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.
Labhu and ors. Vs. Radha Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All256; 45Ind.Cas.544
Rafique, J.1. Radha Charan applied to the Revenue Court for partition and notices were accordingly issued on his application. Labhu and others objected to the partition of some land, trees, wells, etc., on the ground that when their ancestors sold the village to the ancestor of the applicant the vendors reserved to themselves and their heirs the said lands, trees, wells, etc., free of revenue. The applicant met the objection by raising various pleas, one of which was that the objectors not being recorded co-sharers had no locus standi. The Assistant Collector disallowed the plea and proceeded with the application for partition and the consideration of the merits of the objection under Clause 3 of Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act. He decided in favour of the objectors. Radba Charan preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge, who allowed the appeal on the ground that the objectors not being recorded co-sharers could not be heard. The objectors have come up in appeal to thi...
Mohammad Niaz Khan and ors. Vs. Mohammad Adrees Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All263; 44Ind.Cas.227
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 2 annas per annum was reserved. The Court 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 preemption 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 judgment of the lower Appellate 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 decide that a Muhammadan could make the...
Emperor Vs. Ram Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All307
Piggott, J.1. The case before us is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur, recommending that the conviction of one Earn Das on a charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month passed on him be set aside, on the ground that the trial in -the Magistrate's court was vitiated by illegality. It appears that the complaint filed against Earn Das was referred for trial to the court of an Honorary Magistrate, exercising the powers of a Magistrate of the second class. This court recorded the whole of the evidence for the prosecution and a portion of the evidence for the defence. When it had reached this stage, Earn Das applied to the District Magistrate to have the case transferred to some other court. He gave an undertaking that, in the event of such transfer, he would not ask the court to which the transfer was made to re-hear the entire evidence de novo, but would be satisfied if that court proceeded to call and examin...
Ram Dass Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All279; 44Ind.Cas.682
Piggott, J.1. The case before us is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipore, recommending that the conviction of one Ram Das on a charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month passed on him be set aside, on the ground that the trial in the Magistrate's Court was vitiated by illegality. It appears that the complaint filed against Ram Das was referred for trial to the Court of an Honorary Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate of the Second Class. This Court recorded the whole of the evidence for the prosecution and a portion of the evidence for the defence. When it had reached this stage, Ram Das applied to the District Magistrate to have the case transferred to some other Court. He gave an undertaking that, in the event of such transfer, he would not ask the Court to which the transfer was made to re-hear the entire evidence de novo, but would be satisfied if that Court proceeded to call and examine th...
Debi Prasad Vs. Narsingh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All211
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The original suit was one for redemption, the plaintiffs alleging that they were entitled to possession of the property which had been mortgaged and mesne profits on the ground that the mortgage had been discharged by the usufruct, and a surplus was due to the mortgagor. This suit resulted in a decree for possession and a direction for an inquiry as to what amount of mesne profits the plaintiffs were entitled to. The matter had been litigated up to the High Court and its decree was dated the 2nd of November, 1904. In pursuance of the decree directing the inquiry as to mesne profits an application was made for that purpose in the year 1907, and the mesne profits were finally adjudicated upon in the year 1910. The decree was then put into execution and various sums were realized from time to time. The present application for execution was made on the 18th of April, 1917. The applicatio...
Ali Hammad and ors. Vs. Jagardeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All300
Piggott, J.1. These are four connected appeals which have come before us under the following circumstances:The plaintiffs instituted, in the court of the Assistant Collector, Azamgarh, four suits, for the ejectment of the defendant from certain specified plots of land, in each case with the allegation that they themselves were mortgagees in possession of the proprietary rights over the said plots, and the defendant was a non-occupancy tenant of the same. The defendant replied that there was no' contract of tenancy between himself and the plaintiffs; that his possession was proprietary in its nature and that he was in possession as of right, because he was a co-sharer in the proprietary rights of the particular sub-division of a mahal to which the land in suit appertained. On this the learned Assistant Collector took action under Section 199 of Act II of 1901, requiring the defendant to file a suit in, the Civil Court for the determination of the question of title in issue between himse...
Babu Narsingh Das Vs. Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All254; 43Ind.Cas.932
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The original suit was one for redemption, the plaintiffs alleging that they ware entitled to possession of the property which had been mortgaged and mesne profits, on the ground that the mortgage had been discharged by the usufruct and surplus was due to the mortgagor. This suit resulted in a decree for possession and a direction for an enquiry as to what amount of mesne profits the plaintiffs were entitled to. The matter had been litigated up to the High Court and its decree was dated the 2nd of November 19C4. In pursuance of the decree directing the enquiry as to mesne profits an application was made for that purpose in the year 1907 and the mesne profits were finally adjudicated upon in the year 1910. The decree was then put into execution and various sums were realised from time to time. The present application for execution was made on the 18th of April 1917.2. This application was met with various objections. The objection insis...
Jagardeo Singh Vs. Ali Hammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All177(2); 44Ind.Cas.919
Piggott, J.1. These are four connected appeals which have come before us under the following circumstances:The plaintiffs instituted, in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Azamgarh, four suits for the ejectment of the defendant from certain specified plots of land, in each case with the allegation that they themselves were mortgagees in possession of the proprietary rights over the said plots, and the defendant was a non-occupancy tenant of the same. The defendant replied that there was no contract of tenancy between himself and the plaintiffs; that his possession was proprietary in its nature and that he was in possession as of right; because he was a co-sharer in the proprietary rights of the particular sub-division of a mahal to which the land in suit appertained. On this the learned Assistant Collector took action under Section 199 of Act II of 1901, requiring the defendant to file a suit in the Civil Court for the determination of the question of title in issue between himself ...
Muhammad Ishaq Khan and ors. Vs. Muhammad Rustam Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All412; (1918)ILR40All292
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for mesne profits. A previous suit had been brought, in which possession of the land had been claimed. A. certain sum was also claimed as mesne profits for the period prior to the institution of the suit, There was a further claim for mesne profits during the pendency of the suit and after decree. The suit resulted in a decree for the plaintiffs for possession of the land and also a decree for a portion of the amount claimed by the plaintiffs for mesne profits. The rest of the plaintiffs claim was dismissed. On referring to the judgement it is quite clear that the court never dealt or purported to deal with the mesne profits during the pendency, of the suit or after decree. In the present suit mesne profits are claimed from the date of the institution of the suit up to the date of delivery of possession. The defence is that the decree in the previous suit operates as res judicata, and reliance is pla...
Mohammed Ishaq Khan and ors. Vs. Mohammed Rustum Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.88
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for mesne profits. A previous suit had been brought in which possession of the land had been claimed. A certain sum of monies was also claimed as mesne profits for the period prior to the institution of the suit. There was a further claim for mesne profits during the pendency of the suit and after decree. The suit resulted in a decree for the plaintiffs for possession of the land and also a decree for a portion of the amount claimed by the plaintiffs for mesne profits. The rest of the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed. On referring to the judgment, it is quite clear that the Court never dealt or purported to deal with the mesne profits during the pendency of the suit or after decree. In the present suit mesne profits are claimed from the date of the institution of the suit up to the date of delivery of possession. The defence is that the decree in the previous suit operates as res judicata, and reliance is placed upon the provisions of Section 11, Expl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »