Allahabad Court June 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.
Kashi Shukal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All425; 36Ind.Cas.836
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision from the order of the Munsif of Grorakhpur made under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the prosecution of the applicants on charges under Sections 193 471 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that Kashi Shukul one of the applicants, brought a civil suit against Rameshar Misir for the recovery of its. 522 principal and interest on the basis of a chitthi or letter dated 16th March 1911. Rameshar Misir denied the execution of the chitthi and the receipt of consideration. The learned Munsif who tried the civil suit held that the claim was a false one and that the chitthi was not genuine and the claim was accordingly dismissed on 16th February 1914 Several months after an application was made by Rameshar Misir for sanction to posecute the present applicants on charges of perjury and forgery. The application it is said, was rejected on the 3rd May 1915 A notice however was issued by the Munsif to the present applica...
Bhairon Prasad Vs. Amina Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All33; (1916)ILR38All690
Piggott, J.1. This is an application against a decision on the execution side of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore. The question before the court below was whether a certain application for execution was within time. It was within time if a previous application by the decree-holder made on the 3rd of April, 1912, was an application to the proper court to take a step in aid of execution. The application of the 3rd of April, 1912, has been read to us. It is to the effect that the decree-holder is doing his best to discover the address of the judgement-debtor, a pardanashin lady, and her son and as he has hitherto failed to do so, he asks the court for time to enable him to prosecute his inquiries further. He was given time to the 19th of April, 1912; but as he had taken no steps in the interval and failed to appear before the court on the 19th of April, 1912, his application was struck off. The attention of the learned Judge of the court below was duly called to ...
Bhairon Prasad Vs. Musammat Amina Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.693
Piggott, J.1. This is an application against a decision on the execution side of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore. The question before the Court below was whether a certain application for execution was within time. It was within time, if a previous application 'by the decree-holder made on the 3rd of April 1912 was an application to the proper Court to take a step-in-aid of execution. The application of 3rd April 1912 has been read to us. It is to the effect that the decree-holder is doing his best to discover the address of the judgment-debtors, a pardanashin lady and her son, and as he has hitherto failed to do so be asks the Court for time to enable him to prosecute his enquiries further, lie was given time to the 19th of April 1912, but as he had taken no steps in this interval, and failed to appear before the Court on the 19th of April 1912, his application was struck oil. The attention of the learned Judge of the Court below was duly called to the decis...
Babu Sarju Parshad and anr. Vs. Mahant Umanpatgir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All188; 35Ind.Cas.464
Walsh, J.1. Mr. Agarwala has done his best as he always does, and has put every possible argument on behalf of his client in defencg of the order which has been passed by the Court below. In spite of everything which he has said, this is one of the most striking examples which has come to my notice, during the short time that I have been here, of the methods which are from time to time adopted by the lower Appellate Courts to shut the door and to refuse to hear appeals when it is their duty to admit and hear them. Anybody studying the history of the attempts of the appellant in the lower Appellate Court in this case to get his appeal heard and decided and of the way in which those attempts were dealt with by the lower Appellate Court might well pause and think that the administration of Law under the rules of procedure was a mere game of hide and seek. It is true that justice cannot be administered in Courts of Law without strict and technical rules of practice and procedure it is equa...
W.E. Mc Gowan Vs. John George Mc Gowan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All688
Walsh, J.1. The case relied upon, namely Holt v. Holt (1868) L.R. 1 P and D 610 : 33 L.J. P. and M. 33 is the one really in point. That was an application for alimony pendente lite and it was held that even pendente lite when it was shown that the wife was living with the co-respondent, whether they were living in adultery or not, alimony should not be ordered against the husband during that period. For the purpose of an application by a wife for alimony it is always assumed that the wife is innocent. The practice of the Divorce Court seems to be uniform on the question of alimony after the wife has been convicted of adultery. The absence of any statement in the text books is probably due to the fact that it is taken for granted that an ecclesiastical court would never have listened to an application by a wife who had been convicted of adultery. I find the following authorities on the subject. In Winstone v. Winstone (1861) 2 S.W. and J.R. 246 which was of course an ecclesistical decis...
W.E. Mcgowan Vs. J.G. Mcgowan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All180(2); 37Ind.Cas.143
Walsh, J.1. The case relied upon, namely that of Holt v. Holt and Davis 1 P. 610 : 38 L.J. P. 33 : 19 L.T. 662, is the one really in point. That was an application for alimony pendente lite and it was held that even pendents lite when it was shown that the wife was living with the co-respondent, whether they were living in adultery or not, alimony should not be ordered against the husband during that period. But for the purpose of an application by a wife for alimony it is always assumed that the wife is innocent. The practice of the Divorce Court seems to be uniform on the question of alimony after the wife has been convicted of adultery. The absence of any statement in the text books is probably due to the fact that it is taken for granted that an ecclesiastical Court would never listen to an application by a wife who has been convicted of adultery. I find the following authorities on the subject. In Winstone v. Winstone 2 Sw. & Tr. 246 : 30 L.J. Mat. 109 : 3 L.T. 895 which was of co...
Hafiz Muhammad Shafi Vs. Dost Muhammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All162; 36Ind.Cas.204
Sunder Lal, J.1. This is a suit brought by one Hafiz Muhammad Shafi for possession of certain endowed property, on the ground that he is the mutaivalli of the said endowment. The endowment was made by Hafiz, Sakhawat Husain by a document dated the 25th of July 1892. Under that document Sakhawat Husain appointed as the first rnutawulli his wife Musammat Rajunnissa, but the latter had no authority to appoint a successor to her office as a mutaivalli. Both Sakhawat Husain and Musammat Rajunnissa are now dead. Under the said document the author of the wakf desired the residents of the town and learned men in Muhammadan Law belonging to his persuasion to look after the wakf and to get some suitable person appointed as mutawatti. One class of these persons is described in the deed as Ulamai Din-i-Muhammadi Amil Bil Hadis' and it is quite clear that Sakhawat Husain was referring to persons of his own persuasion who were learned in Muhammadan Law, The second class of persons to whom he is supp...
Kishori Lal and anr. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All679
Piggott and Lindsay, JJ.1. This is a litigation in respect of two shops in the town of Hathras. There were three sets of defendants originally impleaded, but we are really concerned only with the case as between the plaintiffs and the first set of defendants, namely Kanhaiya Lal and two members of his family. The suit related to two adjoining shops which may conveniently be spoken of as shop No. 1 and shop No. 2. The plaintiffs admitted that the defendants of the first party were in actual occupation of the shops, but alleged them to be in occupation of both shops as tenants. With regard to shop No. 1, these defendants admitted the plaintiff's title. They pleaded that they had as a matter of fact paid the rent due from them to date and so denied the plaintiffs right to any relief in respect of this particular shop. We are concerned, so far as the appeal before us goes, only with the question at issue between the parties about shop No. 2. The title of the plaintiffs in respect of this s...
Kanhaya Lal and ors. Vs. Kishori Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All88; 35Ind.Cas.683
1. This is a litigation in respect of two shops in the town of Hathras. There were three sets of defendants originally impleaded, but we are really concerned only with the case as between the plaintiffs and the first set of defendants, namely, Kanhaiya Lal and two members of his family. The suit related to two adjoining shops which may conveniently be spoken of as shop No. 1 and shop No. 2. The plaintiffs admitted that the defendants of the first party were in actual occupation of the shops, but alleged them to be in occupation of both shops as tenants. With regard to shop No 1 these defendants admitted the plaintiffs' title. They pleaded that they had as a matter of fact paid the rent due from them to date and so denied the plaintiffs' right to any relief in respect of this particular shop. We are concerned, so far as the appeal before us goes, only with the question at issue between the parties about shop No. 2. The title of the plaintiffs in respect of this shop is simple. They are ...
Khawani Singh Vs. Chet Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All341; 37Ind.Cas.86
1. This is the appeal of Khawani Singh, who was a defendant in a suit brought by Chet Ram and others for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a certain document, dated 7th February 1914 and registered on 10th February 1914, and which was executed by Musammat Uda Kuar in favour of Khawani Singh, is null and void and ineffectual as against them after the death of Musammat Uda Kuar. It appears from a pedigree, which is to be found in the first paragraph of the plaint, that one Mansa Ram had four sons, Badam Singh, Lalji, Bakhti and Khushali, Musammat Uda Kuar, the lady who executed the document which forms the subject-matter of this suit, is the widow of Lalji, Khawani Singh who is the appellant in the present case is the son of Badam Singh, and, therefore, nephew of Uda Kuar's deceased husband. The plaintiffs in the case are the descendants of Bakhti and Khushali, the other two sons of Mansa Ram. The case set out in the plaint was to the effect that Lalji, the husband of Musammat ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »