Allahabad Court January 1917 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.
Brij Banke Lal Vs. Ram NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All322
Piggott, J.1. These are four connected appeals from orders of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge of Meerut in four connected suits. In each of these suits the court of first instance had dismissed the claim as barred by limitation, This finding has been reversed by the lower appellate court and the suits have been remanded for trial on the merits. The appeals before us are against the orders of remand, and I propose to limit my decision strictly to the point raised by the pleadings before us. The question therefore is, not whether the plaintiff in these four suits has a good and effective cause of action against each set of defendants, but merely whether, assuming the plaintiff to have a cause of action, his remedy is barred by reason of the suits having been instituted beyond the period prescribed by law. The facts out of which this litigation arises are somewhat peculiar. One Lala Sri Chand, who is the defendant) appellant in F. A, F. 0. No. 76, brought a suit against Nityanand a...
Ram NaraIn and anr. Vs. Brij Bankey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.532
Piggott, J.1. These are four connected appeals from orders of remand passed by Subordinate Judge of Meerut in four connected suits. In each of these suits the Court of first instance had dismissed the claim as barred by limitation. This finding has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court and the suits have been remanded for trial on the merits. The appeals before us are against the orders of remand, and I propose to limit my decision strictly to the point raised by the pleadings before us. The question, therefore, is not whether the plaintiff in these four suits has a good and effective cause of action against each set of defendants, but merely whether, assuming the plaintiff to have a cause of action, his remedy is barred by reason of the suits having been instituted beyond the period prescribed by law. The facts out of which this litigation arises are seem what peculiar. One Lala Sri Chand, who is the defendant-appellant in First Appeal from Order No. 76, brought a suit against Ni...
Jagardip Rai and anr. Vs. Naubat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All301; 38Ind.Cas.149
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to redeem certain property. The mortgage was dated the 23rd of December 1899 for the term of eight years. The amount advanced at the time was the sum of Rs. 125. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim for redemption on payment by them of Rs. 125 and some interest. The lower Appellate Court modified the decree of the Court of first instance and reduced the sum payable by the plaintiffs for redemption. A learned Judge of this Court affirmed the decree of the lower Appellate Court and the present appeal is under the Letters Patent against the decree of the learned Judge of this Court. We have read the mortgage and considered its provisions. Reading the document as a whole it is absolutely clear in our opinion that the mortgage was a mortgage to secure the sum of Rs. 125. A distinction was made between Rs. 80 and Rs. 45. The usufruct of the property was sufficient to keep down the interest upon Rs. 80 onl...
Gopal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All327; 38Ind.Cas.329
George Knox, J.1. Gopal has been convicted of an offence under petition 19(f) of the Arms Act. According to the evidence in the record Gopal is a servant of the Raja of Bijaigarh. The Raja is exempted from the provisions of Sections 13 to 16 of the Indian Arms Act. Gopal pleaded that he had been shooting with the Raja's gun at the Raja's orders on the Raja's behalf. There was evidence to support this, and it is probable. Under such circumstances it was held by this Court in Hurley, In re A.W.N. (1881) 7 and also in Queen-Empress v. Ganga Din 22 A. 118 : A.W.N. (1899) 13 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1108 that a person exempted from the provisions of the Arms Act can send a servant armed with his gun to shoot for him. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. The gun and ammunition which were confiscated will be returned to the Raja of Bijaigarh, and if the accused is in prison, he will be released....
Emperor Vs. Piari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All309
George Knox, J.1. One Piari Lal has been convicted of an offence under Section 274 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act of 1916 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20. He has applied to this Court in revision and contends that he is not an occupier of the building from which rubbish has been thrown into one of the streets of Muttra. The District Magistrate who upheld the order of the trying magistrate, in his judgement says 'it is clear to me from the evidence on this file and connected municipal files that the late adhikari held Piari Lal responsible for the upkeep and cleanliness of the temple and all work connected with it.' This, in my opinion, does not bring Piari Lal within the term 'occupier' as used in the Act above mentioned. In Section 2, Clause (11), of the Act a definition is given of the word 'occupier' and we are told that it includes an owner in actual occupation of his own land or building. Piari Lal certainly cannot come under this meaning of the word 'occupier.' ...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All132; 40Ind.Cas.303
1. Mathura Prasad has been convicted of an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. He appealed from the Court of first Instance to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad, who dismissed the appeal. He comes here in revision. Speaking generally the findings of the Court below are accepted in revision; but there is nothing to prevent this Court from going into the evidence if occasion arises to doubt the findings arrived at by the Courts below upon the facts before them. In the present case the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge does not give one much help in determining the case, and the Assistant Government Advocate very properly laid before me the judgment of the Joint Magistrate who has gone very fully into the evidence before him. But on hearing that judgment it seemed to me that there was reason to apprehend that the learned Joint Magistrate had relied for his decision of the case rather upon the weakness of the defence than upon the completeness of the prosecution. ...
Piare Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.308
George Knox, J.1. One Piare Lal has been convicted of an offence under Section 274 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act of 1916 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20. He lias applied to this Court in revision and contends that he is not an occupier.' of the building from which rubbish has been thrown into one of the streets of Muttra. The District Magistrate, who upheld the order of the Trying Magistrate, in his judgment says that 'it is clear to me from the evidence on this file and connected Municipal files that the late adhikari held Piare Lal responsible for the upkeep and cleanliness of the temple and all work connected with it.' This, in my opinion, does not bring Piare Lal within the term 'occupier' as used in the Act above mentioned. In Section 2, Clause (11), of the Act a definition is given of the word 'occupier' and we are told that it includes an owner in actual occupation of his own land or building. Piare Lal certainly cannot come under this meaning of the word 'occ...
H.F.B.D. Hay Vs. Ram Chandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All315(2); (1917)ILR39All308
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a reference under Section 13 of the Ajmere Code (Regulation I of 1877). We have been obliged to consider the reference in the absence of the parties; but as this course is clearly justified by the provisions of Section 19 of the same Regulation, we do not think it necessary to keep the reference pending on that account. The question raised is whether one moiety of the pay of an officer of the Indian Army, while serving in this country, is attachable in execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is suggested in the order of reference that there has been a conflict of opinion on this point, and reference has been made to the case of Colonel Leaky v. The Bank of Upper India Limited (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 529, and to a decision of the Bombay High Court Velchand Chhaganlal v. E. Bourchier (1912) I.L.R. 37 Bom. 26. On the other hand, there are cases Calcutta Trades Association v. Ryland (1896) I.L.R. 24 Calc. 102 and Watson v. Lloyd (1901) I.L...
Major H.F.B.D. Hay Vs. Ram Chander
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.92
1. This is a reference under Section 18 of the Ajmer Code (Regulation I of 1877). We have been obliged to consider the reference in the absence of the parties; but as this course is clearly justified by the provisions of Section 19 of the same Regulation, we do not think it necessary to keep the reference pending on that account. The question raised is whether one moiety of the pay of an officer of the Indian Army, while serving in this country, is attachable in execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is suggested in the order of reference that there has been a conflict of opinion on this point, and reference has been made to the case of Colonel Lecky v. Bank of Upper India Ltd. 9 Ind. Cas. 1023 ; 33 A. 529 ; 8 A.L.J. 487 and to a decision of the Bombay High Court reported as Velchand Chagan Lal v. Bourchier 17 Ind. Cas. 13 ; 37 B. 26 ; 14 Bom. L.R. 777. On the other hand, there are cases, viz., Calcutta Trades Association v. Ryland 24 C. 102 ; 1 C.W.N. 138 ; 12 Ind...
Debi Prasad Vs. Allen Grant
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All485; 39Ind.Cas.916
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal in an insolvency matter arising out of the following facts. The respondent, Mr. Allen Grant, was adjudicated an insolvent on the 21st of August 1916 on a petition presented by him on the 11th of March previous. In his schedule he showed liabilities amounting to Rs. 18,288 and assets of Rs. 191. Debts were eventually proved to the amount of Rs. 19,307, of which roughly speaking, one-half was due to the appellant Debi Prasad on a decree of the 20th of November 1910. Arrangements were made in the insolvency for one half of Mr. Grant's salary, he is a public servant employed in the Financial Department of the Secretariat of this province to be attached for the benefit of the creditors, and this has been going on ever since, except for a period of fourteen months during which the insolvent was on furlough on half pay. On the 17th of March 1916 the insolvent applied for an order of discharge and by the order now under appeal, which is dated the 2nd of May 1916...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »