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.
Bajrangi Lal and ors. Vs. Ghura Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All346; 32Ind.Cas.913
1. This appeal is connected with Second Appeals Nos. 1354 of 1914 and 1511 of 1914. The suit out of which the appeals arise was brought by Ghura Rai against Lala Bajrangi Lal and Chatarpati Ojha. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 1 had fraudulently obtained from him a sale-deed on misrepresentation. He also alleged that the sale-deed was void because it included a transfer of part of an occupancy holding. As against defendant No. 2 he claimed to have a mortgage-deed set aside on the ground that it was mortgage of an occupancy holding which was void by law. He claimed accordingly that the sale-deed and the mortgage-deed might be declared void. Alternative relief was claimed that if for any reason the two documents should be held to be genuine, then he should get Rs. 1,600, part of the consideration which was not paid. The present appeal is the appeal of the defendant No. 1. Second Appeal No. 1354 of 1914 is an appeal by the same defendant on the question of costs. The third appea...
Har Dutt Panda and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All338(1); 33Ind.Cas.645
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun. The facts are simple. There were two contending parties or factions, between whom over a certain matter there was considerable ill-feeling. Certain events happened and finally action was taken by the Magistrate under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, binding over both parties to keep the peace. The Magistrate put the two contending parties together in one case as accused persons, taking the evidence against them and for them, and finally binding over all of them to keep the peace for a certain period. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court on the ground that the procedure of the Magistrate in trying the two contending parties together was either an irregularity or illegality which must have prejudiced each of them in their defence. In his explanation the Magistrate, and also the District Magistrate in his forwarding letter, are of the opinion that no revision can lie in the p...
Mahabir Singh and anr. Vs. Bhagwanti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All111; (1916)ILR38All325
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which (in effect) the plaintiffs seek to set aside a lease made by one Musammat Bhagwanti. The court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs'' claim. On appeal the learned District Judge modified the decree of the court of first instance. Musammat Bhagwanti, who made the lease, was the widow of one Ram Prasad. Bam Prasad, Mahabir and Lachman Singh, according to the finding of both the courts below, constituted a joint Hindu family, and the holdings in respect of which Musammat Bhagwanti made the lease have been found by both the courts below to be joint family property. The court of first instance considered that upon this finding the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief they sought. The learned District Judge says in the course of his judgement: 'The learned Subordinate Judge held that Ram Prasad and the plaintiffs were members of a joint Hindu family and that the two holdings were joint family holdin...
Baldeo Prasad Vs. Musammat Bhagwanti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.259
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession. Both the Courts below have found that one Musammat Radhey was in possession of certain property at the time of her death. She left three daughters and no 'sons, namely Musammat Bhagwanti, the plaintiff, Musammat Lakhpati and Musammat Govindi. Having regard to the findings and the circumstances of the case we must treat the property a- having belonged to Musammat Radhey. The present suit is to recover one-third of the property on the allegation that on Musammat Lakhpati's death the plaintiff was entitled to it. The answering defendant Baldeo Prasad is a transferee under a deed of transfer, dated the 31st of May 1904, from the sons of Musammat Lakhpati. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower Appellate Court reversed that decree. The decision of the lower Appellate Court was based on the finding that Musammat Lakhpati had only a life-interest which upon her death vested in Musammat Bhagwanti as the sole sur...
Mahabir Singh and anr. Vs. Musammat Bhagwanti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.110
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which (in effect) the plaintiffs seek to set aside a lease made by one Musammat Bhagwanti. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim. On appeal the learned District Judge modified the decree of the Court of first instance. Musammat Bhagwanti, who made the lease, was the widow of one Ram Prasad. Ram Prasad, Mahabir and Lachman Singh according to the finding of both the Courts below constituted a joint Hindu family, and the holdings in respect of which Musammat Bhagwanti made the lease have been found by both the Courts below to be joint family property. The Court of first instance considered that upon this finding the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief they sought. The learned District Judge says in the course of his judgment: The learned Subordinate Judge held that Ram Prasad and the plaintiffs were members of a joint Hindu family and that the two holdings were joint family holdings. On this finding he has based the conclusion ...
Ali HusaIn and ors. Vs. Hakim-ul-lah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All200; 33Ind.Cas.187
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff alleges that one Altaf Husain had sold certain property to the predecessor of the defendants reserving to himself ten bighas, that in the sale-deed Inayat Husain, the vendee, covenanted that he would pay 'the Government revenue not only of the land he purchased but also of the ten bighas which the vendor reserved. The plaintiff says that Altaf Husain subsequently sold to him the ten bighas reserved, that the defendants recently refused to pay the Government revenue on the ten bighas, that he had to pay it himself under protest and that he now brings the suit to recover the amount which he has paid to Government. The Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's claim. Two objections are taken on appeal. First, that on the authority of Sahib Ali v. Subhan Ali 21 A. 12 A.W.X. (1898) 149 which was followed by another Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 275 of 1910, decided on December 8th, 1910, the agreement was void under Regul...
FakhuruddIn and anr. Vs. Mohammad Rafiq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All115; 33Ind.Cas.91
Walsh, J.1. This is an action for the recovery of certain timber or the value thereof, consisting of trees and branches of trees, which were blown down by the wind in a certain graveyard in the town of Koil on the 25th of May 1913. The plaint also claims an injunction restraining the defendants from cutting or removing any trees from the graveyard. The plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of the soil which was dedicated as a takia or graveyard and that they are entitled to any produce of the land which has been severed from it and the usufruct of which is not inconsistent with the purposes for which the land was dedicated. The defendants, who are seven members of a much more numerous Muhammadan mohalla or religious brotherhood to whom the graveyard was dedicated, and by whom it has been used, contend that the plaintiffs' claim has no justification in Muhammadan Law and is inadmissible according to the general principle that property dedicated for religious purposes is sacred for ...
Sarwan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All180; 33Ind.Cas.647
Tudball, J.1. The present is an application in revision against an order of the District Magistrate of Agra, dated the 2nd of November 1915, passed upon an appeal from an order of a Magistrate of the first class, dated the 25th of September 1915, under which the applicant is directed to furnish security to be of good behaviour under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of the Court of first instance can hardly be described as a satisfactory judgment. That of the Appellate Court can safely be described as no judgment at all. It covers four lines: 'it has been shown to be necessary to bind these men over under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, and after hearing arguments on their behalf I can find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order.' The judgment does not even disclose whether or not the Magistrate even looked at the evidence. The law gives a person in the position of the present applicant a right of appeal to the District Magistrate. He is in sim...
Puran and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All222(1); 33Ind.Cas.317
1. This is an application to set aside the order of Mr. Munro, Magistrate, whereby he ordered the applicants to execute bonds for Rs. 100 with two sureties to be of good behaviour for one year, and in default one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This order was confirmed with some modification by the District Magistrate. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that Mr. Munro's order was invalid because he was neither a District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Meerut or a Magistrate of the fist Class when he made this order. It is admitted that when Mr. Munro commenced the investigation of the case he was a Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Meerut, but it is also admitted that at the date when he made his order he had ceased to be so Section 110 only permits of the particular Magistrates mentioned in the section dealing with such cases. It seems to me, therefore, that the order was invalid and made without jurisdiction. I accordi...
Ganpat Rai and ors. Vs. Multan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All121; (1916)ILR38All226; 33Ind.Cas.97
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house, Both the courts below have decided against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that the relation of landlord and tenant exited between the plaintiffs and the predecessors in title and the defendants and their predecessors in title; that the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and that consequently they were entitled to possession. The point we have to decide is a question of law. If we decide it in favour of the appellants it is admitted that the case must go back for trial on the merits. If on the other hand we decide it in favour of the respondents it is admitted that the appeal should be dismissed. The learned District Judge held that the defendants were not estopped from denying the title of the plaintiffs because they or their predecessors in title were not originally put into possession by the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title and that consequently it lay ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »