Allahabad Court February 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.
Lala Beni Prasad and anr. Vs. Harnam Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.630
1. This application arises under the following circumstances. A suit was brought for redemption. The first Court decreed the plaintiff's claim conditional upon payment of a certain sum into Court. This Court modified the decree of the Court of first instance by making the redemption money considerably larger. The present application purports to be under Order XXXIV, Rule 8, for an extension of time within which to pay in the mortgage-money. A preliminary objection has been taken that the proper Court to which the application ought to have been made is the Court of first instance. We think that there is force in this objection. The point was expressly decided in the case of Ram Dhani Sahu v. Lalit Singh 2 Ind. Cas. 220 ; 31 A. 328 ; 6 A.L.J. 251. It is true that that case was decided before the present Code of Civil Procedure came into operation. We think, however, that there has been no change in the law. Certain sections of the Transfer of Property Act have been transferred to the Cod...
Umar Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All48; 39Ind.Cas.703
1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. One Umar Khan is an accused person, who was examined by a Magistrate and his statement recorded in accordance with Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When called upon by the Magistrate to sign the record of his statement, Umar Khan refused to comply. He has been tried and convicted of an offence under Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge is in doubt as to the correctness of this conviction in view of the decision in Imperalrix v. Sirsapa 4 B. 15 ; 4 Ind. Jur. 412 ; 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 520, and he has referred the matter to this Court. The decision to which the Sessions Judge has referred is one which was passed when Act X of 1872 was in force. In Section 346 of that Act there was a separate paragraph which ran as follows: The accused person shall sign or attest by his mark such record.' it was held in that case that this was merely directory and not mandatory and, therefore, the accused p...
Ramjas Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All370; 39Ind.Cas.796
1. The sole matter which arises for decision in the present appeal is whether the execution proceedings are barred by limitation or not. In dealing with this we are confronted with a decision passed in this very case, inter partes on the 24th of November 1915. The 1st Additional District Judge who was then dealing with the case in most clear terms held that the Munsif could not entertain the present application and had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. These findings of the Additional District Judge were not taken into appeal and the matter is, therefore, res judicata so far as the present application is concerned. Under these circumstances the application of the 3rd of February 1913 does not save time. It is unnecessary to decide the other points raised in the case. The appeal is allowed and the application for execution will be dismissed with costs in all Courts....
Munna Lal Vs. Fateh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All402(2); 39Ind.Cas.958
1. This is one of four connected appeals which have been referred to us under Section 195 of Local Act' II of 1901. From the order of reference and also from what has been said to us on behalf of the appellant, we find that they are all of them appeals from suits in which a question of proprietary title has been in issue in the Court of first instance and on appeals being preferred, the opposite party has expressed his intention of supporting the judgment of the Court of first instance on matters which raise a question of proprietary title in the appeals also.2. Section 177, Clause (e), is conclusive on the point and we order the lower Appellate Court to proceed with the appeal and try it according to law...
Rifaqat HusaIn Vs. Bibi Tawaif
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All393
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The circumstances out of which this application for revision arises are these. The plaintiff applicant brought a suit against Musammat Bibi Tawaif and two other persons for restitution of conjugal rights. On the 18th of December, 1915, the case was taken up for hearing. The other two defendants appeared and filed a written statement, but the plaintiff exempted them from the claim. Musammat Bibi Tawaif did not appear; and against her an ex parte decree was passed on that date. On the 3rd of January. 1916, she preferred an appeal to the District Judge from the decree passed against her, and on the 15th of that month she made an application to the Munsif in whose court the suit had been filed to have the ex parte decree set aside. On the 11th of May, 1916, the appeal preferred by the Musammat was dismissed for default, and an application to have the dismissal sell aside was rejected on the 11th of June, 1916. After that the Munsif took up the application filed...
Rifaqat HusaIn Vs. Musammat Bibi Tawaef
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All392; 39Ind.Cas.519
1. The circumstances out of which this application for revision arises are these. The plaintiff applicant brought a suit against Musammat Bibi Tawaef and two other persons for restitution of conjugal rights. On 18th December 1915 the case was taken up for hearing. The other two defendants appeared and filed a written statement but the plaintiff exempted them from the claim. Musammat Bibi Tawaef did not appear and against her an ex parte decree was passed on that date. On 3rd January 1916 she preferred an appeal to the District Judge from the decree passed against her, and on the 15th, of that month she made an application to the Munsif in whose Court the suit had been filed to have the ex parte decree set aside. On the 11th May 1916 the appeal preferred by the Musammat was dismissed for default and an application to have the dismissal set aside was rejected on the 11th of June 1916. After that the Munsif took up the application filed by Musammat Bibi Tawaef to have the ex parte decree ...
Chunnoo Lal Vs. Lachman Sonar and Bhawani Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All12; (1917)ILR39All391
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application which was made to the District Judge, before whom an insolvency matter was pending, to annul a deed of transfer made by the insolvent on the 11th of November, 1914, in favour of Lachman Sonar. We may mention a few dates. There was a mortgage in favour of Lachman Sonar, dated the 22nd of May, 1912. On the 16th of January, 1914, Bhawani Shankar, the insolvent, executed a promissory note in favour of Chunnoo Lal for Rs. 1,500. On the 9th of November, 1914, Chunnoo Lal commenced a suit on foot of his promisory note. On the 11th of November, 1914, Bhawani Shankar executed the sale-deed which is challenged in the present proceeding, the consideration purporting to be the discharge of the mortgage already mentioned; the property sold was part of the mortgaged property, that is to say, a fixed rate tenancy, the house which belonged to the debtor being exempted. On the 14th of December, 1914, Chunnoo Lal obta...
Baji Lal and ors. Vs. Nawal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.636
1. This a respondent's application under Order xli, Rule 21, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the re-hearing of an appeal which was decided ex parte by a Bench of this Court on the 29th of June last. The affidavit on which the application is based is to the effect that Counsel had been duly instructed on behalf of the respondent by one Nathu Ram, to whom the respondent had entrusted the business of looking after the appeal on his behalf and seeing that it was duly prosecuted. Subsequently Nathu Ram withdrew the instructions and Counsel was thus unable to appear. We think that the applicant is really seeking relief on the ground of misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of his own agent. He has no doubt a remedy against the agent. We think we would be setting up a bad precedent if we endeavoured to relieve him from the consequences of the act of his agent The case is very similar to that of Har Prasad v. Abdul Rahman A.W.N. (1905) 41, in which this Court upheld an order of the low...
Chunnoo Lal Vs. Lachman Sonar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.841
1. This appeal arises out of an application, which was made to the District Judge before whom an insolvency matter was pending, to annul a deed of transfer made by the insolvent on the 11th of November 1914 in favour of Lachman Sonar. We may mention a few dates. There was a mortgage in favour of f***iaihman Sonar,' dated be 22nd of May 1912. On the 16th of January 1914, Bhawani Shanker (the insolvent) executed a promissory note in favour of Chunnoo Lai for Rs. 1,500. On the 9th of November 1914, Chunnoo Lal commenced a suit on foot of his pro-note. On the 11th of November 1914, Bhawani Shanker executed the sale-deed which is challenged in the present proceeding, the consideration purporting to be the discharge of the mortgage already mentioned; the property sold was part of the mortgaged property, that is to say, a fixed-rate tenancy, the house which belonged to the debtor being exempted. On the 14th of December 1914, Chunnoo Lal obtained adecree on foot of his pro-note and on the 22nd...
Emperor Vs. Muhammad Yusuf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All408; (1917)ILR39All386; 40Ind.Cas.317
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. Muhammad Yusuf, the accused in this case, and Janki Das, the accused in the connected case No. 106 of 1917, have been convicted under Section 210 of Act II of 1916, the United Provinces Municipalities Act, and each of them has been sentenced to a small fine. The two cases have been submitted by the learned Sessions Judge with the recommendation that the convictions and sentences should be set aside. Muhammad Yusuf and Janki Das own shops abutting on a public road within the municipal limits of Dehra Dan. There is a drain in front of their shops which was apparently built at their expense. The drain is at the edge of the public road. Culverts have been built over the drain, but the present dispute does not relate to the culverts. The charge against Muhammad Yusuf was that he had placed wooden planks in front of his shop, supporting them by the culverts on one side and a tin canister on the other. Janki Das was prosecuted for putting planks over the space bet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »