Allahabad Court June 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.
Manphool Vs. Sahi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All126; 43Ind.Cas.154
Walsh, J.1. I must allow this appeal. As regards the question whether the order of the Munsif setting aside the award could be challenged in appeal before the District Judge, there is a decision binding upon me by two Judges of this Court in the case of Ram Autar Tewari v. Deoki Tewari 29 Ind. Cas. 411 : 13 A.L.J. 653 : 37 A. 456, which apparently was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge of the Court below, as he held himself bound by Ganga Prasad v. Kura 28 A. 408 : A.W.N. (1906) 64 : 3 A.L.J. 168, which has since been differed from. The further question arises whether the Munsif's order can be supported. He appears to have set aside, the award upon the ground that although there were two arbitrators, the award was signed only by the plaintiff's arbitrator and the umpire and that, therefore, it was invalid. There is a, decision reported as Muthukutti Nayakan v. Acha Nayakan 18 M. 22 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 365 which, although not binding upon me, I should in any case follow and...
Bharat Das Vs. Musammat Nandrani Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All481; 42Ind.Cas.818
1. In this suit the plaintiff came into Court, alleging that she was the lambardar and zemindar of a certain mahal. The defendant, who was described as Bharat Das disciple of Rikhi Das, muafidar of the said mauza and mahal, was alleged to be a muafidar of 62 bighas 12 biswas of the land in suit granted for charitable purposes. The suit was brought for resumption of this grant. In reply the defendant pleaded, first, that the land itself had been dedicated to the temple of Sri Radha Kishunji and was, therefore, waqf property appertaining to an endowment in favour of the said temple, of which the defendant was the manager. He repeated this plea in a slightly different form, alleging that the muafidar against whom the suit should have been brought was Sri Thakur Radha Kishunji, the idol worshipped in the temple above referred to. The next plea, in the alternative, raised by him was that, if he was in fact himself the muafidar as alleged in the plaint, then this land had been held rent-free...
Bhajan Lal Vs. Chidda Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All657
George Knox, A.C.J.1. The question which arises for decision in this application is, to what court, if any, can an application in respect of a sanction given or refused by a Court of Small Causes under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be made for its revocation or granting, as the case may be?2. In the present case the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Agra granted sanction for the prosecution of Chidda Lal for offences falling under Sections 193 and 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Chidda Lal went to the court of the District Judge of Agra and applied for the revocation of this sanction. The District Judge in view of the ruling in Ajudhia Prasad v. Ram Lal (1911) I.L.R. 34 All. 497 held, that no appeal lay to his court from the order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court.4. The applicant has come here in civil revision and contends that the Small Cause Court of Agra is subordinate to the District Court of Agra within the meaning of Section 195, Clause (c). He t...
Afzal Shah and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All425; (1918)ILR40All7
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a second appeal which comes before us under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs alleged themselves to have acquired certain property at public auction. They alleged that, under circumstances perhaps amounting to fraud on the part of the judgement-debtor, the property was put up to sale a second time and was purchased in different lots by different persons, On this they impleaded three different sets of defendants, claiming a declaration of their own title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits. Separate defences were filed by the members of the different sets of defendants, and in each of these defences the particular defendant concerned protested that he had nothing to do with the property specified in the plaint, except only one single item of the same. Arising out of this plea of fact, the point was taken that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action and that each defendant, or set of defendants, should have been separately sue...
Chidda Lal Vs. Bhajan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All405(2); 42Ind.Cas.167
Knox, Ag. C. J.1. The question which arises for decision in this application is, to what Court, if any, can an application against a sanction given or refused by a Court of Small Causes under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be made for its revocation or granting, as the case may be2. In the present case the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Agra granted sanction for the prosecution of Chidda Lal for offences falling under Sections 193 and 465, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Chidda Lal went to the Court of the District Judge of Agra and applied for the revocation of this sanction. The District Judge in view of the ruling in Ajodhia Parshad v. Ram Lal 13 Ind. Cas. 284: 34 A. 197: 9 A. L. J. 124: 13 Cr. L, J. 44. held that no appeal lay to his Court from the order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court.4. The applicant has come here in civil revision and contends that the Small Cause Court of Agra is subordinate to the District Court of Agra within the meaning of Sec...
Babu Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All41; 42Ind.Cas.174
Walsh, J.1. This is a perfectly clear case now that I have got the materials. There is no judicial order at all dismissing the case against the Patwari. As far as I can ascertain, there has been no judicial hearing of the case. What happened was that the Commissioner on the 21st of December 1916 sent the complaint to the Collector and District Magistrate for disposal. Of course that means disposal in any way the Magistrate thinks right. He might enquire into the plaint and decide that there was nothing in it and therefore, refrain from any judicial proceeding. He might on the other hand think that there was some substance in it and direct the ordinary proceedings to be taken and be continued to judgment. What he did was to send the file to his subordinate and ask him to take the evidence produced by the applicant and also of the Patwari and his witnesses and report whether there was a prima facie case against the Patwari. The subordinate officer reported on the 12th of March 1917 and r...
Saiyed Afzal Shah and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.856
1. This is a second appeal which comes before us under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs alleged themselves to have acquired certain property at public auction. They alleged that, under circumstances perhaps amounting to fraud on the part of the judgment debtor, the property was put up to sale a second time and was purchased in different, lots, by different persons. On this they impleaded three different sets of defendants, claiming a declaration of their own title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits-Separate defences were filed by the members of the different sets of defendants, and in each of these defences the particular defendant concerned protested that he had nothing to do with the property specified in the plaint except only one single item of the same. Arising out of this plea of fact, the point was taken that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action and that each defendant or set of defendants should- have been separately sued for ejectment as a tre...
Emperor Vs. Khushi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All361; 42Ind.Cas.1003
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri in respect to two accused, Khushi Ram and Lakhpat. These persons were charged in the alternative with offences, tinder Section 399 or 402 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts in respect of which the Judge and the Assessors were unanimous are as follows:---Two Sub-Inspectors with some assistants were proceeding down a road after visiting the village of Nagla Bhura on November 1st in the Police Circle of Kurra. They came along the canal bank to the Takhrao Bridge. The time was between 8 and 9 P. M. They came upon three men. One was mounted and two were on foot, and tried to run away when challenged. The mounted man was seized upon the spot. The other two ran away, but being pursued, one of them was caught. He was the man Narain, who has been tried with Khusi Bam and Lakhpat and has been found guilty and convicted. On the person of Narain were found four pis...
Hoti Lal Vs. Chuttan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1970All270; 42Ind.Cas.898
1. The main question in this appeal really is whether a landlord suing a tenant, who has been in occupation of his land without an agreement and without a decree of the Court fixing the rent under the Tenancy Act, can sue him in one suit for the determination of the amount and also for the arrears of rent payable for the period during which the tenant has been occupying it without paying anything.2. A number of authorities have been cited, by some of which at any rate I am not bound, showing that after the tenancy has been determined, the landlord cannot recover the arrears of rent unless he has during the tenancy either an agreement fixing the amount of the rent or has obtained a decree of the proper Court fixing such amount. In each of those oases the suit for arrears of rent was brought after the ejectment and was, therefore, irrelevant to the present discussion.3. It is admitted, and indeed cannot be denied, that the plaintiff in this case, the tenancy being still in existence, cou...
Ratan Dei Vs. Durga Shankar Bajpai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All111; (1917)ILR39All645
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The facts of this case are as follows : The plaintiff's husband was the owner of zamindari in several villages and some house property in Benares. He also held a large area of land as sir within his zamindari. He was heavily in debt to Durga Shankar Bajpai, defendant No. 1. The latter obtained one decree for about Rs. 20,000.2. On the 7th of October, 1899, the plaintiff, who was then a widow, transferred the zamindari and the houses to Durga Shankar by a Bale-deed, the consideration for which was Rs. 21,415. This included the amount due on the decree and also another debt. By the terms of the deed the plaintiff agreed to file a relinquishment of her ex-proprietary rights in the sir lands, and Durga Shankar agreed to certify to the Civil Court full satisfaction of his claim under the decree.3. At that time the Rent Act, XII of 1881, was in force and it is quite clear that the sale consideration was to cover not only the proprietary rights but also the e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »