Allahabad Court November 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.
Taimur Ali Shah and anr. Vs. Shah Mohammad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1918
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.346
1. This is an appeal by certain plaintiffs whose suit for a declaration has been dismissed by the trial Court virtually upon a finding that the cognizance of the Civil Court is tarred by Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act (Local Act III of 1901), In a fourth paragraph of the memorandum of appeal which has been added by permission of this Court after the appeal had been filed, it is suggested that in any case not the entire suit, but only a part of it, is affected by the previsions of Section 233(k) aforesaid. On examining the record we do not think that this plea is well founded in fact: the wording of paragraph 9 of the plaint is certainly involved and not as clear as it ought to be as to whether there were one or two claims for partition pending in the Revenue Court. The allegations in that paragraph, however, make it clear that the entire suit was one relating to the partition of a Mahal or Mahals, in respect of which partition proceedings were actually pending in the Revenue Co...
Bupan Rai and ors. Vs. Sub Karan Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.367
1. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that they were joint owners along with the defendants of certain property, specified in the plaint itself, and that the extent of their share was two-fifths of the whole. They sought a declaration of their title and of the extent of their share. The suit was resisted upon various pleas. On the merits, the principal point taken by the defendants was this, that the joint family of which they themselves and the plaintiffs had at one time been members had broken up long before the institution of the suit, that all the joint family property had been divided amongst the members of the family, that the plaintiffs were not the owners of a two-fifths share in each of the properties specified in the plaint, but were only the owners of a smaller share in some of the said properties, according to the records. in the village papers. Various issues were framed in the Court of first. instance, but the learned Subordinate Judge tried only the main issue -of fact,...
Baljit and ors. Vs. Mahipat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All190; (1919)ILR61All203; 49Ind.Cas.118
Piggott, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs sought the ejectment of the defendants from certain land on the allegation that it formed part of an occupancy holding of which the plaintiffs are the tenants, while the defendants are in possession as trespassers. The case set up was that the defendants had originally entered into possession as sub-tenants, but that when the plaintiffs took proceedings to eject them as such by a suit brought under the Tenancy Act in a Revenue Court, the defendants denied the plaintiffs' title and set up a false claim to be in possession as joint tenants of the holding. It was admitted that this plea had prevailed in the Revenue Court which dismissed the suit for ejectment: as a matter of fact it found in favour of the plea of joint tenancy set up by the defendants. The plaintiffs in the present suit adhered to their claim that the defendants were originally their sub-tenants in respect of the land in suit; they claimed that the nature of the defendants' posses...
In Re: D. Macintyre
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All568; 56Ind.Cas.683
1. Upon reading the papers before us including the affidavit of James W. Moncrieff writer to the Signed we are of opinion that the paper-writing, dated the 21st of January 1913, is in the handwriting of the deceased D, MacIntyer, and that according to Scotch Law it constitutes a valid Will and that the said David MacInfyre was a domiciled Scotchman at the time of his death. We accordingly cancel the grant of Letters of Administration previously directed to be issued to the Administrator General and in lieu thereof direst that Letters of Administration with the aforesaid document of the 21st of January 1913, as the last Will of David MacIntyre annexed do issue to the Administrator-General....
Parsotam Das and anr. Vs. Jagan Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.357
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. A pedigree will be found at page 12 of the paper-book, from which it appears that Bhojraj had four sons, namely, Gopal Das, Chimman Lal, Phul Chand and Nathu Ram. Gopal Das was a son by the first wife of Bhojraj; the other three were the sons by a second wife, and they were all younger than Gopal Das. Chimman Lal appears to have died so far back as the year 1898 or 1899. Phul Chand died in October 1904. Nathu Ram died in January 1905 and Bhojraj himself died a few days afterwards. Gopal Das died on the 9th of December 1914, and thus survived his father and his half-brothers by several years. Parsotam Das (the plaintiff) is one of the two sons of Gopal Das. His brother Chiranji Lal is alive but would not or at any rate did not join in the suit. The plaintiff's allegation was that Bhojraj and his sons by both wives remained joint until the death of Bhojraj, that upon the death of Bhojraj the brothers separated, that is ceased to be membe...
Laik Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All185(2); 46Ind.Cas.169
1. Laik Singh has been found guilty of the murder of his own half brother, Bhagwan Singh, under the following circumstances. There had been bad blood between the parties previously, because Bhagwan Singh and his own brother Gobardhan Singh had inherited property to which Laik Singh had no clainr. On the day mentioned in the charge a trumpery dispute broke out between Laik Singh and Bhagwan Singh about a manure heap standing in a field just curtsied the village sits. There was an interchange Of abuse and then the two came to blows. The witnesses are not altogether clear in their statements as to the nature of this scuffle; but it seems fairly certain that Bhagwan Singh had some sort of stick or cane in his hand, whereas Laik Singh was empty-handed to start with. Moreover, Gobardhan Singh, brother of Bhagwan Singh, who is the principal witness for the prosecution, admits that he himself was coming up to help his brother, so that the accused had reasonable ground for supposing that he mig...
Chunni Lal Vs. Biri Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.430
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed possession of certain plots of land. It appears that more than twelve years before the institution of the suit, the plaintiff or his predecessors-in-title obtained a simple money decree against the defendants or their predecessors-in-title. In execution of this decree the plots of land were put up for sale and purchased by the decree-holder. It has been found that the plots of land formed portion of the ex-proprietary holding, of the judgment-debtor and both the Courts below have held, and we agree with them, that having regard to the provisions of the Tenancy Act the interest of the ex-proprietary tenant could not be sold in execution of the decree. It is then said that the plaintiff is at least entitled to the trees. From the description of the plots of land pr some of them it would appear that trees were growing on the plots of land, but it will be dearly seen from the sale certificate and from the whole nature of th...
Subh Karan Rai and ors. Vs. Rupan Rai and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All207
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that they were joint owners along with the defendants of certain property, specified in the plaint itself, and that the extent of their share was two-fifths of the whole. They sought a declaration of their title and of the extent of their share. The suit was resisted upon various pleas. On the merits, the principal point taken by the defendants was this, that the joint family of which they themselves and the plaintiffs had at one time been members had broken up long before the institution of the suit, that all the joint family property had been divided amongst the members of the family, that the plaintiffs were not the owners of a two-fifths share in each of the properties specified in the plaint, but were only the owners of a smaller share in some of the said properties, according to the records in the village papers. Various issues were framed in the court of first instance, but the learned Subordinates Judge tried...
Het Ram Vs. Guddar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All246
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. In this case the court below refused to allow the fee of the successful respondent's pleader. It appears that the pleader in the case filed a certificate that he had duly received his fee. An affidavit was also filed by a man who purported to be a karinda of the respondent, and in this affidavit the karinda swore that he had duly paid the fee and that he had not entered into any arrangement to get back the whole or any part of the same. The learned Judge seems to have thought that having regard to Rule 1, chapter XXI, of the General Rules for Subordinate Civil Courts, the court was not entitled to allow the fee in question. The rule provides that a certificate should be filed by the legal practitioner together with an affidavit made by his client or the latter's 'authorized' agent. The word 'authorized' does not appear in the corresponding rule of the High Court. It seems the word is rather redundant. A man cannot be the agent ...
Thakur Das Vs. Abdulla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.686
Tudball, J.1. The circumstances of this case are such that no private sanction, in my opinion, ought to have been granted. The trial of the original case was a summary trial. There is no record of the evidence. The matter is one involving the eternal Hindu and Musalman question. In the absence of any record of the evidence, it would be difficult indeed to secure a conviction. There are many ways, of explaining the fact that the applicant made a statement which was incorrect. In such a matter as this if the Court thought that perjury had been committed, it would have been better advised if it had taken action itself instead of placing in the hands of a private person the right of vindicating the law. I allow the application and I set aside the order of the Court below. The application for sanction is refused....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »