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.
Muhammad Kamil and anr. Vs. Habibullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1917
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.794
Walsh, J.1. This is an action brought for a declaration of title, possession and arrears of rent of a certain house and trees. The plaintiffs alleged that they, together with the defendants Nos. 4 to 7, who have been made pro forma defendants, are the heirs of Sheikh Farhat Husain, that the said property was sold by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the said Farhat Husain for Rs. 99-15-0 by a sale-deed dated the 26th of March 1901, that the defendant No. 3 was a. tenant at Us. 1-8-0, that no rent had been paid since April 1913 and that the defendant No. 3 repudiated the plaintiffs' title on the 15th of April 1914. They further alleged that the defendant No. 1 had brought a collusive suit against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to which the plaintiffs were no party, and by which defendant No. 3 obtained in March 1914 a decision in his favour that he was the owner. They further alleged that the original sale-deed was in the possession of defendants Nos. 4 to 7. The defence of the defendant No. 3 in...
Ratan Singh Vs. Khem Karan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All228(1); 44Ind.Cas.608
Tudball, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the appellant for a declaration, under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act, that he has occupancy rights in a certain holding. The suit is purely a declaratory suit. The question is, what is the Court-fee payable on the appeal. Prima facie the suit falls clearly within Schedule II, Article 5, of the Court Fees Act, which lays down that on a plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to establish or disprove a right of occupancy a Court fee of eight annas should be paid. The only difficulty in the case arises by reason of two previous Judges of this Court having in similar cases directed that a fee of Rs. 10 was 'payable. In neither of these decisions was Schedule II, Article 5, apparently considered. The suit is not one to which Article 17 (iii) Schedule II, of the Court Fees Act is applicable. As I have said above, it is purely a declaratory suit, and nothing more, in which the plaintiff seeks to establish that he has a right of occupancy. ...
Somwarpuri Vs. Bhairon Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All318
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts connected with this appeal may be very shortly stated. The defendants having sold their proprietary rights became ex-proprietary tenants of the sir lands under the provisions of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act. An application was made to the Collector to fix the rent on the ex-proprietary holding under the provisions of Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act. The rent was fixed at the sum of Rs. 50. Subsequently by a registered agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants the rent was enhanced to the sum of Rs. 72-6-0. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Revenue Court to recover this rent. The defendants, amongst other pleas, raised the defence that no rent save the rent fixed by the Collector could be recovered until after the expiration of 10 years from the time of the creation of the ox-proprietary tenancy. The Revenue Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the enhanced rent. An appeal was taken to the D...
Kallu Vs. Sital
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All260; 43Ind.Cas.823
Piggott, J.1. The circumstances out of which this application for revision arises are as follows. One Sarju made a report to the Police in which he alleged that Sital, who is the respondent to the present application, had committed theft. Upon investigation this report was found to be false and a prosecution was instituted against Sarju under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for having given false information to a public servant. Sital appeared as a witness for the prosecution in this case. He began by deposing that he had not committed the theft of which Sarju had accused him. The next question put to him must have been, 'why then did Sarju make this false report against you?' He replied that Sarju bore him enmity and went on to explain the grounds of that enmity. He said, first, that there had been a quarrel between them about a partition wall between their courtyards. Apparently he felt it necessary to explain further, though it is impossible to say whether or not this explanati...
Bhairon Prasad and ors. Vs. Mahant Somvarpuri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All306; 37Ind.Cas.1001
1. The facts connected with this appeal may be very shortly stated. The defendants having sold their proprietary rights became ex-proprietary tenants of the sir lands under the provisions of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act. An application was made to the Collector to fix the rent on the ex-proprietary holding under the provisions of Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act. The rent was fixed at the sum of Rs. 50. Subsequently, by a registered agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the rent was enhanced to the sum of Rs. 72-6-0. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Revenue Court to recover this rent. The defendants, amongst other pleas, raised the defence that no rent save the rent fixed by the Collector could be recovered until after the expiration of 10 years from the time of the creation of the ex-proprietary tenancy. The Revenue Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the enhanced rent. An appeal was taken to the District Judge who confirmed the decree of the Cou...
HarnaraIn Ram and ors. Vs. Surja Kunwari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All311
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which purports to have been brought under Act No. XX of 1863, The plaintiffs, who are two members of the community, sought a declaration that certain property is endowed property, and they prayed that the defendants might be dispossessed of the property and the plaintiffs or some other persons nominated by them might be appointed mutwalli or manager of the property and placed in charge of it. The plaint contains other prayers also to which it is not necessary to refer. The property belonged to one Sukhmangal Singh, the husband of the defendants who are appellants before us. On the 29th of October, 1903, he made a will, and it is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that under this will he endowed the property in question to certain idols. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have got their names recorded in the revenue papers as owners of the property, that they have made lease of the property and ...
Musammat Surja Kunwari and anr. Vs. Pande Har NaraIn Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All346; 38Ind.Cas.166
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which purports to have been brought under Act XX of 1863. The plaintiffs who are two members of the Hindu community, sought a declaration that certain property is endowed property and they prayed that the defendants might be dispossessed of the property and the plaintiffs or some other persons nominated by them might be appointed mutawalli or manager of the property and placed in charge of it. The plaint contains other prayers also, to which it is not necessary to refer. The property belonged to Sukhmangal Singh, the husband of the defendants who are appellants before us. On the 29th October 1903, he made a Will, and it is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that under this Will he endowed the property in question to certain idols. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have got their names recorded in the revenue papers as owners of the property, that they have made leases of the property and that they have misappropriated theincome of theproperty ...
Tika Ram Vs. Baid Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All300
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for redemption. The facts as finally ascertained, after an order of remand by this Court, may be stated as follows. In the month of March, 1875, there was a mortgage by the plaintiff to the defendants, under which possession was agreed to be given of three items of property, namely, (1) a plot of land, forming part of an occupancy holding, now represented by field No. 385 in the village map, (2) a number of scattered plots appertaining to the same holding, and (3) a residential house. The consideration for the mortgage was an advance of Rs. 99, so that the mortgage-deed was not required by law to be registered, It was a document of which registration was optional; but as a matter of fact it was registered. The mortgagee, however, did not enter into possession of all the property specified in the deed. He never took possession of the residential house or of the scattered plots; but of the property specified in the deed he took ...
Dalip Singh Vs. Nawal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All214; (1917)ILR39All297; 38Ind.Cas.335
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. It appears that there was a rent suit tried in the court of an Assistant Collector of the first class named Mr. Ambika Nandan Sinha, exercising jurisdiction in the Muzaffarnagar district. There was a question in that rent suit as to the genuineness of a certain receipt tendered in evidence by the defendants. The question was decided in favour of the' plaintiff by the Assistant Collector, and the Assistant Collector's decision was subsequently affirmed by the District Judge in appeal. An application was then made by the successful plaintiff to the same Assistant Collector, that is to say, to Mr. Ambika Nandan Sinha, still exercising the jurisdiction of an Assistant Collector of the first class in the Muzaffarnagar district, for sanction to prosecute the three defendants in the suit for offences under Sections 467, 471, 193 and 199, Indian Penal Code, in connection with an alleged false defence said to have been set up by them and the alleged forgery of the recei...
Emperor Vs. Khiali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All305
George Knox, J.1. This is an application in revision. The order with which it is concerned is an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. It appears that one Khiali had by the committing magistrate been offered a pardon in the case K.E. v. Khushi Ram and Ors. and had been examined on oath as a witness for the Crown both in the court of Session and of the committing magistrate. In the court of Session he totally denied having made any statement in the court of the committing magistrate and added that he took no part in the dacoity. On this the learned Sessions Judge directed the committing magistrate to record evidence and to commit Khiali to sessions on a charge under Section 396, Indian Penal Code, and added the words 'pardon offered to Khiali is declared to be forfeited.' The pleas taken in revision are that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to withdraw the conditional pardon, that there was no ground for the trial of the applicant under Section 396, India...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »