Allahabad Court July 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.
Krishna Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All450; 35Ind.Cas.1008
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application for revision on behalf of one Krishna Lal, who has been convicted of an offence under Section 82 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.2. 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 31.3. 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 jatrawal whos...
Naunihal Singh Vs. Ram Ratan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All147; 37Ind.Cas.511
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 property of the ward. The obvious way of att...
Sheo Pujan Tewari and ors. Vs. Sohbat Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All181; 36Ind.Cas.427
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of their title to certain plots of land and for maintenance of alleged possession. According to the allegations of the plaintiffs in the plaint, the plots in dispute formed a portion of an occupancy holding which the plaintiffs alleged belonged to them. They expressly mentioned that the defendants bad no concern with the same, The Court of first instance decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Reading the, judgment of the learned Munsif it would appear that he dealt with the prospective altogether of the question of possession. The defendants appealed and their first and clearly a very prominent ground of appeal was that the defendants had not been in possession within twelve years of the institution of the suit. The lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had not been in possession within twelve years. It is conceded here that if the plaintiffs were not in possession within twelve years of the institut...
Latif Miyan Vs. Emperor Through Har Deo Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All429(2); 36Ind.Cas.583
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-mark.2. 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 Mai. 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...
Raja Brij NaraIn Rai and anr. Vs. Ram Dhari Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All101; 40Ind.Cas.40
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale was a sale of property comprised in two mahals. The mahals each consists of a number of villages. There also appears to have been a number of sub-divisions, called thoks. The plaintiff only sought to pre-empt the property comprised in one of the two mahals. Even in respect of this property he originally claimed that the vendor's title to a portion was bad. This, however, has been decided against him. The defendant-vendee pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt the property comprised in each of the mahals, and that not having done so, his suit must fail. It must be conceded that if the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt all the property, the subject-matter of the sale, and he omitted a part, his suit must fail. A pre-emptor is. not entitled to choose what part of the property sold, he will exercise his right of pre-emption in respect of. The plaintiff in support of his case and to prove the existence of the custom...
Sagar Mal Vs. Rao Girraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All10; (1917)ILR39All120
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of an insolvency matter. The main question relates to an occupancy holding. It appears that, the insolvent presented his petition on the 3rd of May, 1914, He was adjudicated insolvent on the 1st of August, 1914. On the 16th of April, 1914, that is to say, shortly before his insolvency, the insolvent made a lease of his occupancy holding in favour of one Desraj, which was registered on the 11th of August, 1914, This lease reserved a rent of Rs. 260 per annum; Rs. 130 was to be paid to the zamindar as the rent of the holding and the other Rs. 130 was to go towards liquidation of a debt which the insolvent owed to Government for taqavi advances. The zamindar is the principal creditor in the insolvency and he is the principal respondent in the present appeal. The learned District Judge directed that the occupancy holding should be surrendered to the zamindar for a price to be settled by the receiver. It is stated that the...
Abid HusaIn and ors. Vs. Ahmad Raza and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All494
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal from a Judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh, for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage alleged to have been created in 1857, in respect of a 12 annas share in the village of Malgaon. The document on which they rely to establish the mortgage is a certified copy of a petition of compromise filed in court on the 1st of April, 1857. It is not disputed that the record of the proceedings in which this petition was filed was destroyed in the mutiny, which broke out shortly after. The certified copy is, however, admissible in evidence relative to the facts recited therein, and was rightly admitted by the Subordinate Judge. The question for determination in this appeal is, however, whether if the petition is to be treated as creating the mortgage, it was properly stamped in accordance with the Indian Statute then in force to entitle the plaintiffs to sue...
Murtaza HusaIn Khan Vs. Muhammad YasIn Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All552
Ameer Ali, J.1. The facts of this case are fully set out in the judgements of the Judicial Commissioners of Oudh, from whose decree dismissing the plaintiff's claim this appeal is preferred; their Lordships are thus relieved of the necessity of referring to them at any length.2. The suit was brought in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Sultanpur to recover from the defendant, the taluqdar of Deogaon, in the district of Fyzabad, a half-share of certain non-taluqdari property to which the plaintiff claims to be entitled by :right of inheritance under the Muhammadan law.3. At the time of the annexation of Oudh the taluqa of Deogaon was found to be in the possession of one Babu Jamshed Ali Khan under a firman of the deposed King, bearing date the 23rd Shaban, 1271, corresponding with the 11th May, 1855. On the 19th of December, 1858, a summary settlement of this property was made with him by the British Government. The Kabuliat, or engagement for the payment of revenue, executed by Jam...
Sagar Mal Vs. Girraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.171
1. This appeal arises out of an insolvency matter. The main question relates to an occupancy holding. It appears that the insolvent presented his petition on the 3rd of May 1914. He was adjudicated insolvent on the 1st of August 1914. On the 16th of April 1914, that is to say shortly before his insolvency, the insolvent made a lease of his occupancy holding in favour of one Desraj which was registered on the 11th of August 1914. This lease reserved a rent of Rs. 260 per annum. Rs. 130 was to be paid to the zemindar as the rent of the holding and the other Rs. 130 was to go towards liquidation of a debt which the insolvent owed to Government for taqavi advances. The zemindar is the principal creditor in the insolvency and he is the principal respondent in the present appeal. The learned District Judge directed that the occupancy holding should be surrendered to the zemindar for a price to be settled by the Receiver. It is stated that the zemindar was willing to give Rs. 1,000. The learn...
Munna Lal Vs. Ram Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All109
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that it was not proved that the mortgage had been duly attested as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The first court also considered that the real mortgagee (that is to say the person who had advanced the money) was one Man Mohan Lal and not Munna Lal, the plaintiff. The lower appellate court held that the document had been duly attested and that the other question ought not to have been gone into at all. We think that the decision of the lower appellate court was correct. The plaintiff proved that the mortgage was signed by Bachchu Lal the mortgagor. It was proved that one of the attesting witnesses was dead. The other attesting witness was called and proved that the mortgage was signed by the mortgagor in his presence and that he had signed the deed as an attesting witness. It was not expr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »