Allahabad Court November 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.
NaraIn Dei Vs. Parmeshwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All406(2); (1918)ILR40All81
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the District Judge rejecting the application of the appellant for a certificate to collect debts under Act VII of 1889. Umrao Singh was the husband of the appellant. He died leaving (1) his widow, (2) the wife of a predeceased son, and (3) certain reversioners him surviving. The application of the widow was opposed by the reversioners and the daughter-in-law. An order was made by Mr. Allen granting a certificate conditional upon the widow giving security to the extent of the debts covered by the certificate which was asked for. There appears to have been some allegation by the opposite party that the debts due to the deceased were greater than those mentioned in the application. The lady expressed her inability to give security, and eventually her application was rejected. The learned District Judge who finally rejected her application seems to have been of opinion that the first order made by M...
Kirpa Devi Vs. Ram Chandar Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All219
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 18 of 1917 arise out of two suits which were instituted in the Revenue Court by the same plaintiff against the same defendant. The suits were suits for profits. The amounts in dispute were such that if decrees had been made appeals would have lain to the Civil Court. During the pendency of the suits it is alleged that the matters in dispute were referred to arbitration. One of the suits was pending in the Revenue Court at Meerut and the other suit was pending in the Revenue Court at Bulandshahr. An application was made by the defendant at Meerut to stay the suit pending the arbitration under schedule II, paragraph 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The Meerut court granted a stay. An exactly similar application was made to he Bulandshahr Revenue Court. That court took an exactly opposite view to that taken by the Meerut court and refused to stay the snit. This was a most unfortunate situation for ...
Gobind Ram and ors. Vs. Jwala Pershad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.533
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A mortgage sail; was brought and a preliminary decrees obtained for sale of the property on the 25th of September 1915. The plaintiffs were puisne incumbrancers and the prior in sum bracer (to whom a large earn was due) was also made a party. The decrees directed that the plaintiffs were to discharge the prior incumbrancer within the time named in the decree and that thereupon they would be entitled to sell the property for the amount which they had to pay the prior incumbrancer as well as the amount due on their own mortgage. The mortgaged property seems to be shares in a ginning factory. The plaintiffs did not pay the prior incumbrancer within the time allowed. They obtained one or more extension of time but even then they failed to pay off the prior incumbrancer. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal against the decree in this Court, alleging that they have been ordered to pay too much to the prior incumbrancer. This appeal is p...
Srimati Kirpa Devi Vs. Ram Chander Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All238(1); 43Ind.Cas.531
1 This and the connected Appeal No. 18 of 1917 arise out of two suits which were instituted in the Revenue Court by the same plaintiff against the same defendant. The suits were suits for profits. The amounts in dispute were such that if decrees had been made appeals would have lain to the Civil Court. During the pendency of the suits it is alleged that the matters in dispute were referred to arbitration. One of the suits was pending in the Revenue Court at Meerut and the other suit was pending in the Revenue Court at Bulandahahr.2. An application was made by the defendant at Meerut to stay the suit pending the arbitration under Schedule II, paragraph 18, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Meerut Court granted a stay. An exactly similar application was made to the Bulandshahr Revenue Court. That Court took an exactly opposite view to that taken by the Meerut Court and refused to stay the suit. This was a most unfortunate situation for all concerned and will work great hardship and has...
Musammat NaraIn Dei Vs. Musammat Parmeshwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.941
1. This appeal arises out, of an order of the District Judge rejecting the application of the appellant for a certificate to collect debts under Act VII of 1889. Umrao Singh was toe husband of the appellant. He died leaving (1) his widow, (2) the wife of a pre-deceased son, and (3) certain reversioners him surviving. The application of the widow was opposed by the reversioners and the daughter-in-law. An order was made by Mr. Allen, granting a certificate conditional upon the widow giving security to the extent of the debts covered by the certificate which was asked for. There appears to have been some allegation by the opposite party that the debts due to the deceased were greater than those mentioned in the application. The lady expressed her inability to give security and eventually her application was rejected. The learned. District Judge who finally rejected her application seems to have been of opinion that the first order made by Mr. Allen was under Section 7, Clause (3), of the...
Emperor Vs. Bahawal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All111(1); (1918)ILR40All79
Tudball, J.1. The District Magistrate of Benares has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order passed under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing Jagmohan Dom to pay Rs. 10 as compensation to the police constable be set aside. Jagmohan Dom gave information to the Revd. G. Spooner of the Wesleyan Mission to the effect that the accused constable had extorted from him the sum of Rs. 10 The Revd. G. Spooner made an inquiry on his account and then reported the matter to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate thereupon directed the prosecution of the constable. The court trying the case found the charge frivolous, acquitted the accused and directed Jagmohan to pay compensation. The Magistrate in his reference merely states that the order does not appear to him to be legal. He does not give any grounds for his belief or opinion Section 250 says ' that if in any case instituted upon information given to a Magistrate, a person is accused of...
Emperor (Through Jagmohan Dom) Vs. Bahawal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.108
Tudball, J.1. The District Magistrate of Benares has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order passed under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing Jagmohan Dom, to pay Rs. 10 as compensation to the Police constable, be set aside. Jagmohan Dom gave information to the Revd. G. Spooner of the Wesleyan Mission to the effect that, the accused constable had extorted from, him the sum of Rs. 10. The Revd. G. Spooner made an enquiry on his account and then reported the matter to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate thereupon directed the prosecution of, the constable. The Court trying the, case found the charge frivolous, acquitted the accused, and directed Jagmohan to pay compensation. The Magistrate in his reference merely states that the order does not appear to him to be legal. He does not given any grounds for his belief or opinion, Section 250 says that 'if in any case instituted upon information given to a Magistrate, a person is a...
Ramji Das and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All176; 43Ind.Cas.180
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for the recovery of value of goods made over to a Railway Administration for transmission but not delivered at the destination. The case for the plaintiff is that the Secretary of State for India in Council owns the Eastern Bengal State Railway, that on the 12th October 1909 the plaintiff made over to the Railway authorities at Rungpur 250 bundles of to bacco, worth Rs. 15,335, for despatch and carriage to Calcutta, but that the goods have never been delivered to him. The defendant pleaded in substance that the goods were destroyed while in course of transmission on the 17th October 1909 by an act of God, namely, a severe cyclone, and that he is consequently not liable for the value of the goods. The Subordinate Judge has held that the loss of the goods was caused by an act of God beyond the control of the defendant, and that this furnishes a complete answer to the claim. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court and has invited us |p ...
Radhe Lal Vs. Bhawani Ram and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All178
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a second appeal arising out of the following state of facts. One Balmakund died as a separated Hindu; he was childless and left him surviving a widow, Musammat Bidya. The latter performed the obsequies of her deceased husband and entered into possession of his property, including a certain house. She subsequently sold this house to one Radhe Lal, Thereupon the present suit was brought by Bhawani Ram, brother of Balmakund, impleading Musammat Bidya and Radhe Lal as defendants. Relief was sought in the alternative, either by immediate possession over the house in question, or by way of a declaration that the alienation made would not bind the Plaintiff after the death of Musammat Bidya. The reason why the first relief was claimed was that the Plaintiff alleged that Musammat Bidya, having been unchaste during the life-time of her husband, was not his heir at all under the Hindu law and was disentitled to succeed to any of his property; even with the limite...
Radhey Lal Vs. Bhawani Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.553
1. This is a second appeal arising out of the following state of facts. One Balmakund died as a separated Hindu. He was childless and left him surviving a widow, Musammat Bidiya. The latter performed the obi-equips of her deceased husband and entered into possession of his property, including a certain house. She subsequently sold this house to one Radhey Lal. Thereupon the present suit was brought by Bhawani Ram, brother of Balmakund, impleading Musammat Bidiya and Radhey Lal as defendants. Relief was sought in the alternative, either by immediate possession over the house in question, or by way of a declaration that the alienation made would not bind the plaintiff after the death of Musammat Bidiya. The reason why the first relief was claimed, was that the plaintiff alleged that Musammat Bidiya, having been unchaste during the lifetime of her husband, was not his heir at all under the Hindu Law and was disentitled to succeed to any of his property, even with the limited estate of a H...