Allahabad Court May 1917 Judgments
Malik Akbar Ali Khan Vs. Shah Muhammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All395; (1917)ILR39All621; 40Ind.Cas.443
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This case was decided in both the courts below on the admission that the defendant was in possession of the land as a licensee and the plaintiff was a licensor. This was not in accordance with the actual pleadings of the parties. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged a tenancy. The defendant alleged, on the other hand, a licence, but apparently, as we see from the judgement of the court of first instance, it was subsequently admitted that the defendant was in possession of the land as a licensee. Clearly that was the position which the plaintiff appellant took up in the lower appellate court also and it is the position which is taken up in the one ground in the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court. The courts below have decided the case in view of the decision of a Bench of this Court in Dharam Kwnwar v. Fakira Weekly Notes 1901 p. 157. The plea taken before us is that the defendant having denied the plaintiff's title altogether, his licence is liabl...
Tag this Judgment!Zaib-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Maharaja Parbhu NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All618
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.The facts of this case, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purposes of this, appeal, are as follows: A mortgage was made in 1823 of certain property. One of the mortgagors was Sheikh Dalil-ullah who owned a 2 anna 8 pie share out of the 16 annas mortgaged. The present plaintiff is one of the descendants of Dalil-ullah. The other descendants and heirs of Dalil-ullah are also parties to the suit, having been made pro forma defendants. Admittedly the integrity of the mortgage has been broken up, and the mortgagee is now owner of Re. 0-13-4 out of the 16 annas. The plaintiff sought to redeem the whole of the Re. 0-2-8 share which originally belonged to Dalil-ullah. The court of first instance gave her a decree. The lower appellate court has held on the strength of the rulings of this Court, that the plaintiff is only entitled to redeem her own share. That share has been ascertained. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal, and she pleads that s...
Tag this Judgment!Matukdhari Singh Vs. Jaisri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All220; (1917)ILR39All612
George Knox, A.C.J.1. Babu Anrudh Lal Mahendra, a Magistrate of the first class at Mirzapur, was satisfied from a police report that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning certain lands situate in Jafar Khani within the local limits of his jurisdiction. He made an Order In writing, No. 3A on the record, stating the ground of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in the dispute to attend his court on the 25th of September, 1916, and to put in written statements of their respective claims stating the fact of the actual possession of the subject of dispute, It has not been suggested that the order was not properly served as required by law, and it may be taken therefore that the notices were originally issued in respect of about 4 bighas 19 biswas of land in Jafar Khani; but the Magistrate, on reading the written statement and petitions of Matukdhari Singh, came to the conclusion that the dispute really existed about 19 bighas of land in Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Zaibunnessa Bibi Vs. H.H. Maharaja Parbhu NaraIn Singh and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.345
1. The facts of this case, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purposes of this appeal, areas follows:-- A mortgage was made in 1S23 of certain property. One of the mortgagors was Sheikh Dalilullah, who owned a two-annas eight-pies share out of the sixteen annas mortgaged. The present plaintiff is one of the descendants of Dalilullah. The other descendants and heirs of Dalilullah are also parties to the suit, having been made pro forma defendants. Admittedly the integrity of the mortgage has been broken up and the mortgagee is now owner of thirteen annas four pies out of the sixteen annas. The plaintiff sought to redeem the whole of the two-annas eight-pies share which originally belonged to Dalilullah. The Court of First Instance gave her a decree. The Lower Appellate Court has held, on the strength of the rulings of this Court, that the plaintiff is only entitled to redeem her own share. That share has been ascertained. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal and she pl...
Tag this Judgment!Matukdhari Singh Vs. Jaisari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.652
George Knox, Acting C.J.1. Babu Anrudh Lal Mahendra, a Magistrate of the first class at Mirzapur, was satisfied from a Police report that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning certain lands situate in Jafar Khani within the local limits of his jurisdiction. He made an order in writing No. 3A on the record, stating the ground of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in the dispute to attend his Court on the 25th September 1916 and to put in written statements of their respective claims stating the fact of the actual possession of the subject of dispute. It has not been suggested that the order was not properly served as required by law and it may be taken, therefore, that the notices were originally issued in respect of about 4 bighas 19 biswas of land in Jafar Khani, but the Magistrate on reading the written statement and petitions of Matukdhari Singh came to the conclusion that the dispute realy existed about 19 bighas of land in Sherw...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Rai and anr. Vs. Sarju Parsad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All175; 43Ind.Cas.175
Walsh, J.1. In this case the judgment is perhaps open to criticism on the ground that it does not state the facts with sufficient precision and detail. The First Court clearly held that the plaintiffs were in proprietary possession of sir lind and were entitled to the declaratory decree which they claimed. The defendants appealed, first, on ground No. 1 in the memorandum that the suit was not triable by a Civil Court and, secondly, on grounds Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the memorandum that the evidence and finding about possession in the First Court were erroneous, that the plaintiffs' witnesses were untrustworthy, and that the claim was time-barred. The learned Judge says that there is no reason for interfering with the finding of the lower Court. I think that that is a complete adoption by the Lower Appellate Court of the findings of the lower Court.2. There has, however, been an interesting argument before me that inasmuch as the plaintiffs are now held to have been in proprietary possession...
Tag this Judgment!Ford and Macdonald, Ltd. Vs. A.D. Meyer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All122; 40Ind.Cas.447
Ryves, J.1. The suit out of which this application arises was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Agra on the 20th June 1914. The suit is one for the recovery of Rs. 350 odd from the defendant, price of bricks supplied The munsarim of the Court certified that the plaint was one within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif of Agra. A few days later the Munsif of Agra transferred the case to the Court of the Munsif of Fatehabad. That Court proceeded to try the case and gave the plaintiffs an ex parte decree on the 12th August 1914. On the I7th of September 1916, the plaintiffs took oat execution, whereupon the defendant applied to have an ex parte decree set aside and to have the suit re-heard. This application was granted on the 20th of September 1915 and the Suit was re-tried. On the 23rd February 1916, the Munsif of Fatehabad came to the conclusion that the plaint had been filed in the wrong Court and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Shis Vs. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.445
1. The order of the Court; below is obviously wrong. The petition has been dismissed simply because the applicant did not therein disclose the fact that he had owe before applied to be declared an insolvent and that that application had been dismissed. This is not a sufficient reason within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act. The act of filing an application by a debtor; under the Act is in itself an act of insolvency. We, therefore, allow the application, set aside the order of the Court below, and direct that Court to restore the petition to its original number on the file and to proceed to hear and determine it according to law. We make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All551; 40Ind.Cas.1006
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The facts of the case, so far as they are necessary for the purposes of this application, may be reduced to this. The present applicant obtained a preliminary decree in a partnership case against one Pirbhu Dayal and others. Pirbhu Dayal died after the preliminary decree had been passed. Some two years after his death, the plaintiff applied to have the name of his heir brought upon the record and asked the court to proceed with the suit. The heir objected on the ground that the application was barred by limitation as it ought to have been made within the period of six months from the date of the death. The court of first instance held that it was a case to which Order XXII, Rule 10, applied and granted the application as having been made within three years of his death. The defendants appealed. The court below has held that Order XXII, Rule 4, applied and that the application is barred by time. The plaintiff comes here in revision. The first plea taken...
Tag this Judgment!Tapti Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All429(2); 41Ind.Cas.335
Piggott, J.1. The applicant Tapti Prasad was Assistant Station Master at a Railway Station called Bharwari While he was on duty a collision took place, within the limits of that station between a down passenger train and an up goods train. The latter train was standing within the station limits but beyond the starting signal at the moment when Tapti Prasad gave the ' line clear' which permitted the passenger train to leave the next station on the line. The collision which followed was attended with loss of life, and the immediate cause of the collision was the action of Tapti Prasad in giving the 'line clear' for the passenger train under the circumstances stated. In doing no he contravened rules laid down for his observance, both general and special. The Magistrate who tried the case has written an admirable judgment in which he has set forth all the evidence and discussed it in an exceedingly fair and convincing manner. He found Tapti Prasad guilty and convicted him under Section 304...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »