Allahabad Court January 1916 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.
Abdul Karim Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All89; 36Ind.Cas.148
Piggott, J.1. Abdul Karim has been convicted by a Magistrate of stealing a box, admittedly his own property, under somewhat peculiar circumstances. The conviction was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh on appeal and Abdul Karim has brought the matter before this Court in revision. The essential facts of the case are simple enough. Abdul Karim, travelling by a train, arrived at the railway station of Muhammadabad on the Bengal and North-Western Railway, and as he was leaving the station premises became involved in a wrangle with the Station Master Muhammad Imam. There was a dispute with regard to certain persons who were leaving the station along with Abdul Karim, as to whether they had or had not travelled by the same train without taking any ticket. This dispute is not essential to the matter now in question, except as forming part of the general dispute between Abdul Karim and the Station Master, The other matter raised by the latter was as to the quantity of luggage ...
Jaddu Ram Vs. Kanhaia Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All92; 33Ind.Cas.90
Walsh, J.1. One substantial question of law has been thoroughly argued in this case, namely, whether this suit ought to have been brought by the plaintiffs within two years of the discovery of the erection complained of. It is quite clear from the findings of the Court below that in this case the defendant has a right of support from or easement over the plaintiffs' wall abutting on the defendant's property for a roof of his adjoining house, as it was originally constructed as far back as the year 1901, namely, ekpalia or one-sided thatch. What the defendant has done and what the plaintiffs complain of is that in the year 1901 at any rate, if not later according to the somewhat indefinite finding of the lower Appellate Court he raised the wall from 11 feet to 19 feet erecting a second storey of his house and put a dopalia or double-sided thatch, thereby placing an additional burden upon the plaintiffs' wall. To my mind that was an alteration which constituted an extension or encroachme...
Jamna Das Vs. Ram Autar Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All282; (1916)ILR38All209
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff Lala Jamna Das claimed the sum of Rs. 30,009 together with interest. It appears that on the 2nd of June, 1913, one Musammat Lakhpati Kunwar made a mortgage in favour of Jamna Das. The mortgage consisted of zamiadari property and also mortgagee rights in other property. On the 21th of November, 1396, Musammat Lakhpati sold the entire mortgaged property, that is to say, the zamindari and the mortgagee rights, to the defendant Pandit Ram Autar Pande for the sum of Rs. 41,100 leaving Ra. 40,000 with the vendee for payment of the money due to Janma Das. On the 9th of February, 1900, Janma Das sued for sale of the mortgaged property.--After a considerable amount of litigation he got a decree, but only for the sale of the zamindari the mortgagee rights were excluded. The sale of the zamindari property being insufficient to satisfy the decree, the plaintiff, on the 7th of January, 1907, applie...
Ram Lal Vs. Ram Harakh and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All217
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants in a suit for partition. According to the plaint, the parties owned property in the Sultanpur district and also a house in the city of Allahabad. There was a suit relating to the partition of the Sultanpur property which was settled by a compromise. The present suit was brought after the decree had been passed by the court at Sultanpur. One of the defences taken was that the present suit was barred by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, because the plaintiff had noglected to include this house in the property in respect of which he sued in the court at Sultanpur. The court of first instance accepted this pi ea and dismissed the present suit on this ground alone. The learned District Judge on appeal has held that the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, do not bar the present suit, and, having reversed the decision of the first court on this point, has remanded the case under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the C...
Diwan Chand and ors. Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All214
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought a declaration that a certain house was the property of the defendant No. 3 and was liable to be sold in execution of the decree against him. It appears that at one time the house belonged to a man called Krishna Aiyar, a Madrasee Brahman, He made a will, dated the 7th of September, 1886, in which he dealt with a considerable amount of property. The will recited that he had two nephews Ganpati and Subrai, His will provided that after his death Subrai should be the absolute owner of one of two houses he mentioned in Ms will. The will then proceeds:In the other dwelling house consisting of throe sections of Thakurdwara including the staircase both the executors aforesaid should reside, put up pilgrims and attend on them jointly and from the income thereof daily perform the usual worship of the gods Murli Dhar, Raj Rajeshri and Mahadeo and the worship on Basant Panchimi, Ram Naumi,...
Murlidhar and ors. Vs. Dewan Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All352; 32Ind.Cas.945
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought a declaration that a certain house was the property of defendant No. 3 and was liable to be sold in execution of the decree against him. It appears that at one time the house belonged to a man called Krishna Aiyar, a Brahman Madrasee. He made a Will dated the 7th of September 1886, in which he dealt with a considerable amount of property. The Will-recited that he had two nephews Ganpati and Subrai. His Will provided that after his death Subrai should be the absolute owner of one of two houses he mentioned in his Will. The Will then proceeds: 'In the other dwelling house consisting of three sections of thakurdwara including staircase both the executors aforesaid should reside, put up pilgrims and attend on them jointly and from the income thereof to daily perform the usual worship of the gods Murlidhar, Raj Rajeshri and Mahadeo and the worship on Basant Panchmi, Ram Naumi, Janam Ashtami, Nauratra, Shivaratri, Dhanurmas, ...
Ram Harakh Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All172; 33Ind.Cas.124
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants in a suit for partition. According to the plaint the parties owned property in the Sultanpur District and also a house in the city of Allahabad. There was a suit relating to the partition of the Sultanpur property which was settled by a compromise. The present suit was brought after the decree had been passed by the Court at Sultanpur. One of the defences taken was that the present suit was barred by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, because the plaintiff had neglected to include this house in the property in respect of which he sued in the Court at Sultanpur. The Court of first instance accepted this plea and dismissed the present suit on this ground alone. The learned District Judge on appeal has held that the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, do not bar the present suit, and, having reversed the decision of the first Court on this point, has remanded the case under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Cod...
Musammat Subba Vs. Haji Maqbool HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All255; 32Ind.Cas.613
Walsh, J.1. This is a very simple matter. It is an application to transfer a suit from the Court at Aligarh to the Court at Bareilly, where another suit has already been brought By the applicant against the respondent to this application. Substantially it is not denied that the issues to be determined in both the suits are the same. I will assume that the bulk of the property which is in dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Court at Aligarh where the respondent to this application has brought his suit. But in a pedigree case where oral evidence is chiefly necessary, I do not think this matters much. I fully recognise that the general rule is that the plaintiff has the right to choose his own Court for his own suit, and that in cases of disputes about property the Court where the property is situated is prima facie the better Court. But in this case no injustice can be done to the plaintiff himself by the transfer of his suit to Bareilly. In any case he will have to appear as defen...
Bhagwant and ors. Vs. Arjun and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All257; 32Ind.Cas.617
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two persons, who allege themselves to be co-sharers, against the other co-sharers for profits for three years. It appears that the different co-sharers are recorded as the owners of certain shares. Sardar Singh and Musammat Hardei, the vendors of the plaintiffs, were recorded in respect of a one-fourth share and it is in respect of this share that they bring the present suit. It appears also that the different co-sharers were in possession of specific plots. There was some khalsa land in the hands of tenants but by an arrangement between the co-sharers two of the co-sharers, namely, Jugla and Bhagwant officiated as lambardars, collected the rent of the khalsa, paid the Government revenue and village expenses and kept the balance themselves to make up their share in the profits of the mahal. The khalsa was very much smaller than the land in the hands of the different co-sharers. Whether this arrangement was a permanent arrangement or an arr...
Pallia Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All280
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order granting an application for review of judgement. The facts of the case are as follows: One Mathura Prasad, the respondent before us, executed a promissory note in favour of one Shiam Behari. The latter died and his widow Musammat Pallia, the appellant before us, sued to recover the debt. One of the pleas taken in defence was that at the time when the money was lent, or said to have been lent, Shiam Behari was a minor and therefore the transaction was void. The court of first instance dismissed the suit. The court of appeal, on the 18th of June, 1914, decreed the suit. Shortly afterwards the defendant Mathura Prasad applied to the court for review of Judgment on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence which he was unable to produce before the court at the hearing of the case. That evidence apparently was a patra. The court rejected the application on the 14th of November, 1914. On the 25th of April, 1915, Mathura Prasad put ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »