Allahabad Court February 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.
Kalka Prasad Vs. Babu Manmohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All83; 33Ind.Cas.86
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The facts connected with this appeal are very fully stated in the order of my learned colleague who referred the case. The suit is one to recover possession of certain property which originally was a quarter biswa asli share, which has now been by partition formed into a separate mahal. It appears that in the year 1910 one Kali Charan made an application in the Revenue Court for partition of his 4-biswa share. A 3 3/4ths biswas stood in the names of the plaintiff and his brother, who are the sons of one Nand Kishore. One Kalka Prasad, the present defendant, was also recorded in respect of 1/4th biswa. This is the 1/4th biswa that is now in dispute. On the day after the date fixed for the hearing of objections this Kalka Prasad made an application for the partition of the 1/4th biswa which stood in his name. He made this application in the same proceeding as the proceeding of Kali Charan. The result was that the partition was held and a mahal of half of the 3 3/4t...
Raja Vs. Allahdiya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All148; 33Ind.Cas.114
Tudball, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of property. One Majua was the owner of the property, who died some forty years previous to the suit leaving a widow Musammat Waziran. She admittedly took possession of his estate and remained in such possession till the day of her death. The case for the plaintiffs was that the property in question had become hers (partly by inheritance and partly by prescription) and that they as her heirs were entitled to possession. The case for the defendant was, first, that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of Musammat Waziran at all; secondly, that Musammat Waziran was owner of only a one-fourth share in the estate as the widow of Majua and that she held the other three-fourths in lieu of her dower-debt which was discharged shortly before her death; the third point raised was that in the family of Majua a widow has only a life-interest in accordance with a custom existing in the family. The Court of first instance fr...
Khushhal Singh Vs. Nihal Singh and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All297
Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri which commenced with an application under paragraph 21 of the second schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking the court to file an award in a matter which had been submitted to arbitration without the intervention of the court. Objection was taken by the opposite party to the filing of the said award and then there was a further agreement to refer to arbitration the question whether the award ought to be filed or not. The arbitrator thus appointed came to a decision that the award ought to be filed. One of the parties, namely, the appellants now before us, objected to this award and presented a petition in court putting forward certain grounds why this award, or the decision of the arbitrator appointed in the case itself, should be set aside. After some delay the 24th of July, 1915, was fixed for disposal of these objections. On that date the objectors failed to appear and their...
Kuar Nehal Singh and anr. Vs. Kuar Khushhal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All51; 33Ind.Cas.80
Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, which commenced with an application under paragraph 21 of the Second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking the Court to file an award in a matter which had been submitted to arbitration without the intervention of the Court. Objection was taken by the opposite party to the filing of the said award, and then there was a further agreement to refer to arbitration the question whether the award ought to be filed or not. The arbitrator thus appointed came to a decision that the award ought to be filed. One of the parties, who are the appellants now before us, objected to this award and presented a petition in Court putting forward certain grounds why this award, or the decision of the arbitrator appointed in the case itself, should be set aside. After some delay the 24th of July 1915 was fixed for disposal of these objections. On that date the objectors failed to appear and their...
Mohan Lal Vs. Lekhraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All137; 33Ind.Cas.111
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage, dated the 18th of November 1907. Both the Courts below have found that the bond was duly executed and the consideration paid. They have also found that there was no legal necessity. This is a finding of fact binding upon us in second appeal. We have been asked to give a simple money-decree against Lekhraj. The Court is not bound to give a simple money-decree where the plaintiff sues to realise his debts on foot of a mortgage. No doubt a simple money-decree is frequently given by the Court but, in our opinion, this is a matter of grace. When it does so it should, strictly speaking, amend -the plaint by adding a claim for a simple money-decree against the individual and the decree ought to be against that individual. The present case is one in which we think that the indulgence of the Court might well have been given if the suit had been brought a little earlier. The mortgage as already stated was dated the 18th of November 1907, and t...
Sahebzad Singh Vs. Lalsa Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All323; 35Ind.Cas.152
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder whose application for execution has baen dismissed by both the Courts below, on a finding that the terms of the decree are so vague and uncertain as to make it incapable of execution. The decree directed the sale of the right, title and interest of one defendant, Naik Singh, in certain specified immoveable property. It dismissed the suit as against certain other defendants and contained a further direction that the rights of these other defendants in the property specified were reserved and exempted from the operation of the decree. When execution -was sought, certain of these additional defendants took objections to the execution. One objection was that a certain grove specified in the petition of objections was not within the operation of the decree, because it had been sold by Naik Singh prior to the passing of the decree and was not in his possession at the date of the decree. To this the decree-holder replied that the objection wa...
Ram Bharose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All43; 35Ind.Cas.657
Tudball, J.1. The three appellants were convicted by a Magistrate of the second class and they appealed to the Court of the District Magistrate, and on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal no one appeared on behalf of the appellants and the Magistrate wrote the following judgment: 'No one appears. I see no reason to interfere. I dismiss the appeal.' This judgment is not in conformity with the law. It reads as if the appeal had been dismissed because nobody had appeared. It does net disclose whether or not the Magistrate examined the evidence, as it was clearly his duty to do. I allow this application. I set aside the order of the District Magistrate and direct that the record be returned to him with orders to re-hear the appeal and to decide it according to law....
Mahmud HusaIn Vs. Enayet HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All62; 33Ind.Cas.83
1. The facts of this case though somewhat complicated may be shortly stated for the purpose of the present appeal. The plaintiff brought a suit against Ewaz Husain and the brothers and nephews of Ewaz Husain. His claim was really against Ewaz Husain but these other persons were joined as pro forma defendants. He obtained a decree against Ewaz Husain. In execution of this decree he sought to attach profits, which he said were due by the other defendants to Ewaz Husain, for the years previous to the execution. The brothers and nephews objected to this attachment. The matter was fought out between them and the plaintiff's claim was upheld. The result was that the profits due to Ewaz Husain for these years were put up to sale and purchased by the plaintiff (the decree-holder). No particular amount was ascertained. The plaintiff then brought the present suit. He claimed the profits at Rs. 20 per bigha. The Court of first instance allowed him Rs. 16 per bigha. Before the lower Appellate Cour...
Bhim Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All242; 33Ind.Cas.315
George Knox, J.1. The accused, Bhim Sen, has been convicted of an offence under Section 61 of the Excise Act of 1910. The accused was a person who was licensed to sell European liquors in Bazar Bazaza in the Meerut city. Apparently his license does not permit him to sell liquor after 9 P.M. A Preventive Inspector of Excise coming along at a time which he thought was five minutes past nine saw that Bhim Sen's shop was open. He is not able to say whether there was or was not any one in the shop at the time. In order to find out he took a boy aged 10 who was playing near by, gave him money to buy some liquor and over and above two pice for his trouble for so doing. The Preventive Officer had a chaprasi with him, he told the chaprasi to watch the boy and not let himself be seen. As the boy came out the chaprasi seized him, a bottle of liquor was in the boy's hands and on these facts Bhim Sen was convicted of an offence under Section 61 of the Excise Act, viz., for selling spirits to a pers...
Hukam Singh and ors. Vs. Uttam Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All112
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage. The only question which we have to decide in the present appeal is as to whether or not the lower appellate court was justified in holding that the mortgage had been proved. Section 59 provides that a mortgage can only be effected by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that 'if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used in evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.' Section 69 provides': 'If no such attesting witnesses can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »