Allahabad Court December 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.
Lakhpat Pandey and ors. Vs. Jang Bahadur Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All8; 40Ind.Cas.37
1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to one-third of the amount of certain bonds which stood in the name of the defendants or some of them. So far as this allegation is concerned it is correct, because the plaintiff had previously obtained a declaration to that effect from the Civil Court in a suit. He then alleged that the defendants had secretly realised the amounts of these bonds. The Court below has found that the defendants did recover on foot of the bonds. This being so, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover his share of the money realised or paid on foot of the bonds, provided he sued in time. The Court of first instance decided against the plaintiff upon the ground that he was bound to put forward his claim in the previous suit. The plaintiff appealed and the Court below has held that the view taken by the Court of first instance on this point was erroneous. In this we quite agree. The present appeal challenges the de...
Janki Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All105(2); 39Ind.Cas.336
Tudball, J.1. The applicant Janki Das has been convicted of an offence under Section 60 of the Excise Act, IV of 1910. The facts found appear to be as follows, though they are by no means clearly set out in the judgment of the Court below; in fact that judgment is not a good one. It ought to have clearly stated the actual facts on which the accused had been convicted. However, so far as can be ascertained from the judgment of the Magistrate and from the judgment of the Sessions Judge on revision, they appear to be as follows: Kanhaiya Lal is the licensee of a certain liquor shop. On a certain evening the Excise Officer paid a surprise visit to the shop. He found a man sitting on what is called the gaddi, apparently selling liquor to the public. The accused Janki Das was handing something, probably liquor, to this person on the gaddi. Who that person was on the gaddi it is not clear, though it appears from the affidavit filed in the Court below that he was one Shankar Das, a servant of ...
Debi Saran Shukul and anr. Vs. Daulata Shuklain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.10
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against her Husband to recover maintenance. The defence to the claim was that the plaintiff was unchaste and was not, therefore, entitled to any maintenance from her husband. It has been found that the plaintiff gave birth to an illegitimate child, and it has also been found upon an issue referred by us to the Court below that at the time of the institution of the suit she was living an unchaste life. Under these circumstances the question we have to consider is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any maintenance. The case of N. Subhayya v. Bhavani 24 Ind. Cas. 390 was cited at the hearing. In that case it was held that a wife is not entitled to maintenance from her husband if at the time of the suit she is living in adultery and persists in her vicious course of life. This view seems to us to be in consonance with the Hindu Law. As in the present case it has been found that the plaintiff was leading an unchaste life at the...
Shib Dayal Vs. Sheo Ghulam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.694
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 18th of November 1904. The mortgage is alleged to have been made by Shib Dayal, the appellant, in favour of one Babu Lachman Singh. The plaintiff was the transferee from Babu Lachman Singh. The connected appeal also arises out of the same suit. The present appeal is by the defendant, who alleges that the mortgage was not proved. In the connected appeal the plaintiff appeals against so much of the decree of the lower Appellate Court as disallowed portion of the interest claimed. 'With regard to the proof of the mortgage, the plaintiff produced one of the attesting witnesses who proved that he saw, the mortgagor sign the mortgage and that he signed his name as an attesting witness. On the face of it the mortgage appears to have been attested by a number of other witnesses but they were not called. Nor did the witness who was called say that there was any other attesting witness present. He was not asked the question by ...
Punnu and anr. Vs. Musammat Kousa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All146; 40Ind.Cas.463
1. This and the connected Appeal No. 1128 of 1915 arise under the following circumstances. Two mortgages were made in favour of one Govind, since deceased. The purchaser of the equity of redemption from the mortgagor paid into Court the amount due upon the two mortgages under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The present suit has been brought by the plaintiffs alleging that they and Govind constituted a joint Hindu family and that accordingly the defendant No. 1, the daughter of Govind, had no interest therein. The Court of First Instance found that the family was joint but nevertheless dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed contending that if the finding that the family was joint was accepted, then the suit ought to have been decreed. The defendant Musam-mat Kausa filed an objection to the finding that Govind and the plaintiffs were joint. The lower Appellate Court apparently accepting the finding of the Court of First Instance that the family was join...
Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Sarju Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All230
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution. The decree-holder has obtained a personal decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, based on a compromise. The decree was that a lump sum of Rs. 1,225 should be paid in three annual instalments : Rs. 625 on the 4th of June, 1909, Rs. 300 on the 4th of June, 1910, and Rs. 300 on the 4th of June, 1911. The decree contained a provision that if default was made in the payment of any instalment, the decree-bolder should have 'discretion' or 'power' to realize the full amount of the decree with interest without waiting for any future instalment to become clue. On the 8th of April, 1913, the decree-holder asked for execution of his decree for the instalments that fell due on the 4th of June, 1910, and the 4th of June, 1911, respectively, together with interest. In his application he set forth that he had already received Rs. 520 upon foot of the earlier instalment but h...
Peary Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All317(1); 39Ind.Cas.495
George Knox, J.1. Peary Lal, a village Munsif and a zemindar who pays Rs. 500 land revenue, has been convicted of an offence under Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code in that on 16th July 1915 he maliciously pronounced a decree in a civil suit, Ram Lagan v. Bitter, which he knew to be contrary to law. There seems to be no doubt that the accused had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Apparently the circle of this Munsif consisted of only twenty-two villages, and the evidence is strong that Jagdispur, the village in which the defendant resided, was not one of those twenty-two and indeed was far remote from the circle over which the jurisdiction of this Munsif extended. The learned Judge who convicted the appellant found that there was sufficient evidence to show that he acted maliciously. No definition of the word maliciously has been pointed out to me so far as this Court is concerned, but there can be little doubt as to what the legal meaning of the word is Bowen, L.J., in Mogul Steamsh...
Narayan Das and ors. Vs. Khunni Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All319; 37Ind.Cas.897
1. This appeal arises out of a suit purporting to have been brought by the plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are that in the year 1886 Beni Ram and Tulsi Ram made a gift of certain property in Bareilly for charitable and religious purposes. The manager (sarbarakar) was directed to lay out a grove, construct a temple and a well on the land with the income of the gifted property, or with his own funds, for public benefit and worship. It seems that the sarbarakar did not carry out his trust, on the contrary the temple was not built the grove was not planted and the land (the subject-matter of the gift) was mortgaged and alienated. The result was that one Chote Lal and others obtained the sanction of the Legal Remembrancer and brought a suit under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1832, asking that the Manager, Bate Krishen, should be dismissed and praying for the appointment of a trustee in his place. A number of persons were made defendants...
Mutsaddi Lal and ors. Vs. Tarif
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All396; 38Ind.Cas.978
George Knox, J.1. A Magistrate of the first class of Meerut was satisfied and declared himself satisfied from information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning certain land within the local limits of his jurisdiction. He made an order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned to attend his Court and to put in written statements of their respective claims regarding the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. This being so, the Magistrate purported to deal and did deal as a matter of fact with a proceeding falling under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By Section 435, Clause (3), of the Criminal Procedure Code, his proceedings are not proceedings within the meaning of Section 435. The result is that they cannot be called for in revision or examined by this Court. This has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Maharaj Tewari v. Har Charan Rai 26 A. 144 : A.W.N. (1903) ...
Gulab Rai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All133; 38Ind.Cas.985
George Knox, J.1. The main point urged before me is that the trial of the petitioners is not in accordance with the law, inasmuch as (1) the report of the Prosecuting Inspector asking that proceedings be taken against the applicants was neither a complaint nor a Police report and the Magistrate should be deemed to have taken cognizance of the case under Section 190(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and (2) all the witnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioners. I have heard all that could be said with reference to the first point by the learned Vakil who appeared for Gulab Rai, but I am unable to attach any weight to it. The case was a case sent up by the Police, and I understand they sent up only one person named Anokhe, and in the Police papers they said that they did not consider the evidence sufficient as against Gulab Rai and Babu Ram. The trial commenced as against Anokhe alone; but after it had gone on to a certain stage, the Prosecuting Inspector intervened and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »