Allahabad Court May 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.
Baijnath Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Babu Tej Bali Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All191; 38Ind.Cas.894
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal relates to the right to possession of a very valuable estate in Mirzapur, referred to in the plaint as the Agori Barhar Raj. The last male owner was Raja Kesho Saran Shah. The Raja died on the 4th of March 1871, leaving no issue but a young Rani Bed Sarau Kunwari him surviving. The Rani lived until 1913 when she died. A glance at the pedigree filed with the plaint will show that the plaintiff is the eldest son of Babu Jagannath Prasad. This gentleman survived the late Raja but died before the Rani on the 14th of October 1910. Defendant No. 1, Babu Baijnath Prasad, is the rival claimant to the Raj. He was a brother, next in seniority to Babu Jagannath Prasad aforesaid, father of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is a younger brother of defendant No. 1. In the plaint it is alleged that the Rani had made or attempted to make large gifts at the expense of the estate to one Pandit Banarsi Misir, a Brahman, that she had tried to get the consent of the plaintif...
Panna Lal Vs. Kasturi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All520
Piggott and Lindsay, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the order of the First Additional District Judge of Aligarh passed in an appeal which was brought by the plaintiff respondent Panna Lal against a decree of the Munsif of Bulandshahr. The order which is complained of is one purporting to be under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Additional District Judge has ordered the case to be remanded for trial, as he says, de novo, to the court of first instance. The defendant Musammat Kasturi has appealed against this order and the memorandum of appeal raises two questions, one relating to the form of the order passed by the court below and the other, a more important one, relating to the competence of the plaintiff Panna Lall to maintain this suit. We will deal first with the second question and in order to understand the matter at issue we may state the following facts. There were three brothers, Raghunandan Lal, Mahadeo Prasad and Ram Jiwan Lal. Of these Raghun...
Musammat Kasturi Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All451; 36Ind.Cas.245
1. This is an appeal against the order of the First Additional District Judge of Aligarh, passed in an appeal which was brought by the plaintiff-respondent Panna Lal against a decree of the Munsif of Bulandshar. The order which is complained of is one purporting to be under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Additional District Judge has ordered the case to be remanded for trial, as he says, de novo to the Court of first instance, The defendant, Musammat Kasturi, has appealed against this order and the memorandum of appeal raises two questions, one relating to the form of the order passed by the Court below and the other, a more important one, relating to the competence of the plaintiff Panna Lal to maintain this suit. We will deal first with the second question and in order to understand the matter at issue we may state the following facts:There were three brothers, Raghunandan Lal, Madho Prasad and Ram Jiwan Lal. Of these Raghunandan Lal died in the year ...
Emperor Vs. Gaya Bhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All517
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. It appears that the accused went to the place of one Sarju to have illicit connection with Sarju's sister. He was arrested and on prosecution was convicted by Pandit Gur Saran Newas Misra, a Magistrate of the first class, of an offence under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned Magistrate found that there had been illicit intercourse between the woman and the accused and that the woman was a widow. The question is whether the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 456 refers to an offence of lurking house-trespass and Section 441 defines the offence of criminal trespass. Under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another (a) with intent to commit an offence or (6) to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such propert...
Lakhrani Kunwar Vs. Dhanraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All261; (1916)ILR38All509
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain immovable property. The plaintiff obtained a decree for possession of this very land in 1906. On appeal this decree was confirmed. Admittedly the plaintiff did not obtain possession through the court, and when she made an application for execution of the decree, her application was rejected on the ground that the decree was more than three years old. She then instituted the present suit. In the court of first instance she succeeded in obtaining a decree. On appeal the learned District Judge held that, not having executed the decree within three years, her suit was barred by the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also by the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In second appeal to this Court, the learned Judge reversed the decree of the lower appellate court and restored the decree of the court of first instance. An issue was framed in th...
Dhanraj Singh and ors. Vs. Musammat Lakhrani Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All163; 35Ind.Cas.601
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain immoveable property. The plaintiff obtained a decree for possession of this very land in 1906. On appeal this decree was confirmed. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not obtain possession through the Court and when she made an application for execution of the decree, her application was rejected on the ground that the decree was more than three years old. She then instituted the present suit. In the Court of first instance she succeeded in obtaining a decree. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that not having executed the decree within three years, her suit was barred by the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also by the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In second appeal to this Court, the learned Judge reversed the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restored the decree of the Court of first instance.2. An issue was framed in the Court of first instance as to whether ...
Gaya Bhar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All52; 35Ind.Cas.979
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. It appears that the accused went to the place of one Sarju to have illicit connection with Sarju's sister. He was arrested and on prosecution was convicted by Pandit Gursaran Newas Misra, a Magistrate of the first class, of an offence under Section 456, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned Magistrate found that there had been criminal intimacy between the woman and the accused and that the woman was a widow. The question is whether the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 456, Indian Penal Code. Section 456 refers to an offence of lurking house-trespass and Section 441 defines the offence of criminal trespass. Under Section 441, Indian Penal Code, whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another (a) with intent to commit an offence or (b) to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property shall be held to b...
Aijaz HusaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All58; 35Ind.Cas.973
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Moradabad. The facts of the case are as follows: One Barkat Hasan was the lambardar of a village. He made default in payment of the Government revenue. He had transferred his own share to a near relative. The accused Aijaz Husain was one of the biggest co-sharers in the village. The Tahsildar called upon him to pay the Government revenue but he objected. Thereupon the matter was reported to the Collector. The Collector passed an order directing realization of the revenue by the arrest of the applicant. A warrant of arrest was issued signed by the Naib Tahsildar on the 24th of February 1916 returnable by the 29th. The peons were unable to execute this warrant. Time for execution was extended up to the 6th of March. In the meantime one of the other co-sharers who had been arrested for nonpayment of Government revenue was released and ho was asked to trace out Aijaz Husain, for whose arrest the warrant was issued. This co-...
Emperor Vs. Aijaz Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All506
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Moradabad. The facts of the case are as follows: One Barkat Hasan was the lambardar of a village. He made default in payment of the Government revenue. He had transferred his own share to a near relative. The accused Aijaz Husain was one of the biggest co-sharers in the village. The Tahsildar called upon him to pay the Government revenue, but he objected. Thereupon the matter was reported to the Collector. The Collector passed an order directing realization of the revenue by the arrest of the applicant. A warrant of arrest was issued signed by the Naib Tahsildar on the 24th of February, 1916, returnable by the 29th. The peons were unable to execute this warrant. Time for execution was extended up to the 6th of March. In the meantime one of other co-sharers who had been arrested for non-payment of Government revenue was released and he was asked to trace out Aijaz Husain for whose arrest the warrant was issued. This co-s...
Shankar Lal Vs. Latafat Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All190; 35Ind.Cas.600
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff contends that there was a mortgage which affected properties which are mentioned in lists A and B attached to the plaint. He is the purchaser of one of the items mentioned in list A. The suit was brought on foot of the mortgage and the property in list A only was sold. This was sufficient to satisfy the mortgage-decree. He made defendants to the suit all the persons whom he believed, as he alleged, to be the purchasers of the properties mentioned in list B. He omitted to make parties to the suit some of the other purchasers of the property mentioned in list A. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit on two grounds: (1) that one of the purchasers of the property mentioned in list B was not made a party, (2) that he had failed to prove the values of the several properties. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.2. The pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »