Allahabad Court July 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.
Sheo Prasad Vs. Narsingh Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All1
Knox, A. C.J., Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. The question that has been referred to this Full Bench for decision is whether the appeal, out of which the question' arises, is barred by limitation or not 2. In order to decide this point it is necessary to consider first the date on which the judgement of the lower appellate court was passed and the days that it took the appellant to obtain copies of the judgement and decree complained of. The judgement was pronounced on the 3rd of December, 1915. We find from the record that an application for the copy both of the judgement and decree was made on the 7th of December, 1915, and that that copy could have been obtained on the 18th of December, 1915. The appellant therefore had at his disposal the ninety days prescribed for the appeal plus a period of twelve days, the time requisite to obtain copies of the judgement and decree complained of. The appeal was filed in this Court on the 15th of March, 1916, and was thus one day beyon...
Sarup Lal Vs. Lala and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.589
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for possession of a house. The house stood on a plot of land, which under a partition which took place between the defendants and the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs was allotted to the share of the former. The defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the house and thereupon the present suit was brought for recovery of possession of the house. The Court of first instance decreed the claim and that decree was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The defendants have preferred this appeal and their contention is that under Section 118 of the Land Revenue Act the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession, inasmuch as they did not get rent assessed on the site at the time of the partition. In my judgment the provisions of Section 118, so far from supporting the contention of the defendants-appellants, are against them. That section provides that, 'if, in making a partition, it is necessary to inclu...
Emperor Vs. Goda Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All296(1); 43Ind.Cas.800
George Knox, C.J.1. Goda Ram has been committed to the Court of Session for trial on a charge under Sections 309, 307, or 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge says in his order of reference that there is no evidence to support, the charge of attempting to murder, and he, therefore, recommends that the order of commitment be set aside. There is evidence on the record which supports the charge under Section 324 and that offence is triable by a Court of Session. Commitments can be quashed only on a point of law; vide Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, The commitment, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Heaton in the case of Emperor v. Suleman Ibrahim Nakhuda 10 Ind. Cas. 802 : 13 Bom. L.R. 201 : 12 Cr. L.J. 256, may be convenient or may be indiscreet, but the High Court is concerned only with the question of legality. The order of commitment will, therefore, stand. With this answer the record will be sent back to the lower Court....
Manser Chamar and anr. Vs. Gajai Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.873
Piggott, J.1. This is in application by two defendants against the decree of a Court of Small Causes, by which the Plaintiff was awarded a sum of Rs. 30 out of Rs. 80 claimed by him. The decree moreover allows the plaintiff his full costs. The suit was a somewhat peculiar one. The plaintiff describes himself as one of the proprietors of two villages, while the defendants are Chamars, residing in one of the said villages. The plaintiff alleges that at a certain time there was an epidemic of cattle disease in that village, in consequence of which sixteen head cattle belonging to the plaintiff died. He then offered the defendants the hides of these animals on a charge of Rs. 5 each. The defendants accepted this offer and removed the hides of the carcasses; but they subsequent declined to fulfil their contract of payment to the plaintiff. The defendants replied, first, by denying all the allegations of fact made in the plaint. They said that the plaintiff never owned as many as sixteen hea...
Bodlu Bhonja and ors. Vs. Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All717; 42Ind.Cas.862
Piggott, J.1. This is an application by certain plaintiffs whose suit for damages has been dismissed by a Court of Small Causes. The plaintiffs alleged that they were dispossessed from certain land by the defendants on a certain date and claimed damages therefor. The pleadings raised three distinct issues, (1) whether the plaintiffs had been dispossessed by the defendants? (2) how long this dispossession had lasted? (3) what damages the plaintiffs had thereby suffered? The court framed a composite issue and recorded a single finding, to the effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs was false and that the issue is decided against the plaintiffs. In my opinion the case has not been properly tried; and as there is a question of principle involved, the court below may be required to try the case again upon proper lines. There had been a previous suit between the parties on the regular side in which the plaintiffs recovered possession of this land from the defendants under Section...
Pahalwan Singh Vs. Janki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All17
Piggott, J.1. On the findings of the court below there should have been an ex parle decree against Musammat Janki, widow of Baldeo, for the sum claimed, with costs, such decree to be recoverable only against any self-acquired property of the deceased Baldeo which might be found in the possession of the widow. The lower court was quite entitled on the pleadings to try an issue whether Baldeo had died joint or separate from Ms brothers (sic)Chunni, Gokui and Bachchu; and having come to the finding that, at the time of Baldeo's death, the four brothers were members of a joint undivided Hindu family, it has rightly held that the joint family property, whatever it may be, in the hands of the remaining brothers by survivorship could not be liable for a debt incurred by Baldeo, in the absence of any evidence that it was incurred on behalf of the joint family or for the benefit of that family. I doubt whether the modification of the deoree of the court below, to which I think the plaintiff is ...
Pahlwan Singh Vs. Musammat Janki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All391(2); 42Ind.Cas.858
Piggott, J.1. On the findings of the Court below there should have been an ex parte decree against Musammat Janki, widow of Baldeo, for the sum claimed, with costs, such decree to be recoverable only against any self acquired property of the deceased, Baldeo, which might be found in the possession of the widow. The lower Court was quite entitled on the pleadings to try an issue whether Baldeo had died joint or separate from his brothers Chunni, Gokal and Bachchu; and having come to the finding that, at the time of Baldeo's death, the four brothers were members of a joint undivided Hindu family, it has rightly held that the joint family property, whatever it might be, in the hands of the remaining brothers by survivorship could not be liable for a debt incurred by Baldeo, in the absence of any evidence that it was incurred on behalf of the joint family or for the benefit of that family. I doubt whether the modification of the decree of the Court below, to which I think the plaintiff is ...
Samir-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Munir-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All52
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the widow of a deceased brother of the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff's husband died during the life-time of his father. The first paragraph of the plaint alleges that, under the will of their deceased father, the defendant and his brothers took certain property subject to a charge of Rs. 36 a year in favour of the plaintiff. The second paragraph of the plaint states that, in virtue of an agreement therein referred to, the defendant was bound to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 12 a year out of the Rs. 36 a year already referred to. An examination of this agreement shows that the defendant and his brothers in distributing this charge of Rs. 38 per annum amongst themselves, expressly referred to it as an allowance for the maintenance of this plaintiff. It is quite clear that the money in respect of which the suit is brought is claimed as part of an annuity due to the plaintiff. The only point about which there can be any controversy is wheth...
Choudhri Munir-ud-dIn Vs. Musammat Samir-un-nissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.903
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the widow of a deceased brother of the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff's husband died during the lifetime of his father. The first paragraph of the plaint alleges that, under the Will of their deceased father, the defendant and his brothers took certain property subject to a charge of Rs. 36 a year in favour of the plaintiff. The second paragraph of the plaint states that, in virtue of an agreement therein referred to, the defendant was bound to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 12 a year out of the Rs. 36 a year already referred to An examination of this agreement shows that the defendant and his brother, in distributing this share of Rs. 36 per annum amongst themselves, expressly referred to it as an allowance for the maintenance of the plaintiff. It is quite clear that the money in respect of which the suit is brought is claimed as part of an annuity due to the plaintiff. The only point about which there can be any controversy is whether t...
Ram Nath Vs. Sekhdar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All210; (1918)ILR40All51; 45Ind.Cas.323
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for money in a Court of Small Causes. That court has refused to entertian it on the ground that it is not cognizable by that court, being a suit for rent. It presumably refers to paragraph (8) of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, No. IX of 1887. If it were a suit for rent at all it would be cognizable by a Revenue Court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, and the Revenue Court has already refused to entertain a claim for this money, though the defendant is not to blame for this. On the plaint as drafted the claim is for damages for breach of a contract. I set aside the order of the court below and direct that court to re-admit the suit on to its file of pending cases and to dispose of it according to law. Costs here and hitherto will abide the event....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »