Allahabad Court July 1916 Judgments
Muhammad Ahmad Said Khan Vs. Madho Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All133; 35Ind.Cas.911
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for preemption. The property is situate in the town of Koil. The property, which was sold, consisted of a portion of a muafi plot. The plaintiff based his title, first, on an alleged custom, and, secondly, on the Muhammadan Law. The ancient history of Koil is not in evidence and the only document which relates thereto is the wajib-ul-arz of 1872. This document in Chapter I states that the kasha is a perfect pattidari tenure comprising an area of 3,256 bighas. The area of each of the pattia is then given. It would seem that there was only one patti which was zamindari in the ordinary sense. The other pattia consisted of muafi pattis, resumed muafi and buildings. Chapter II is headed the rights of 'co-sharers,' but if the different paragraphs are read it would seem to refer to the zamindari patti. For example, paragraph 6 states that 'the Government was the zamindar of this kasba and before the Mutiny it was settled with farmers. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Jhanda Singh Vs. Wahid-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All570
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment and decree, dated the 11th of March, 1911, of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces, affirming a decree, dated the 27th of March, 1908, of the Additional Judge of Meerut.2. The question for decision is whether two instruments in writing, the first, a deed dated the 29th of August, 1852, executed by the appellant's predecessors in title, and the second, an agreement. dated the 5th of September, 1852, executed by the predecessors in title of the principal respondents, constituted when taken together a bai-bil-wafa mortgage of the property in the first mentioned instrument described, that is, a mortgage by way of conditional sale, or an out-and-out sale of the property with a contract for repurchase. The Additional Judge of Meerut held that the documents constituted the latter. On appeal to the High Court, the two members who constituted the Court, Sir John Stanley, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Banerji, were divided...
Tag this Judgment!Har Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All421(1); 36Ind.Cas.133
P.C. Banerjee, J.1. The conviction in this case cannot be supported. A dacoity has been proved to have taken place at the dharamsala of Musammat Gaura Kunwar. The question was whether the accused took part in the dacoity. The only evidence against him is his own confession recorded by a Magistrate on the 13th of March 1916. He was tendered a pardon and made a witness in the case, but he retracted the confession and was thereupon prosecuted for the offence of dacoity. The retracted confession is, as I have said above, the only evidence against him. It is needless to say that it is most unsafe to convict an accused person upon a retracted confession unless there is corroboration of the confession by other evidence. The confession is, no doubt, admissible against him, but when it is retracted its value is greatly diminished and it becomes necessary to have satisfactory corroboration of it so as to enable the Court to determine whether the confession is true or not. In the present instance...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Yakub Khan Vs. Musammat Naziran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All112; 36Ind.Cas.200
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sued to obtain possession of, and a declaration of their title to, certain property which had belonged to Musammat Sughra. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the heirs of Musammat Sughra and that the deed of gift which the Musammat had executed in favour of the defendant Yakub Khan, the brother of the donor, was invalid. The Court of first instance found against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court reversed the first Court and gave the plaintiffs a decree. The deed of gift is produced. It is a registered deed and in the most express terms declared that the donor had made over the property by way of gift to her brother and had withdrawn her possession. The property was zemindari property and the defendant Yakub Khan was and is in possession of it in so far as the nature of the property is capable of being possessed' by any one. We think that under the Muharamadan Law as soon the deed of gift was e...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Charan Shukal Vs. Sheo Shanker and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All829; 36Ind.Cas.1007
1. This appeal arises out of suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover a number of plots of land which are specified in the plaint The suit was instituted in the Revenue Court under the provisions of Section 58 of the tenancy Act, the allegation of the plaintiffs being that the defendants were heir non-occupancy tenants and were liable to ejectment under the provisions of that section. The defendants pleaded that they were proprietors and also that if they were not proprietors they were ex-proprietary tenants and as such not liable to ejectment. The Court of first instance granted a decree in respect of some of the plots and dismissed the suit in respect of other plots. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the Commissioner and the defendants filed cross-objections. The appeal if it could be properly presented to the Commissioner was within time but if the appeal was not cognisable by the Revenue Court it was late for an appeal to the District Judge. The Revenue Court returned the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Waris Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All96; 36Ind.Cas.151
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Joint Magistrate of Bareilly whereby he convicted the applicant under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to one month's simple imprisonment. The facts are these: An application for partition was made before an Assistant Collector. On the 12th of May 1916 he recorded a 'partition proceeding' in accordance with the provisions of Section 114 of the Land Revenue Act. As directed by the last paragraph of that section he submitted the proceeding to the Collector for confirmation. It may be mentioned that under Section 133 of the Act an appeal lay from this order and the period of limitation for the appeal as prescribed by Section 214 was thirty days from the date of the order, An appeal could, therefore, be preferred from the order of the Assistant Collector on or before the 12th of June 1916. No appeal, however, had been filed when the proceedings now in question took place. On the 23rd of May 1916...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Lal and ors. Vs. Mr. Charles Edward Gray
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All431; 36Ind.Cas.210
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Official Assignee of the Estate of Panna Chand-Chunni Lal against the defendants in respect of certain dealings between them. Neither the first Court nor the Court below made any preliminary decree' for an account. There can be no doubt that in the suit it was necessary, in order to ascertain the amount of money due to or from the parties, that an account should be taken. Order XX, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in a suit for an account of pecuniary transactions between a principal and an agent and in a y other suit not thereinoefore provided for, where it is necessary, in order to ascertain the amount of money due to or from any party, that an account should be taken, the Court shall, before passing its tinal decree, pass a preliminary decree directing such account to be taken as it thinks fit. We think that the Court ought to have passed such a preliminary decree in the present suit.2. Two questions of principl...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Krishna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All131
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application for revision on behalf of one Krishna Lal who has been convicted of an offence under Section 32 of the Police Act (V of 1861). The conviction has been upheld in appeal by the District Magistrate. The above mentioned section of the Police Act provides for the punishment of persons who oppose or disobey orders issued under the three preceding sections of the Act or who violate the conditions of any licence granted for the use of music or for the conduct of assemblies and processions. The order which the accused is said in this instance to have disobeyed purports to have been issued under Section 31 of the Act and the principal matter to be considered here is whether this Order Is valid and one which could lawfully issue under Section 31.2. A copy of the Order Is on the record. It is in the form of a printed proclamation issued over the name of the Superintendent of Police, Benares, and contains elaborate directions for the conduct of jatrawals whose b...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Latif
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All123
Lindsay, J.1. This is the application in revision of one Latif Miyan who has been convicted of an offence under Section 482 of the 'Indian Penal Code, that is to say, the offence of using a false trade-mark2. The facts as found by the court below are as follows : The accused and one Ali Miyan carry on business as commission agents in the bazar in Cawnpore and deal principally in sugar. A few doors away from the accused's place of business is the shop of another firm of commission agents called Hardeo Das and Kalyan Mal. This firm too deals in sugar, and the evidence is that they have established a special line of trade in hand-made sugar which they export from Cawnpore to Rajputana. It appears that they deal in machine-made sugar as well, but in the cases where they supply the hand-made article they have it put up in sacks stamped with the name of their firm. The machine-made sugar on the contrary is supplied in the sacks as they come from the manufacturer. According to the evidence, w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Vs. Naunihal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All127
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. It is desirable to refer shortly to the circumstances, which are somewhat peculiar. The property belonged to a gentleman named Matwatang Dhaoj Prasad Singh. He was possessed of a considerable estate, which was heavily indebted, and the estate was taken over by the Court of Wards. The sale was a sale by the Court of Wards. There is abundant evidence to show that for no less than two years prior to the sale, efforts were being made to sell a substantial portion of the estate, including the property now in question, in order to liquidate the debts of the ward. There is evidence, which we have no hesitation in believing, that the intention to sell was published in the fullest manner possible. We know ourselves that it is the practice of the Court of Wards to publish the intention of making such sales. It is their duty to do so. Their object is to gain as high a price as they possibly can for the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »