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.
Bhola and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Nihal Taga
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All372; 40Ind.Cas.332
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 Indian 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 judgment, has accepted their appeal on the facts. He has accordingly set aside the convictions and sentences 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 persons in resp...
Tej Singh and ors. Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All427; 40Ind.Cas.544
1. The appellant applied to be adjudicated an insolvent. At the time of his application he owned and possessed considerable zemindari and many houses including the one now in question in which he resides. He also cultivated some land The rest of the property has all been sold by the Receiver. He objects to the sale of his residential house and the plea taken is that he being an agriculturist, his house and property cannot be attached and sold L execution of a decree and, therefore, under the terms of the Insolvency Act cannot be sold by the Receiver. The appellant's own application shows that he placed this house at the disposal of the Court for sale if necessary to satisfy his creditors. At that time he was not an agriculturist in the true meaning of the word. His chief source of income was his zemindan and his house property was not property exempt from safe in execution of a decree under Clause (c) of Section 60. There is, therefore, no force in this appeal, and we therefore, dismis...
Jagrup Sahu and ors. Vs. Ramanand Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All373; (1917)ILR39All633; 40Ind.Cas.373
Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an insolvency matter. In November, 1913, Ramanand and Naurangi Lal, two brothers, applied to be adjudicated insolvents. The order of adjudication was not made until the 25th of August, 1914, when a receiver was appointed. The receiver applied to the court for possession of the property of the insolvents. Apparently he had been resisted by the present appellants, who claimed to be the purchasers of the insolvents' property under three sale-deeds, dated respectively, the 1st of July, 1911, the 13th of July, 1911, and the 3rd of August, 1911. The learned Judge went into the matter, examined the evidence adduced on both sides, and came to the conclusion that the sale-deeds were mere fictitious and nominal documents executed by the insolvents in favour of their relatives, not as real transactions, but merely as a blind to prevent the property being availed of by their creditors; that the insolvents themselves were in possessi...
Bhatiley Chunni Lal Vs. Chakerpan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All136; 42Ind.Cas.945
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these:---The 28th of February 1916 was fixed apparently for settlement of issues in the suit which the plaintiff had instituted. On that date the defendants filed their written statement and produced certain, documentary evidence, which on referring to the record we find to be certain certified copies. From the order sheet it appears that the Pleader for the plaintiff was asked whether he admitted, or, denied- the documents produced; the Pleader Stated that he was unable either to admit or to deny the documents. Thereupon the Court made an order apparently under Order X, rule 4, paragraph (1), directing the Pleader to produce the plaintiff on the 7th of March 1916. On that date neither the plaintiff nor his Pleader appeared and thereupon the Court passed the following order: 'The plaintiff was ordered to appear in person before the Court, as his Pleader did not answer material questions relating to the case nor could admit or deny the do...
Lachman Das Vs. Mutsaddi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All76; 41Ind.Cas.886
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision which arises under the following circumstances. The applicant was the plaintiff in a suit in which he claimed specific performance of a contract to execute a lease of certain property ;on certain terms, or in the alternative the ejectment of the defendants from the property in question and damages. The matter was referred to arbitration and the arbitrator delivered an award. The first relief claimed by the plaintiff was in very clear terms allowed by the arbitrator, that is to say, he was declared to be entitled to obtain from the defendants the counterpart of a lease, on certain terms which were sufficiently indicated. He was awarded Rs. 270 as rent for three years prior to the institution of the suit, with a further direction that rent should continue to be payable at the same rate from the institution of the suit until the defendants should execute a kabuliyat, or counter part of a lease, in the prescribed terms. Then the arbitrator w...
Lala Shambhu Nath and ors. Vs. Hari Ram and After His Death Mangat Rai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All233; 40Ind.Cas.97
George Knox, Acting C.J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is described in the plaint as a shop, the occupant of which carries on grocery business. It is situate within Mahal Radhe Lal in Mauza Barampur, Pargana Manghanr, Tahsil Roorkee. The plaintiffs are zemindars of the mahal, this is admitted. Ik is said in the plaint that the defendant Hori Ram occupied a certain plot of land in the abadi as a tenant of the zimindars and paid chaukidara tax for the same. But subsequently under a collusive and fictitious sale-deed dated the 30th of May 1912, he sold the aforesaid shop to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and he gave up residing in the village and took up .his residence in Qasba Parkazi, District Muzaffarnagar, That the defendants-vendees took possession of the shop and are now in possession of it. That the defendant No. 1 occupied the land covered by the said shop as a ryot. He had legally no right to transfer nor had defendants-vendees any right to remain in possession thereof without ...
Muhammad Zakariya Vs. Muhammad Hafiz and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All17(2); 41Ind.Cas.233
Walsh, J.1. I have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed. The suit is one to recover the principal due, the interest being abandoned under circumstances which I will mention in a moment, and for the sale of the property hypothecated under a bond, dated the 14th of September 1910. The plaintiffs in April 1914 had brought a suit against the defendant for interest for three years and seven months due from the date of the bond, namely, the 14th September 1910 to the 14th of April 1914, the date of the suit. That action had been brought and determined after the expiration of the period of three years from the date of the bond, three years being the period stipulated for the re-payment of the money; and the question which arises in the present suit, raised by the defendant and decided against him by the learned Subordinate Judge, is whether having regard to the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and of this particular bond, the plaintiffs can, af...
Siddhan Lal and ors. Vs. Gauri Shankar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.165
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are these. One Ganga Din executed a document on the 2nd of June 1909 purporting to be a deed of gift of certain property belonging to himself in favour of the idol Sri Raugji Maharaj. By that document he clearly made an endowment of his property for the maintenance of the temple of Thakurji and also for the establishment of a Sanskrit patshala. He also provided in the document for other matters which the trustees nominated by him would have to carry out in connection with the endowment and declared what expenditure should be incurred in relation thereto. There can be no doubt that under this document an express trust was created for religious and charitable purposes. In this deed of trust he nominated himself as the first manager of the trust and named three persons, namely, Siddhan Lai, Raghubar Dayal and Jhamman Lai as his successor in the office of manager after his death. On the 2...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Bansidhar Baraunia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All121; 41Ind.Cas.904
George Knox, A.C.1. The contention raised in this application is that the District Court of Jhansi has wrongly held that the suit was cognizable in the Civil Court at Jhansi, The suit out of which this application has arisen was a suit brought by one Bansidhar Baraunia to recover certain monies due to him. The main item was an item said to be the value of a bale of cotton. The plaint is to the effect that the bale without any order or direction of any kind was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff. The learned Judge says that this is an admitted fact. It has not been shown to me that this statement of the learned District Judge is, in any way, in error. Other items sued for beyond the price of bale were items such as cost of warehousing the bale, railway freight paid, etc. The plaint says that when the plaintiff informed the defendant that be had refused to take delivery of the bale of cotton because he had not ordered the goods, the defendant replied in a letter asking the plaintiff ...
Bhairon Prasad Vs. Kura Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All340; 40Ind.Cas.578
1. This is a suit arising out of a certain contract embodied in a registered instrument of the 2nd of October 1903. Under this instrument the plaintiff obtained possession of certain land of which the pre-decessor-in-title of the defendants was the owner. It is admitted that under the terms of the contract the plaintiff was entitled to remain in possession for five years. After this period bad expired the proprietors of the land instituted proceedings against the plaintiff for his ejectment, describing him as a lessee or tenant of the land in question. The case was contested in the Revenue Courts up to the highest Court of revision, but ended in a decree for the ejectment of the plaintiff.2. The present suit is based upon the allegation that the plaintiff could not legally be ejected by the defendants from his possession over this land without the defendants first paying him a sum of Rs. 125. The claim is for this sum with interest. The Court of first instance decreed the claim and tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›