Allahabad Court July 1917 Judgments
Ramzan Vs. Ram Daiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All408; (1918)ILR40All96
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment. arises under the following circumstances:There was a joint Hindu family consisting of a father, Shankar, and his son, Ram Charan. Shankar mortgaged a certain house which formed part of the ancestral family property, and in which it would seem that he and his son were residing, although it is not clear that this point has been specifically considered by the courts below, by a simple mortgage in favour of one Musammat Dhan Devi. Ram Charan died, after this mortgage had been contracted, leaving him surviving a widow, Ram Daiya, who is the defendant respondent in this case. Shankar subsequently sold a share of the house in question to the plaintiff, Ramzan. The latter induced the mortgagee to accept redemption of this share on payment off of the mortgage debt. After this Musammat Dhan Devi, the mortgagee, brought a suit for sale against Shankar, who had now become by survivorship the sole owner o...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Ranika Kunwar Ryes Vs. Musammat Jamna Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All246; 42Ind.Cas.846
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claims a declaration of her right to certain immoveable property enumerated in lists A and B appended to the plaint. The plaintiff Musammat Ranika Kunwar is one of the three daughters of one Kadher Mal, who died on the 15th of March 1904. Kadher Mal left a widow Musammat Pran Kunwar, the mother of the three daughters. Upon Kadher Mal's death Pran Kunwar was in possession of his estate. She purchased certain property, which is the property specified in list B, out of the savings of the property to which she had succeeded as heir to her husband. The property entered in list A is the property which had belonged to her husband and was in her possession as his heir. She died at the end of 1911 or the beginning of 1912. At that time the three daughters were alive, of whom the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were married and the plaintiff was unmarried. The plaintiff contends that she succeeded to the whole of the property by reason of her be...
Tag this Judgment!Ramzan Vs. Musammat Ram Daiya Alias Ramia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.944
1. This second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment arises under the following circumstances:---There was a joint Hindu family consisting of a father Shankar and his son Rap Charan. Shankar mortgaged a certain house, which formed part of the ancestral family property and in, which it would seem that he, and his son were residing, although it is not clear that this point hag been specifically considered by the Courts below, by a simple mortgage in favour of one Musammat Dhan Devi. Ram Charan died after this mortgage had been contracted, leaving him surviving a widow Ram Daiya, who is the defendant-respondent in this case. Shankar subsequently sold the share of the house in question to the plaintiff Ramzan. The latter induced the mortgagee to accept redemption of this share on payment, of 3/4th of the mortgage debt. After this Musammat Dhan Devi, the mortgagee, brought a suit for sale against Shankar, who had now become by survivorship the sole owner of the entire house. She o...
Tag this Judgment!Ashiq Ali and ors. Vs. Imtiaz Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All78; (1917)ILR39All723; 42Ind.Cas.891
Tudball, J.1. This application in revision has arisen under the following circumstances : The plaintiff brought a suit in which he alleged that his father and the defendants joined together in a certain business which business was left in the sole control of his father; that his father had in the course of managing the business used a good deal of his own money; that his father had died, and on the face of the accounts a large sum of money was due to him as his father's heir from the defendants. He therefore sought to recover the amount that was due to him. He called the suit a suit for accounts. On his own showing the accounts were in his own hands, the defendants having taken no part in the management of the business and his father was the only accounting person in the matter. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,500 and he put forward accounts on the face of which his claim amounted to Rs. 21,000. The court below came to the conclusion that this was not really a suit for accounts at all but...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdul Aziz Vs. Muhammad Abdul Jalil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All875; 43Ind.Cas.57
1. This and the connected appeals arise out of ten suits brought by the plaintiff-appellant under Section 165 of the Agra Tenancy Act for settlement of accounts, the plaintiff being one of the co-sharers and the defendant being a co-sharer who had collected the profits. Five of the suits were filed so far back as 1907. In those suits the plaint was rejected by the Court of First Instance, but upon an application for revision to the Board of Revenue the order of the Court of First Instance was set aside and the cases were remanded to that Court for trial. In all the ten cases the defendant was called upon to produce the accounts of the collections admittedly made by him. Repeated orders were made for the production of the accounts but they were never complied with. Under these circumstances very slight evidence would have been sufficient to prove the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff, having repeatedly failed to obtain from the defendant the accounts of the collections admittedly made by...
Tag this Judgment!Khurshed Alam Khan and ors. Vs. Rahmat-ullah Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All68; 43Ind.Cas.490
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge of Gorakhpur admitting an appeal, presented under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (a) and Order XLVII, Rule 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Basti granting an application for review of a certain judgement and decree of his own court. No second appeal lies against the order of the District Judge, and the only question which I have to consider is whether the applicants now before me, who were, the plaintiffs in the suit, have brought their case within the purview of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case are somewhat peculiar. The plaintiffs' claim was one for possession of certain property, together with mesne profits and certain other sums of money claimed as due to the plaintiffs under their cause of action. The claim was partly decreed and partly dismissed, and as a matter of fact the plaintiffs took out execution of the decree to the e...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Vs. Emperor Through Gobind Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.995
1. This is a very curious case. As the result of the heavy flood in the Ganges last year it appears that certain, ancient coins, said to be about 150 years' old, were found on the bank of the Ganges. The evidence as to the circumstances under which they originally came to be found and whence they had originally come is extremely vague. I was inclined to think that they could not be described at all as treasure trove, which must be something of value hidden in the soil or in anything affixed thereto. But it does appear with regard to these particular coins that there was clear evidence that they were treasure trove and I think the finding that they were treasure trove was right. Some of them at any rate were dug up from the soil in the month of February under or near an old 'kuti' or at any rate adjacent to a temple and as many as fourteen were found at one spot and, therefore, the inference that they had been washed up by the river is negatived. The fact also that similar coins had ori...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All715
Walsh, J.1. In this case the question is whether the accused made a false charge under Section 211. What amounts to a 'charge' must in the absence of a definition in the Code itself depend largely upon the circumstances, and it is, therefore, impossible to lay down any general rule. But I accept what I understand to be substantially the view taken in Chenna Malli Gowda v. Emperor (1904) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 129, and also in Chinna Ramana Gowd v. Emperor (1908) I.L.R. 31 Mad. 506, that a false 'charge' must be made to an officer or to a court who has power to investigate and send it for trial, and if it is made to such a person then I think it comes within the section, and I adopt the view of Mr. Justice Chamier in Zorawar Singh v. King-Emperor (1911) 8 A.L.J. 1106, that there being no definition of the word 'charge' and there being no procedure of the nature of a 'charge' in the Indian law, the question is, whether the accusation is made with the intention to set the law in motion. That, how...
Tag this Judgment!Buddhu Misir and ors. Vs. Bhagirathi Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All405; (1918)ILR40All216
Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. The facts out of which this application for revision arises are these:---In execution of a decree held by Buddhu Misir and others, the present applicants, the property of the judgement-debtor was sold by auction and was purchased by one Sukh Narain. The auction-purchaser sold the property purchased by him to the decree-holders. The decree-holders purchasers applied for delivery of possession under Order XXI, Rule 95, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court of first instance granted their application, An appeal was preferred to the District Judge and he held that the applicants for possession, who were purchasers from the auction-purchaser, were not entitled to make an application under Order XXI, Rule 95, and accordingly set aside the order of the court of first instance. From this order of the learned District Judge the present application for revision has been preferred, and it is contended that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to ente...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.761
1. In this case the question is whether the accused made a false charge under Section 211. What amounts to a 'charge' must in the absence of a definition in the Code itself depend largely upon the circumstances, and it is, therefore, impossible to lay down any general rule. But I accept what I understand to be substantially the view taken in Chenna Malli Gowda v. Emperor 27 M. 129: 1 Weir 193, and also in Chinna Ramana Gowd v. Emperor 81 M. 506: 18 M. L. J. 573: 9 Cr. L. J. 77, that a false 'charge' must be made to an officer, or to a Court who has power to investigate and send it for trial, and if it is made to such a person, then I think it comes within the section, and I adopt the view of Mr. Justice Chamier in Zorawar Singh v. Emperor 11 Ind. Cas, 617: 8 A. L. J. 1106: 12 Cr. L. J. 433, that there being no definition of the word charge' and there being no procedure of the nature of a 'charge' in the Indian Law, the question is, whether the accusation is made with the intention to s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »