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.
Musammat Shahjahan Begum and anr. Vs. Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All469; 36Ind.Cas.265
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Municipal Board of Bareilly. The defendants have obtained possession of certain land, found to be the property of plaintiff No. 2, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894). The question of the amount of compensation due to the plaintiffs, or either of them, is still pending in the Court of the District Judge on a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. That question has not yet been disposed of and is not in issue in the case now before us. The plaintiffs have come into Court alleging that the proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act were void by reason of irregularity, and they seek accordingly to be put back into possession of the land. The learned Subordinate Judge of Bareilly has held that there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act and that the plaintiffs' suit must fail. In the memorandum of appeal to this Court an o...
Porna Koer and anr. Vs. Chunni Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All10(1); 35Ind.Cas.718
1. We are of opinion that this case must go back for the District Judge to deal with it on the merits. The mere fact that a previous grant was subject to a condition which the applicants were unable to comply with, is no ground for refusing a second application. The learned Judge should consider this application on the merits, and unless he is of opinion that it is not made bona fide, he should accept the security offered, or be satisfied with a modest security and grant the application. It should be borne in mind that the object of the application is to enable a debt due to the deceased's estate to be collected by the persons beneficially entitled to it, and it may very well be that persons who are perfectly honest, and who are applying bona fide, are not able to file the security which the Court considers appropriate. It is difficult to see why any but a purely nominal security is required here at, all. It is not as though there were substantial assets, and the applicant were a perso...
Thakur Gulab Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.991
Lindsay, J.1. These two appeals are connected and may be disposed of by one judgment. They have arisen out of a trial held in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Bareilly in which three persons were concerned, namely, Abdul Hamid Khan, Asiadar Husain and Gulab Singh. Of these the first named was, in the month of August 1914, Sub-Inspector of the Jahanabad Police Circle in the Pilibhit District: the second accused, Azadar Husain, was at that time. The Kotwal of Pilibhit, while Gulab Singh, the third accused, was the Prosecuting Inspector of the Pilibhit District. The case in which these three accused were implicated had its origin in certain events which took place in the Pilibhit District in the month of August 1914, of which a short narrative may be given by way of introduction.2. It appears that on the night of the 15th and 16th August 1914 a dacoity was committed in the house of one Tika Ram, the Station Master of Shahi, one, of the stations on the Rohilkhand and iKumaun R...
Emperor Vs. Adhin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All56; 36Ind.Cas.143
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the Local Government, praying that the conviction of one Adhin and the sentence passed on him be quashed and that the Magistrate be ordered to commit him for trial to the Court of Session. Adhin is admittedly a member of a criminal tribe and he was registered as such on the 20th of August 1914. He was charged before the Magistrate with house-breaking by night under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was proved against him and he was sentenced to fifteen months' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution wanted the learned Magistrate to put off the case to give evidence of one or two previous convictions of Adhin in order to get him punished under Section 23 of Act III of 1911. The learned Magistrate held that as the previous convictions related to a date prior to the passing of the Criminal Tribes Act (III of 1911), it would be useless to grant the postponement prayed for. He was of opinion that Section 23 of the s...
Sarup Vs. Kundar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All125(1); 36Ind.Cas.396
Rafique, J.1. This appeal, which is described as a second appeal, is really a first appeal from an order of remand. It appears that the plaintiff-appellant sued for the recovery of Rs. 160 as damages, on the allegation that he had been stopped from sinking a well by the defendant-rspondent which resulted in the loss of Rs 100 to the plaintiff-appellant. Both arties agreed in the Court of first instance abide by the statement of one Nasir-ud-din, ziladar of the Court of Wards of the Estate of Tirwa. The learned Munsif n the evidence of Nasir-ud-din awarded Rs. 25 as damages to the plaintiff. On appeal the learned Judge remanded the as under Order XLI, Rule 23. The plaintiff as come up in appeal and challenges the rder of remand. A preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondent to he effect that no appeal lies to this Court he argument is that the suit of the plaintiff is a suit of Small Cause Court nature, in which only one appeal is allowed according to Section 102 of the Code...
Randhir Singh Vs. Param Hans and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All461
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is a suit upon a deed which purports to be a deed of mortgage, dated the 17th of July, 1908. The document bears the signature and mark of Musammat Subhadra the executant. It bears the signature of one Gopal, an attesting witness, and the only other witness whose name is written by the scribe is Bansi. In the margin of the deed is given the name of another witness or a person who was expected to be an attesting witness, who is described as Bansi 'son of Bandhir, caste Gola purab, resident of Saujan, by acknowledgement of the executant.' This is written in the hand-writing of the scribe. There is no signature or mark of this witness Bansi on the deed. He is dead, and there is nothing to show that he authorized the scribe to sign his name for him. He has not himself put his signature or mark. The question is whether he is an attesting witness within the meaning of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. In a recent case which came before the Patna High Court, Ear...
Param Hans and ors. Vs. Randhir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All103; 35Ind.Cas.748
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is a suit upon a deed which purports to be a deed of mortgage bearing date 17th July ,1903. The document bears the signature and mark of Musammai Sahodra, the executant. It bears the signature of one Gopal, an attesting witness, and the only other witness whose name is written by the scribe is Bansi. In the margin of the deed is given the name of another witness or a person who was expected to be an attesting witness, who is described as Bansi son of Randhir, caste Gola Purab, resident of Saujan, by acknowledgment of the executant.' This is written in the handwriting of the scribe. There is no signature or mark of this witness Bansi on the deed. He is dead, and there is nothing to show that he authorised the scribe to sign his name for him. He has not himself put his signature or mark. The question is whether he is an attesting witness within the meaning of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. In a recent case which came before the Patna High Court Ram Baha...
Kuber Saithwar Ram Tahal Upadhia Vs. Guptai Saithwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All260(1); 35Ind.Cas.237
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This case must go back to the lower Appellate Court for trial according to law. The judgment of that Court is in the following words: --'Counsel for the respondents admits that the evidence of the Naib Tahsildar in this Court is the best evidence available on either side. It follows that the appeal must be decreed. The appeal is, therefore, decreed with costs.' The judgment does not comply with the requirements of the law. It does not set forth the matters in dispute between the parties, and it does not record any findings of the learned Judge upon these matters. The report of a Tahsildar or Naib-Tahsildar is only the result of the investigation mad by him and is only an expression of his opinion in the matter. That report alone cannot be the sole basis of a decision in regard to a question of title. The appeal before the lower Appellate Court not having been properly tried according to law; I set aside the decree of that Court and remand the case to the lower Appell...
Lakhpat Thakurai, Major and ors. Vs. Gursaran Thakurai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All132; 36Ind.Cas.273
George Knox, J.1. The suit oat of which this appeal arises was a suit brought by Adya Saran Thakurai and Gursaran ThakuKu against Lakhpat, Mahadeo and Suraj Bali Thakurai first party, Jai Mungal and three others second party and Rozan Cbaudhri third party. The allegations contained in the plaint are that the ancestors of the plaintiffs hypothecated a 2-anna 2-pie share in Mouza Mohnapur to Bacha Thakurai and three others, ancestors of defendants. One-fourth of the consideration, it is said, belonged to the ancestors of defendants first party, one-half to the ancestors of the defendants second party and the remaining one-fourth to the ancestors of defendants third party. Defendants second and third parties obtained sale-deeds of the entire mortgage share amounting to a 2-anna 2-pia share of the consideration of the document already mentioned. Subsequently defendants first party brought a suit for the recovery of their 1/4th amount of the consideration under the same document. Defendants...
Radhika Prasad Bapudi Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All16; (1916)ILR38All438
Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. The appellant filed an application in the court below for a succession certificate under Act No. VII of 1889, in respect of a Government promissory note described as a part of what is called the Tanjore debt. The promissory note was in favour of one Madho Sahai. He and his brother Beni Sahai are said to have formed a joint family. Madho Sahai died long ago and one of his daughters left two sons, one of whom Madhuri Das, died in 1906, leaving a son Makund Lal. Makund Lal has assigned the note to the present applicant under a deed of assignment and the applicant as such assignee has applied for a succession certificate. The court below refused to grant his application on the ground that it had not been established to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant's assignor had a subsisting title at the date of the assignment. In our opinion this was not a question which the court ought to have gone into in the present case. Whether the assigno...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »