Allahabad Court May 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.
Khushali Ram Vs. Gokul Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All176(2); 41Ind.Cas.352
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The facts found by the Court below are that the defendant fraudulently obtained a decree in Suit No. 1445 of 1913 in the Court of the Second Munsif of Sirajganj, District Pabna, in Lower Bengal; that he bad the decree transferred for execution to the district of Agra in these Provinces, and that he there put it into execution and caused the plaintiff to be arrested. The plaintiff on these facts asked for the following reliefs--first, that it might be declared that the Decree No. 1445 of 1913 passed by the Court of the Second Munsif of Sirajganj, District Pabna, is fraudulent and null and void and has been given without jurisdiction and power and that it is ineffectual as against the plaintiff; secondly, that a perpetual injunction may be issued prohibiting and restraining the defendant from taking out execution of the said decree as against the person of the plaintiff and his property situate within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that the security ...
Gokul Chand Vs. Khushali Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All607
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The facts found by the court below are that the defendant fraudulently obtained a decree in suit No. 1445 of 1913, in the court of the second munsif of Sirajganj, district Pabna, in Lower Bengal; that he had the decree transferred for execution to the district of Agra in these Provinces, and that he there put it into execution and caused the plaintiff to be arrested. The plaintiff on these facts asked for the following reliefs-first, that it might be declared that the decree No. 1445 of 1913 passed by the court of the second munsif of Sirajganj, district Pabna, is fraudulent and null and void and has been given without jurisdiction and power and that it is ineffectual as against the plaintiff; secondly, that a perpetual injunction may be issued prohibiting and restraining the defendant from taking out execution of the said decree as against the person of the plaintiff and his property situate within the jurisdiction of thi...
Madho Gir Vs. Rashid Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All91; 41Ind.Cas.141
George Knox, Ag. C.J.1. This application in revision is presented on behalf of one Madho Gir Goshain. It appears that Madho Gir Goshain instituted a complaint in the first instance against a Sub-Inspector and five other persons in the Court of a 1st Class Magistrate, who was Sub-Divisional Officer and apparently a Sub-Divisional Officer for the sub-division in which the alleged offence was supposed to have occurred. The 1st Class Magistrate took cognizance of the case and acted under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proceeded also to follow it up with action under Section 202, but in doing so omitted one important point. He did not record the reasons showing why he was not satisfied as to the truth of the complaint of the offence of which he was taking cognizance. It is most unfortunate to find the almost systematic neglect with which some Magistrates treat this provision contained in Section 202. It is a most important provision, as has already been pointed out in Ram...
Gajadhar Singh Vs. Kishan Jiwan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All163; (1917)ILR39All641
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The question in this case is whether the application of the plaintiff decree holder for a final decree for sale under -order XXXIV, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure is or is not barred by limitation. The preliminary decree for sale was passed by the court of first instance on the 16th of May, 1911. The mortgagors were allowed six months from that date to pay the mortgage amount, so that the date fixed for payment was the 15th of November, 1911. The plaintiff, whose claim had only been partially decreed by the court of first instance, preferred an appeal to the lower appellate court, but that appeal was dismissed on the 3rd of November, 1911. He appealed to the High Court, and this Court affirmed the decree of the lower court on the 3rd of July, 1912. The present application was filed on the 22nd of June, 1915. Among the pleas raised on behalf of the defendants was the plea of limitation, and it was contended that the application had been filed beyond ...
Gajadhar Singh Vs. Kishen Jiwan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.93
P. C. Banerji, J.1. The question in this case is whether the application of plaintiff decree-holder for a final decree for sale under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure is or is not barred by limitation. The preliminary decree for sale was passed by the Court of first instance on the 16th of May 1911. The mortgagors were allowed six months from that date to pay the mortgage amount, so that the date fixed for payment was the 15th of November 1911. The plaintiff, whose claim had only been partially decreed by the Court of first instance, preferred an appeal to the lower Appellate Court, but that appeal was dismissed on the 3rd of November 1911. He appealed to the High Court and this Court affirmed the decree of the lower Court on the 3rd of July 1912 The present application was filed on the 22nd of June 1915. Among the pleas raised on behalf of the defendants was the plea of limitation and it was contended that the application had been filed beyond time. If limitation is...
Ram Piari Vs. Nand Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.77
1. This is a first appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court below as barred by time. The suit arose out of the following facts. The plaintiff is the surviving daughter of one Munshi Shib Dayal. The latter's father or grandfather built a temple in Bareilly town and installed therein an idol. A priest was presumably appointed to preside at the worship in the temple.2. By a deed, dated 27th March 1881, Shib Dayal dedicated to the idol one-half of his landed property to meet the expenses of the temple. In the deed he laid it down that he himself should be the sarbarahkar or manager of the property and that after his death, his heir and representative should succeed him as such. He directed that the sarbarahkar should manage the property and out of the profits thereof should supply funds to the pujari or priest. He further laid it down that the pujari should have no right in the property and that his powers were limited to spending the funds supplied to him in decora...
Govind Das Vs. Bishambhar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All561
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action for libel brought by the plaintiff in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares, where the parties reside and carry on business. Both belong to the Agarwala Vaishya caste of Hindus, and both appear to occupy an influential position in their community.2. The Agarwalas of Benares are divided into two Tars or sections, one called the Purbia or Eastern, the other Pachhain or Western; but in doctrinal matters and caste observances there seems to be no difference between them. The inter-communal government of each section is vested in a panchayat composed of the general body of its members, which, so far as appears on the record, has authority to enforce the due observance of the caste rules, In this connection it should be mentioned that there are numbers of Agarwalas in the neighbouring towns of Mirzapur and Chunar with whom the Benares Agarwalas maintain close social relations.3. The proceedings in this case show that many of the Aga...
Raghubir Rai and ors. Vs. Madho and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All210(1); (1917)ILR39All605
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen is in substance a suit for recovery of rent from a tenant within the definition of these two words in Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs first of all went to the Revenue Court. The plea taken in defence there was that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction. The court of first instance accepted that plea. The plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court held that the Revenue Court had jurisdiction, but it dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that they had failed to prove that they were entitled to recover the rent which they claimed. Neither side proceeded to the court of the District Judge. The plaintiffs have now come to the Civil Court and are seeking to recover the same rent from the defendants on account of the same years. The courts below have dismissed the suit on the wrong ground that it is barred by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is quit...
Sampat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All54(2); 41Ind.Cas.323
Piggott, J.1. In this case seven persons were tried before the Court of Session at Mirzapur on charges framed under sections 147 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in its essentials may be stated thus:---A Revenue Officer named Abdul Raoof had been despatched, under the orders of his superiors, on a tour in the course of which it was his duty to realize loans which had been advanced to agriculturists, presumably under the provisions of Act XII of 1884. In the neighbourhood of a village called Baskop he was attacked by the seven appellants and one other man, alleged to be absconding. The assault was committed because of the efforts which Abdul Raof was making, in the discharge of his duty, to realize a loan of Rs. 3 which had been advanced to the appellant, Sampat. Abdul Raoof himself and two peons, Mansab Ali and Lakhmir Khan, who were attending on him, received a fairly severe beating. In the case of Abdul Raoof himself there were a large number of contusions and ...
Emperor Vs. Bhola and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All549
Piggott, J.1. This was a case in which eleven persons were jointly tried before a Magistrate of the first class in respect of offences charged under Section 409 and Section 424 of the India Penal Code. Three men were convicted under the former of these sections and received appealable sentences. The remaining eight, Bhola and others, being convicted on a charge under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code, were sentenced to fine only. The three first mentioned appealed to the Sessions Court, and the learned Sessions Judge, in a carefully reasoned judgement, has accepted their appeal on' the facts. He has accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence against these three men and has acquitted them and ordered their release. The case of the eight men against whom unappealable sentences were passed has been referred to this Court. As the Code of Criminal Procedure at present stands, there is room for controversy as to whether, in a case like the present, an appeal from those accused pers...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »