Allahabad Court March 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.
Bindeshri and anr. Vs. Babu Somnath Bhadry and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All199; 35Ind.Cas.347
1. We think the learned District Judge has overlooked the effect of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act (Act XVI of 1908). We think that, when registration of this deed was completed, it' operated from the date of the execution, namely, the 20th of January 1909. A right to sue accrued to the plaintiff from the date of the sale, and he was beyond time when he filed his suit on the 20th of January 1915, We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the lower Appellate Court and restore the decree of the first Court dismissing the plaintiff's claim as barred by limitation. The defendants-appellants in this Court will get their costs in all the three Courts....
Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Darbari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All326(1); 33Ind.Cas.737
1. In this case the suit had been dismissed under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. An appeal against this order of dismiss was entertained by the District Judge and resulted in an order directing the Court of first instance to re-admit the suit on to its pending file and to dispose of it on the merits. Presumably the District Judge considered himself to be acting under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter has been brought before us on appeal from the District Judge's order of remand. We think that no appeal lay to the District Judge. Authority for this proposition is to be found in Lucky Churn Chowdhry v. Budurrunnissa 9 C. 627 : 12 C.L.R. 484 and in Parbati v. Toolsi Kapri 20 Ind. Cas. 1 : 18 C.L.J. 128 : 18 C.W.N. 604. It seems to be clear that the dismissal of the suit by the first Court was a form of dismissal for default, and, therefore, excluded from the definition of the word 'decree' in the present Code of Civil Proce...
Emperor Vs. HusaIn Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All354
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The accused have been convicted of an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act. The court below has found that the accused brought a certain document purporting to be a will executed by (amongst other persons), one Musammat Banno Bibi and had the document registered. The court has found that at the time of this registration Banno Bibi was dead. On this finding it is clear that an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act was committed. Section 83 of the Registration Act is as follows: 'A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector-General, the Branch Inspector-General of Sindh, the Registrar or Sub-registrar in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed.' The father of the present complainant got permission under Section 83 to prosecute, but he compromised the case ...
Bhagwat Saran Misir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All196; 35Ind.Cas.167
Henry Richards, C.J.1. In this case the four accused have been convicted of theft and sentenced to pay fines. The accused come to this Court in revision, contending that their conviction was wrong in law. The principal accused is a zemindar and the complainant was or had been a tenant of his. There had been disputes between them, which had been settled by the signing of an agreement by which the complainant undertook to build a house and to go and reside there within a certain time; whilst, on the other hand, the zemindar agreed to leave him certain fields. The agreement also provided that if the house was not built, then the zemindar should be at liberty to eject the complainant under the Tenancy Act or in any other way he thought fit. The complainant never built the house, and there were further disputes between them in consequence. The allegation is that the accused (i.e., the zemindar and his servants) cut and took away the crops of the complainant. A perusal of the record clearly ...
HussaIn Khan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.145
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The accused have been Convicted of an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act. The Court below has found that the accused brought a certain document purporting to be a Will executed by (amongst other persons) one Musammat Banno Bibi and had the document registered. The Court has found that at the time of this registration Banno Bibi was dead. On this finding it is clear that an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act was committed. Section 83 of the Registration Act is as follows: 'A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector Genera], the Branch Inspector General of Sindh, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed.' The son of the present complainant had got permission under Section 83 to prosecute but he compromised the c...
Somwarpuri Vs. Mata Badal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All351
George Knox, Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. The proceedings before us consist of a reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of Act No. II of 1899. The case as stated to us is that on receipt under Section 17 of the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act (II of 1903), of a decree passed by the Munsif of Allahabad against Mata Badal and others, the Collector of Allahabad offered the decree-holder, Mahant Somwarpuri, Secretary of the Akhara Niranjani, a usufructuary mortgage of the judgement-debtor's property for twenty years in full satisfaction of the decree. The decree-holder expressed his willingness to accept the offer and the Collector therefore executed a mortgage-deed in accordance with the powers conferred on him under the said Act II of 1903.2. We have perused the particular deed and have considered its provisions. The question asked by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is whether this mortgage deed requires to be stamped and registered....
Mahant Somwarpuri Vs. Matabadal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.280
1. The proceedings before us consist of a reference by the Chief Controling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of Act No. II of 1899. The case as stated to us is that on receipt under Section 17 of the Bundelkhund Alienation of Land Act (II of 1903) of a decree passed by the Munsif of Allahabad against Mata Badal and others, the Collector of Allahabad offered the decree-holder, Mahant Somwarpuri, secretary of the Akhara Niranjani, a usufructuary mortgage of the judgment-debtor's property for twenty years in full satisfaction of the decree. The decree-holder expressed his willingness to accept the offer and the Collector, therefore, executed a mortgage-deed in accordance with the powers conferred on him under the said Act II of 1903.2. We have perused the particular deed and have considered its provisions. The question asked by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is, whether this mortgage-deed requires to be stamped and registered.3. There is only one section of Act No. II of 1899 w...
Pitaram Vs. Jhujhar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.798
1. This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif of Jhansi against two defendants for a declaration of title in respect of a varied assortment of property, including two houses, some crops, and a quantity of moveable property, which he alleges to belong to him.2. The first defendant had obtained a decree against the second defendant in the same Court in the year 1911 for the sum of Rs. 306-7-4. In the year 1913 the second defendant became insolvent within the jurisdiction of the Insolvency Court of the District Judge of Jhansi. No Receiver was appointed in the bankruptcy, and the District Judge of Jhansi became empowered, under Section 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, to exercise the powers of a Receiver. Being set in motion by the first defendant, the decree-holder or judgment-creditor aforesaid, the District Judge as such Receiver attached the property, which is the subject-matter of this action, as being the property of the insolve...
Govind Ram Vs. G.i.P. Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All306; 35Ind.Cas.208
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This application for revision must fail. The plaintiff consigned certain goods at the Keratpur Railway Station, which is outside the limits of United Provinces of Agra and Oudb, for despatch to Muttra. He was charged at special famine rates which applied to consignments booked at stations within the limits of the United Provinces. The Keratpur station being outside the United Provinces, the plaintiff could not be charged at special famine rates. When the goods arrived at Muttra station, the defendant Company claimed the difference between the ordinary rates.2. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit for damages. In my opinion the suit has been rightly dismissed. The contract made with the plaintiff was by a person who had no authority on behalf of the defendant Company to enter into a special contract, viz., a contract to carry goods at concession rates sanctioned by the Government. Those rates did not apply to places outside the limits of the United Provinc...
Rambrichh Ram and ors. Vs. Tarak Tewari, Minor, Through Pahlad Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All353; 33Ind.Cas.801; 33Ind.Cas.805
Piggott, J.1. This is a suit which arises out of a previous suit for redemption. The plaintiff-respondent was one of the defend ants in the said suit for redemption. He was at the time a, minor. The plaintiffs in that suit described all the defendants as members of a joint undivided Hindu family and asked that one of them, by name Kanhai, might be appointed guardian ad litem for all the minor members of the family impleaded as defendants. Kanhai accepted this position with regard to some of the defendants, but he refused to act as guardian ad litem for the present plaintiff. The Court thereupon appointed the central nazir guardian ad litem for this minor. In doing so it contravened the provisions of the law by not issuing a notice to the minor or to the aforesaid Kanhai, or to any other person of its intention to appoint the central nazir as guardian. That official did not as a matter of fact defend the suit. It was, however, defended by Kanhai, who contested the suit throughout and on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »