Allahabad Court January 1916 Judgments
Ramsarup and anr. Vs. Ganga Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All223
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are co-sharers, against the defendant, who is the lambardar, for profits in the events which have happened the only point which we are called upon to decide is whether the lower appellate court was correct in directing that in estimating what was due to the plaintiffs the sir and khudkasht held by the other co-sharers should be taken into account. The lower appellate court held that it (should. The defendant contends that it should not. If the sir and khudkasht, should be left out of consideration the defendant's appeal should be allowed. If on the other hand it should be taken into consideration the appeal should be dismissed. The appellant's contention is that having regard to the ruling in Bishambhar Nath v. Bhullo (1911) I.L.R. 34 All. 98 the court below was wrong in directing that the sir and khudkasht should be taken into account. la that case it was held that a lambardar...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Anandi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All368; 32Ind.Cas.838
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal by an accused who has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The case is a typical one of a charge of secret poisoning which is sought to be established against accused person by a chain of circumstances, and it is one undoubtedly of grave suspicion against some one and of a certain amount of suspicion, if not grave suspicion, against the accused. On the whole we have come to the conclusion that the conviction cannot be supported. The learned Judge who tried the case has delivered an elaborate, very pains taking and admirably clear judgment, It is such an admirable composition that it seems almost sacrilege to tamper with it. In its arrangement, its careful and minute analysis of the evidence and in the fact that it goes from time to time into all points of doubt and difficulty as also the affirmative points which arise in favour of the defence, the judgment could, in our opinion, be hardly improved upon. It is only in respect of certain inferenc...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Singh Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All155; 33Ind.Cas.119
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs who are co-sharers against the defendant (who is the lambardar) for profits. In the events which have happened the only point which we are called upon to decide is 'whether the lower Appellate Court was correct in directing that in estimating what was due to the plaintiffs the sir and khudkasht held by the other co-sharers should be taken into account. The lower Appellate Court held that it should. The defendant contends that it should not. If the sir and khudkasht should be left out of consideration the defendant's appeal should be allowed. If, on the other hand, it should be taken into consideration the appeal should be dismissed.2. The appellant's contention is that having regard to the ruling in Bishambhar Nath Bhola 12 Ind. Cas. 920 : 8 A L.J. 1245 : 34 A. 98 the Court below was wrong in directing that the sir and khudhasht should be taken into account. In that case it was held that a lambardar could not bring a suit to...
Tag this Judgment!Sharf-ud-dIn Vs. Karam Ilahi and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All212
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that certain property was not liable to be sold under a decree. The plaintiff's case was that the property had already been transferred by gift. In support of this contention the plaintiff adduced in evidence a deed of gift. A. witness was produced who is a marginal witness. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that when he signed his name all the other parties had already signed. It is contended on behalf of the defendant appellant that this deed cannot be said to be proved having regard to the pro-visions of Section 123 of Act IV of 1882. We may mention here that the point was not taken in either the first court or in the lower appellate court, Section 123 of the Transfer of Properly Act, no doubt, provides that a gift of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. Section 68 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagar Deo Gir Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All260
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This is defendant vendee's appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit based on village custom, which has been decreed by the court below. The last four pleas in the memorandum of appeal have not been pressed. The first three grounds of appeal raise only one question, viz. whether under the custom of pre-emption prevailing in the village of Amwa Singh, the plaintiff has any right at all to pre-empt the property in suit.2. The custom on the point of pre-emption was not stated in the plaint. The plaintiff in paragraph 1 thereof alleged that he and the defendants second party were co-sharers in the village, that a custom prevailed in the village, that the vendees were strangers and that as against them the plaintiff had a right of pre-emption under the wajib-ul-arz.3. The plea taken before us by the vendees is that in the circumstances of this village the plaintiff is not a co-sharer with the vendors and is not entitled under the custom to preempt. Admi...
Tag this Judgment!Karam Ilahi Vs. Sharf-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All351; 35Ind.Cas.14
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that certain property was not liable to be sold under, a decree. The plaintiff's case was that the property had already been transferred by gift. In support of this contention the plaintiff adduced in evidence a deed of gift. A witness was produced who is a marginal witness. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that when he signed his name all the other parties had already, signed. It is contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that this deed cannot be said to be proved, having regard to the provisions of Section 123 of Act IV of, 1882, We may mention here that the point was not taken in either the first Court or in the lower Appellate Court. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt provides that a gift of immoveable property must be effected by a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provid...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Jagar Deo Gir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.23
1. This is a defendant-vendee's appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit based on village custom, which has been decreed by the Court below. The last four pleas in the memorandum of appeal have not been pressed. The first three grounds of appeal raise only one question, viz., whether under the custom of pre-emption prevailing in the village of Amwa Singh, the plaintiff has any right at all to pre-empt the property in suit.2. The custom on the point of pre-emption was not stated in the plaint. The plaintiff in paragraph I thereof alleged that he and the defendants 2nd party were co-sharers in the village, that a custom prevailed in the village, that the vendees were strangers and that as against them the plaintiff had a right of pre-emption under the wajib-ul-arz.3. The plea taken before us by the vendees is that in the circumstances of this village the plaintiff is not a co-sharer with the vendors and is not entitled under the custom to preempt. Admittedly in the village of Amwa Singh,...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Murli Dhar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All284
Piggott, J.1. Murli Dhar and Ganga Saran have been convicted of an offence under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code in consequence of certain expressions used by them, while occupying the position of accused persons, in the course of a petition presented to a court. The immediate object of this petition was to obtain an adjournment; of the case on the ground that the persons accused were intending to apply for transfer of the proceedings to another court The petition was not happily worded, and as a matter of fact there was no obligation on the petitioners to explain to the court at all the grounds on which they intended to apply for the transfer. The question, therefore, is whether it follows as a fair presumption from the wording of the petition that the intention of the persons presenting the same was to offer insult to the presiding officer of the court. The learned Sessions Judge in affirming the conviction admits that his attention was called to the case of Queen-Empress v. Abd...
Tag this Judgment!Murli Dhar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All330; 33Ind.Cas.643
Piggott, J.1. Murli Dhar and Ganga Saran have been convicted of an offence under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code in consequence of certain expressions used by them, while occupying the position of accused persons, in the course of a petition presented to a Court. The immediate object of this petition was to obtain an adjournment of the case on the ground that the persons accused were intending to apply for transfer of the proceedings to another Court. The petition was not happily worded, and as a matter of fact there was no obligation on the petitioners to explain to the Court at all the grounds on which they intended to apply for the transfer. The question, therefore, is whether it follows as a fair presumption from the wording of the petition that the intention of the persons presenting the same was to offer insult to the presiding officer of the Court. The learned Sessions Judge in affirming the conviction admits that his attention was called to the case of Queen-Empress v. Abd...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sukhdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All316; 33Ind.Cas.637
Piggott, J.1. In this case one Sukhdeo was ordered by a duly qualified Magistrate, under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to furnish security to be of good behaviour. This was an appealable order; but Sukhdeo acquiesced in it and filed no appeal in the Court of the District Magistrate. He offered a security bond, duly executed by two persons who were willing to stand surety for him; but these sureties the Magistrate refused to accept. Sukhdeo then went to the Sessions Judge, asking him to examine the record and, if necessary, to invoke the interference of the Court, with a view to setting aside the order rejecting the sureties. The learned Sessions Judge, on examining the record, found that the proceedings before the Magistrate had been altogether irregular and that Sukhdeo had been bound over without any such enquiry or record of evidence as is required by law. He has referred the matter to this Court, with a recommendation that the Magistrate's proceedings should be qua...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »