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.
Chhattar Singh Vs. Amir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All239; 32Ind.Cas.590
1. This appeal arises out of an application made by a decree-holder to execute a decree. In the application for execution the decree-holder stated that the decree was payable by instalments and the first four instalments had been paid but default had been made in the fifth instalment. He accordingly asked for execution of the decree in respect of the balance still remaining due. The decree was an instalment decree but provided that if default was made in the payment of the instalments, the fall amount should become due. The judgment-debtor opposed the application on the ground that the application for execution was barred by time. He denied that payments had been made of any instalments. The Court of first instance after setting forth the facts states as follows: The judgment-debtor contests that the application is time-barred inasmuch as under the present Act the Court cannot recognise any uncertified payments. The decree-holder on the other hand says that the terms of the decree are ...
Musammat Palia Vs. Mathura Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.622
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order granting an application for review of judgment. The facts of the case are as follows. One Mathura Pershad, the respondent before us, executed a promissory note in favour of one Shiam Behari. The latter died and his widow Musammat Palia, 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 Bihari 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 Pershad 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 Pershad put in a...
Pachen Singh Vs. Jangjit Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All249; 38Ind.Cas.647
1. This appeal anises out of a suit brought under Section 159 of the Tenancy Act by a lambardar, alleging that the defendant is liable for his proportion of Government revenue paid by the lambardar. It appears that in the year 1872 the predecessors-in-title of the defendants sold the whole village, which included 196 bighas. These 196 bighas, it is alleged, were retained out of the sale for the maintenance of the vendor.' From the year 1872 right up to the present time it seems that the owner of the rest of the village has always paid the entire Government revenue. It is contended from this circumstance that there must have been an agreement that the 196 bighas should be held free of Government revenue as between the owners of the 195 bighas and the owners of the rest of the village. Of course so far as Government were concerned, the entire village (including the 196 bighas) was liable for Government revenue. In the case of Sri Thakurji Maharaj v. Lachmi Narain 19 Ind. Cas. 67 : 11 A.L...
Emperor Vs. Bhawani Dat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All276
George Knox, J.1. The accused, Bhawani Dat, has been convicted of an offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. He presented an appeal from his conviction and sentence, but the appeal was rejected. He comes in revision to this Court. The grounds he puts in revision are (1) that, as the husband has never made any complaint, the courts, by reason of Sections 199 and 238(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, were debarred from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code; (2) that the husband's petition, dated the 13th May, shows that the court proceedings initiated by the police, were continued in spite of his desire to the contrary; (3) that the circumstance that the husband appeared as a witness for the prosecution in the proceedings under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, cannot be regarded as amounting to the institution of a complaint of an offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, nor can his deposition cure the initial omission to present a formal c...
Ram Kishun Das Vs. Maheshar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All223; 32Ind.Cas.556
Tudball, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by lambardars to recover from a co-sharer sums of money which had been paid by them to the Collector as canal dues. The suit is brought in virtue of the terms of Section 47 of the Canal Act (VIII of 1873) and Section 159 of the Tenancy Act. Five points have been raised before me. The' first point is that under Section 47 the plaintiffs are only entitled to first collect those arrears of canal dues from the other zemindars and then to pay them to the Government and that all that the Collector can do is to direct the lambardar to collect and pay the money; but in the present case the lambardars having paid the money first to the Government out of their own pockets cannot bring a suit under Section 47 of the Canal Act and Section 159 of the Tenancy Act in the Revenue Courts, and that all that they can now do is to go to the Civil Court and sue the defendant. In other words, the argument is that a lambardar by reason of the fact...
Ghasitu and ors. Vs. Sodhan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All322; 32Ind.Cas.690
Walsh, J.1. This case has raised a very interesting discussion. The point argued before me affects only one portion of the property in dispute. But inasmuch as I find myself unable to interfere with the decision of the Court below, it is not necessary for me to go in detail into all the questions in the case. Mr. Abdul Raoof, on behalf of the appellants, in a very clear and interesting argument, raised one distinct point namely, whether it is necessary for one of several co-sharers who objects to the use by the other co-sharers of the joint property, and seeks to restrain them by injunction from making a wrongful use of such joint property, to show not only that he objects, but also that he is suffering or is likely to suffer substantial injury by the user of which he complains. There is no dispute about the general principle, which has been affirmed over and over again, that one joint owner has no right to deal with the joint property otherwise than with the consent of the other joint...
Bhawani Dutt Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All307; 32Ind.Cas.664
George Knox, J.1. The accused, Bhawani Dutt has been convicted of an offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. He presented an appeal from his conviction and sentence but the appeal was rejected. He comes in revision to this Court. The grounds he puts in revision are (1) as the husband has never made any complaint the Courts, by reason of Sections 199 and 238(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code were debarred from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, (2) the husband's petition dated the 18th May shows that the Court proceedings initiated by the Police were continued in spite of his desire to the contrary; (3) the circumstance that the husband appeared as a witness for the prosecution in the proceedings under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, cannot be regarded as amounting to the institution of a complaint of an offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, nor can his deposition cure the initial omission to present a formal complaint having specia...
Mohan Singh Vs. Lachman Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All334; 33Ind.Cas.707
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. The judgment-debtor is an ex-proprietary tenant and on one of the plots in his holding there stands a grove of trees which he planted while he was still a zamindar. The whole holding has been assessed to rent. The decree-holder is the zamindar at the present moment. It appears that he obtained a mortgage decree against the judgment-debtor in execution of which the zamindnri property was all sold up. The ex-proprietary holding was subsequently assessed to rent and the decree-holder is now seeking to recover the balance of the decretal amount from other non-mortgaged property of his judgment-debtor. A plea was taken that the grove is a part and parcel of the ex-proprietary holding and is not liable to sale in execution of a decree. To this the Court of first instance acceded. The lower Appellate Court has held that the tenant has a saleable right in the trees and that right may be sold in execution of a decree. It bases its decision upon t...
Shafian Vs. Hamid-ul-lah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All332; 33Ind.Cas.727
Tudball, J.1. The appellant in the present case is the decree-holder. The respondent who has not appeared is the judgment-debtor. In execution of her decree the appellant attached a house belonging to the judgment-debtor. The latter pleaded that under Section 60 of the Coda of Civil Procedure, he was an agriculturist and the house was occupied by him as such and, therefore, it was not liable to attachment or sale. He produced evidence. He went into the witness-box himself and called two witnesses. This evidence discloses the following facts. The judgment-debtor owns two houses situate in Mohalla Jalalnagar in the town of Shahjahanpore. Apparently the land on which these houses stand belongs to him. He lives in one house and in the next house he keeps his cattle, plough and his carts. He is a tenant of 50 bighas (pacca) land from one Jumman Khan. He also owns a little zamindari which he puts at 20 bighas in all. The evidence shows that the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist and that ag...
H.W. Parmer Vs. Cawasjee
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All336; 33Ind.Cas.723
Tudball, J.1. Second Appeals Nos. 852 and 1090 are two appeals arising out of the same execution proceedings, Second Appeals Nos. 853 and 1089 arise out of similar execution proceedings. The points which arise in these two sets of appeals are the same. Two decree-holders in execution of their decrees against the same person applied for the attachment of certain moneys. In each case the judgment-debtor raised the same objection and in each case the Court passed the same order. Both parties in each case have appealed. The facts are briefly as follows: The judgment-debtor was a Railway servant to whom a certain sum of money was due from the Provident Fund of the Railway. His services had apparently come to an end and the money was payable to him at Bareilly. He removed himself for his own purposes to Simla and at his request the Railway authorities paid the money into the Post Office so that it might be sent to him by money order to Simla. Out of the sum due to him was deducted the commis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »