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.
Baidram and anr. Vs. Tika Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All189; 39Ind.Cas.528
Piggott, J.1. This in 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 properties 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 ...
Khiali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All316; 38Ind.Cas.1004
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 Mainpnri. It appears that one Khiali had by the Committing Magistrate been offered a pardon in the case of Emperor v. Khushi Ram 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 the 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, Indi...
Jagdeo Sahu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All339; 38Ind.Cas.993
George Knox, J.1. The District Magistrate of ]3asti passed an order for the prosecution of one Jagdeo Ram, who is said to have transactions in kerana, oil, grain, under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not know how the District Magistrate had anything at all to do with the case. The person, if any, who has authority and jurisdiction to direct proceedings to be taken for the offences under the Income Tax Act is the Collector. However, passing that by and holding that this is an oversight and that the proceedings were instituted at the instance of the Collector, I proceed to examine the order. That order says that false statements have been made before the Collector in the proceedings in which objection to the income tax assessed was under enquiry. The order appears to be based upon a petition put in apparently under Section 25 of the Income Tax Act. That section requires that statements contained in the petition shall be verified by the petitioner or some other competent perso...
Mahabat Rai and ors. Vs. Bharaddwaj Damodar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1917
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.818
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for resumption under Sections 150, and 154 of the Tenancy Act. The case came before Mr. Liddiard, who was then 'Record' and 'Settlement' Officer. Section, 152 provides that suits under Section 150; should (when the local area in which the land is situate is under Settlement), be instituted in the Court of the ' Settlement' Officer. Mr. Liddiard granted the plaintiff a decree. An appeal was taken to the District Judge, who held that the plaintiff was not entitled to resume the land and dismissed the suit. A second appeal was preferred to this Court, when a preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay. The learned Judge of this Court upheld this plea and ordered the memorandum of appeal to be returned to the appellant, with a view to its being presented in the proper Court. It was accordingly presented in the Court of the Commissioner, who pointed out that an unfortunate error had arisen from the circumstance that Mr. Liddiard occupied the twofol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›