Allahabad Court March 1917 Judgments
Bijai Misir and anr. Vs. Kali Prasad Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All258; (1917)ILR39All469; 41Ind.Cas.912
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs claimed, among other reliefs, possession of a share in the village of Baukata, and it is this part of the claim with which we are concerned in this appeal. It appears that certain co-sharers in the aforesaid village applied for partition of their shares under Section 107 of the Land Revenue Act. Notice was issued to all the recorded co-sharers as required by Section 110 of the Act, and thereupon an application was made on the 11th of September, 1912, by [the parties to this suit and other co-sharers under Clause (2) of the section, praying for partition of their shares. In that application they set forth the extent of the shares which they prayed should be formed into one lot or qura. After this application was made, a proceeding was drawn up by the Revenue Court under Section 114 of the Act, declaring the basis upon which partition was to be effected, and in that proceeding the extent of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Balbir Singh Vs. Amar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All380; 39Ind.Cas.590
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen is now appellant in this Court. In his plaint, after setting out the village of which he is the owner and the village of which the defendant is the owner, he goes on to say that the whole of the irrigation of the plaintiff's villages had from of old been made by means of a canal cut out of the river Koti. This right of irrigation has been a bone of contention between the plaintiff and defendant for sometime past; and it appears from the plaint that in 1885, when the question between them came up to this Court, a compromise was entered into between the parties and that compromise was incorporated in the decree of the High Court which followed on the terms of the compromise.2. The contention of the appellant is that the defendant has contrary to the compromise between the parties taken water not from a place which is marked A in the map which is to be found on the record, but from a spot which he says ...
Tag this Judgment!Naik Ram and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All164; 42Ind.Cas.613
1. The Court undoubtedly had jurisdiction to extend the time.2. The application is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All466
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision which was made under the following circumstances. The applicant was ordered by a Magistrate of the first class to - give security to keep the peace under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He presented a petition to the District Magistrate asking him to exercise his powers under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate without hearing the applicant, or his pleader, made an Order In the following words: 'There is no appeal to me from Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure orders. Application is made, however, under Section 125. The lower court has found certain allegations made against the applicants to be true. These allegations justify action under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1 decline therefore to take action under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is rejected.' The present application is against the order jus...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Prasad and anr. Vs. Nabi Bakhsh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All371; 43Ind.Cas.74
George Knox, J.1. This is an application for the revision of a decision of the Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpore. The record contains three documents on which both parties have laid considerable stress in the arguments addressed to me. The first two are bonds, both of them bearing date 15 March 1913. The sum said to be due under these bonds by one Nabi Baksh and another in favour of Musammat Sanjhli is some Rs. 400 odd. Musammat Sanjhli is described as a widow and by caste Bhurji. According to the deed of sale bearing date, the 2nd of February 1916, Musammat Sanjhli sold all her rights under the two bonds of 15 March 1913 to Mangal Prasad described as a Baqqal and Manbodhan Singh described as a Thakur, residents of Cawnpore. The consideration mentioned in the deed of sale is a ruqqa, dated 28 November 1915, for Rs. 359-7-6, payable on demand and a cash payment of Rs. 50. This sale-deed was registered on the 5th of February 1916, on which date an agreement was executed by Mangal Prasa...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ali Mohammad Shah and ors. Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.797
1. The facts out of which this appeal 'arises are these: One Hasan Shah owned certain shares in a number of shops which were mortgaged to one Ram Chander Sarup. Ram Chander Sarup obtained a decree on his mortgage and caused the mortgaged property to be sold by auction. This property was' purchased by the present plaintiffs. After their purchase the plaintiffs applied for delivery of possession. In the meantime the defendant Ram Narain had purchased certain property, which he alleged was distinct from the property now claimed, in execution of a simple money-decree. He raised certain objections in respect of the auction sale at which the plaintiffs had purchased and applied to have the sale set aside. Those objections were disallowed and the final decision in that matter was passed by the High Court on the 12th of May 1913. After the passing of this order the present plaintiffs, who were the auction-purchasers, applied for delivery of possession. They made Ram Narain, a party to their ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All428; 39Ind.Cas.998
1. This is an application in revision which was made under the following circumstances. The applicant was ordered by a Magistrate of the first class to give security to keep the peace under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He presented a petition to the District Magistrate asking him to exercise his powers under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate, without hearing the applicant or his Pleader, made an order in the following words: 'There is no appeal to me from Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure orders. Application is made, however, under Section 125. The lower Court has found certain allegations made against the applicants to be true. These allegations justify action under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I decline, therefore, to take action under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is rejected.' The present application is against the order just quoted, and it is contended that the District Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoraj Singh and ors. Vs. Lalta Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All452
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows. The plaintiff respondent brought a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The suit was resisted by the present appellant, who denied the plaintiff's right to redeem and also challenged the amount on which redemption was sought. The court below held that the plaintiff had the right to redeem and directed that the accounts be taken. The defendant appealed against that decree. He paid the necessary court fees and the appeal was admitted. The court below has now gone into the accounts and has found a sum of about Rs. 37,000 to be due. The defendant has again appealed and he claims a sum of about Rs. 61,000, He has filed his appeal on a two-rupee stamp. The office reports that the court fee payable is the ad valorem fee on the value of the appeal. The only argument before me is that the appellant has had to appeal once against the preliminary decree, that it was the fault of the court below in passing this preliminary decree...
Tag this Judgment!Masood Ali Vs. Chunni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All166(1); 39Ind.Cas.464
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises brought a suit in the Rent Court for arrears of the revenue. He failed to secure service of process upon one or more of the defendants. He was granted time within which to ascertain the address of the defendants and to procure service of summons. He failed to do this and the Rent Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went in appeal to the District Judge of Bareilly, who set aside the Assistant Collector's order and directed that the suit be restored to the file and be decided according to law. The learned Judge apparently overlooked the Full Bench ruling of this Court Sita Ram Singh v. Pokhpal Singh 3 A.L. J. 576 ; A.W.N. (1906) 233 ; 1 M.L.T. 447 ; 28 A. 749, in which it was held that no appeal lay from such an order. The applicant comes here in revision and asks that the order of the District Judge may be set aside on the ground that no appeal lay. The contention raised is a good one. I set aside the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Nandi Vs. Sarup Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All463
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house. It appears that the house originally belonged to Tara Chand, who died leaving two widows and no male issue. The name of one of the widows was Musammat Bakhti. The name of the other widow was Musammat Nandi, the plaintiff. These two ladies made a partition of Tara Chand's property as between themselves. The house in question fell to the lot of Bakhti. Bakhti executed a sale-deed of the house to the defendant on the 29th of April, 1808. Bakhti has now died and the plaintiff has brought this suit to recover possession of the house. The case has come right up to this Court on a previous occasion, but finally the court of first instance found that there was no legal necessity for the sale made by Musammat Bakhti. It appears that after the sale a considerable amount of money was spent in improvements on the house. In the court of first instance there was an issue as to who had sp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »