Allahabad Court January 1918 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.
Tilak Ram Vs. Dalip Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All243; (1918)ILR40All338
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. In this case it appears that sanction was granted to a litigant in the Revenue Court to prosecute the opposite party for alleged offences under Section 471 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The sanction was granted on the 1st of November, 1915, by an Assistant Collector. On the 11th of May, 1916, this sanction was set aside on the technical ground that the Assistant Collector who had granted sanction had no jurisdiction to do so. The High Court held that the Additional District Judge was wrong and sent the case back, with the result that the Additional District Judge held, that, a prima facie case had been made out why the opposite party should be prosecuted, and he accordingly refused the application to revoke the sanction given by the Assistant Collector. A considerable time had elapsed in the meantime, and in July, 1917, a criminal complaint was lodged. This was met with the objection that the sanction was out of date ...
Tilak Ram Vs. Chaudhri Dalip Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.739
1. In this case it appears that sanction was granted to a litigant in the Revenue Court to prosecute the opposite party for alleged offences under Section 471 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The sanction was granted on the 1st of November 1915 by an Assistant Collector. On the 11th of May 1916 this sanction was set aside, on the technical ground that the Assistant Collector who had granted sanction had no jurisdiction to do so. The High Court held that the Additional District Judge was wrong and sent the case back, with the result that the Additional District Judge held that a prima facie case had been made out why the opposite party should be prosecuted and he accordingly refused the application to revoke the sanction given by the Assistant Collector. A considerable time had elapsed in the meantime, and in July 1917 a criminal complaint was lodged. This was met with the objection that the sanction was out of date and that, therefore, the Court could not take cognizance of...
Hamid HusaIn Vs. Kubra Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All235; (1918)ILR40All332; 44Ind.Cas.728
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This was a suit by a Muhammadan husband for restitution of conjugal rights in which, by our order of the 8th of August last, we thought it necessary to remit certain issues for more specific findings by the lower appellate court. Those findings have now been returned, and we are-satisfied that they cannot be successfully assailed on the grounds taken in the petition of objections filed by the plaintiff appellant. We desire to refer to the case of Armour v. Armour (1914) 1 A. L. J., 318. as laying down sound principles of law which we accept and propose to apply to the facts found in this case by the learned District Judge. We think the findings of the learned District Judge proceed upon evidence and are not vitiate by any erroneous view of the law. We must ace apt his finding that the defendant has reasonable grounds for believing that her health and safety would be endangered if she returned to her husband's custody, and in our opinion this finding disposes of...
Jurawan, Pasi and ors. Vs. Mahabir Dhar Dube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All216(2); (1918)ILR40All198
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The decree was dated as far back as the 28th of June, 1904. In March, 1915, an application was made for execution by attachment of certain property of the judgement-debtors. On that application (on the 23rd of September, 1915), two months' time was granted to the judgement-debtor to pay the balance of the decretal amount he having paid Rs. 22 on account. No further step appears to have been taken on this application and it was struck off. On the 6th of September, 1916, the present application was made. It sought execution in a different way. The application of the 31st of March, 1915, was for execution by attachment of property. In the application of the 6th of September, 1916, execution was sought by the arrest of the judgement debtor. The judgement debtor raised an objection that, having regard to the provisions of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree being now more...
Jahangira Vs. Karrar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1912All252; 44Ind.Cas.513
Piggott, J.1. These are three connected appeals by a defendant in three connected suits for arrears of rent. It appears that the defendant, being a proprietor in a mahal, mortgaged his entire share with possession to the plaintiff. At the time of the mortgage the defendant was personally occupying certain plots of land in the mahal as his sir or khudkasht. The lands so occupied by him fell naturally into three classes. There were the sir lands strictly so called, there were khudkasht lands which the defendant had held for the fall statutory period of twelve years, and to which, therefore, in law all the incidents of sir attached although they were not yet recorded as such, and finally there were khudkasht lands which the defendant had occupied for less than the statutory period. Having mortgaged his share with possession the defendant entered into a contract of lease with the plaintiff. By this contract he undertook to hold all the lands of each of the three descriptions referred to ab...
Debi Prasad Vs. J. A. H. Lewis
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All213
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This is an application in revision by one of the creditors calling in question the order of the court below dismissing his application made under Section 16 of Act III of 1907. It appears that the opposite party, J. A. H. Lewis, was declared an insolvent on the 21st of February, 1910, by the Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpore. No receiver was appointed by the court to take possession of the property of the insolvent. The reason probably was that there was hardly any property to be made over; only a few mondhas, I am told, were available at the time. The insolvent left Cawnpore soon after. The applicant says that in 1916, when he went to Calcutta, he learnt that the insolvent was employed in the Government Printing Press. On his return from Calcutta the applicant presented a petition to the Court of Small Causes, Cawnpore, on the 15th of April, 1916, praying that half the pay of the insolvent be attached and realized for the benefit of the creditors. A notice seems...
Gokul Vs. Mohri Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All72; (1918)ILR40All325; 44Ind.Cas.1005
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:2. There were three brothers, Kauleshar, Chandu and Jageshar, who owned a fixed-rate holding of seven bighas and five biswas. According to the plaint the three brothers separated and the holding was privately divided amongst them. On the 9th of January, 1900, the name of Jageshar was entered in respect of two bighas and five biswas, and the rest, five bighas, stood in the name two of brothers, Kauleshar and Chandu. Kauleshar died leaving him surviving his son, Gokul. Chandu died leaving him surviving a widow only and no issue. One Basant Lai obtained a simple money decree against Jageshar, one of the brothers mentioned above, and against Govind, a third party. In execution of his decree Basant Lal attached the whole of the holding, namely, the fixed-rate holding of seven bighas and five biswas. At the time of the attachment the two widows of Kauleshar and Chandu were alive, as also the son o...
Devi Prasad Vs. J.A.H. Lewis
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All248; 43Ind.Cas.984
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision by one of the creditors calling in question the order of the Court below dismissing his application made under Section 16 of Act III 1907. It appears that the opposite party, J.A.H. Lewis, was declared an insolvent on the 21st of February 1910 by the Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpur. No Receiver was appointed by the Court to take possession of the property of the insolvent. The reason probably was that there was hardly any property to be made over, only a few mondhas, I am told, were available at the time. The insolvent left Cawnpur soon after. The applicant says that in 1916 when he went to Calcutta be learnt that the insolvent was employed in the Government Printing Press. On his return from Calcutta the applicant presented a petition to the Court of Small Causes, Cawnpur, on the 15th of April 1916, praying that half the pay of the insolvent be attached and realised for the benefit of the creditors. A notice seems to have been issued...
Muhammad Niaz Khan and ors. Vs. Muhammad Idris Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All322
Henry Richards, C.J and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for pre-emption under the Muhammadan law. The property transferred is a small piece of land in the town of Zamania. The transfer was made in the form of a perpetual lease. The amount paid down was the sum of Rs 250 and a nominal rent of two annas per annum was reserved. The conrt of first instance decreed the suit, holding that there was a sale, and that the plaintiff had a right. The lower appellate court held that pre-emption under the Muhammadan law did not apply to the case of leases. Accordingly, without deciding the other issues the lower appellate court reversed the decree of the court of first instance and dismissed the suit. We think, reading the judgement of the lower appelate court, that the learned District Judge never intended to overrule the finding of the court of first instance that the transaction, though carried out in the form of a lease, was in reality a sale. We think that he intended to...
Kallu Vs. Sital
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1926All255; (1918)ILR40All314
Piggott, J.1. In this case the plaintiff Kallu and the defendant Sital are related in this way that their paternal grandfathers were own brothers. Sital is the recorded tenant of a certain occupancy holding. Kallu is actually cultivating certain plots of land, making up one-half of the area of the holding, and is paying for the use and occupation of these plots approximately one-half of the rent recorded as payable by Sital to the zamindar. Sital took proceedings in a Revenue Court to eject Kallu on the allegation that the latter was holding as his sub-tenant. Kallu replied that he was a joint tenant with Sital of the entire holding; that they had apportioned the fields between them merely for convenience of enjoyment, and that the half share of the rent payable by him was paid to the zamindar and not to Sital. On this the Revenue Court directed Kallu to establish his title as co-tenant of the holding by a suit in the Civil Court. This order purports to have been passed under Section 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »