which Ram Ratan Lal and Lachman Das transferred the ownership of this house to the defendants, while the defendants in return transferred to them their ex-proprietary rights in a certain holding. This holding included a large number of plots of land. As far as one can see the parties acted up to their words, possession of the house was given to the defendants and possession of the hol...
Pachkauri Raut and anr. Vs. Ram Khelawan Chaube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All306; 29Ind.Cas.749
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit by a Hindu son to contest an alienation made by his father during the minority of the plaintiff. It appears that there was a joint family consisting of Ganesh Prasad and his two sons, Gajadhar Prasad and Ram Khelawan. On 30th June 1905 Gajadhar Prasad being at the time a major and Ram Khelawan a minor their father, Ganesh Prasad, execute a deed of sale purporting to convey a 6-pies share in certain zemindari property to Musammat Ram Kali, the predecessor-in-title of the defendants-appellants. The share thus conveyed was part of the ancestral property of the joint undivided family c n-sisting of Ganesh Prasad and his two sons. The deed of sale was signed by Gajadhar Prasad as an attesting witness. The latter did not, however, join in executing the deed, which is and purports to be a conveyance by Ganesh Prasad alone. Both the Courts be low have held that the plaintiff, ram Khelawan, is entitled to contest the alienation, the finding being that there was no ...
Budhi Mal and anr. Vs. Bhati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All459(1); 30Ind.Cas.549
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on the basis of a simple mortgage-deed dated the 8th of January 1902, The mortgagor was one Ismail and the mortgaged property is a house which belonged to him. Ismail was admittedly once a zemindar of the village when lie built this house and lived in it. He subsequently lost his proprietary rights and became ex-proprietary tenant of his sir lands, and his successors also admittedly acquired occupancy rights in certain other land. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit on two grounds, the first was that the mortgage was illegal and contrary to law and, therefore, not binding on the mortgagor and, secondly, on the ground that under Section (50), Clauses (o) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the house cannot be sold. The second ground is clearly met by the decision of this Court in Bhola Nath v. Kishori 11 Ind. Cas. 646 : 8 A.L.J. 1045 (F.B.) : 34 A. 25. This is not a cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »