Allahabad Court March 1918 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Kali Charan Pande and ors. Vs. Gupt Nath Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All274; 45Ind.Cas.34
1. This is an application in revision arising out of arbitration proceedings. The facts briefly are as follows: The parties to the dispute agreed to settle it by arbitration (out of Court). There was no suit pending. They referred their dispute to six arbitrators agreeing that the verdict should be, if necessary, the verdict of the majority. The arbitrators met on the 10th of February 1915. The parties produced evidence which was recorded. The arbitrators again met on the 19th or 20th of February. They discussed the matter and apparently were soon divided into two groups in the opinions they expressed. No decision was arrived at, no award was drawn up. Two of the arbitrators withdrew from the arbitration and sent in notice to that effect. Thereupon the remaining four arbitrators again met on the 21st of March. Prior to that date notice was issued to the parties for that and was also sent to the defendants and their arbitrators. On that date the four arbitrators proceeded to take all th...
Deokinandan Vs. Gapua
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All344; (1918)ILR40All512
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiff sued on the basis of a deed of the 6th of September, 1911, to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 283 principal and Rs. 447 interest, total Rs. 730, together with costs and interest pendente lite and for the future, by enforcement of the hypothecation lien against eight black buffaloes. The defendant raised several pleas in defence, among them was the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. The court of first instance found that the bond had been executed and that the money was due, but it held that the suit wag barred by limitation and on that ground it dismissed it. The plaintiff appealed. The lower appellate court held that the suit was one falling under article 80 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act, which allowed a period of three years from the date on which the bond became payable, and as the suit had been brought in the year 1915, it dismissed it as being ba...
Emperor Vs. Harkesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All507
Knox, J.1. Harkesh and Bhullan have been convicted of offences under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet to which they were called upon to plead, as regards Harkesh, is:--'That you about the month of April forcibly took Musammat Hardai, a minor girl of about 15 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents, with intent that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse and be sold in marriage to some one.' As regards Bhullan the charge runs:--'That you about the month of June, July and as part of August kept Musammat Hardai, hiding her identity that she was a girl, with the intention of giving her in marriage and raising money from the transaction knowing that she was a minor girl kidnapped by Harkesh.' The case was tried with two assessors. Both assessors gave it as their opinion that Harkesh and Bhullan were guilty of the offence specified in the charge. The learned Judge agreed with the assessors. Harkesh and Bhullan are described as Jats. The girl, resp...
Har Kesh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All134; 45Ind.Cas.837
Knox, J.1. Harkesh and Bhullan have been convicted of offences under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet, to which they were called upon to plead, as regards Harkesh is: 'That yon about the month of April forcibly took Musammat Hardai, a minor girl of about 15 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents, with Intent that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse and be sold in marriage to some one.' As regards Bhullan the charge runs: 'That you about the month of June, July, and a part of August kept Musammat Hardai, hiding her identity that she was a girl, with the intention of giving her in marriage and raising money from the transaction, knowing that she was a minor girl kidnapped by Harkesh.' The case was tried with two assessors. Both assessors gave it as their opinion that Harkesh and Bhullan were guilty of the offence specified in the charge. The learned Judge agreed with the assessors. Harkesh and Bhullan are described as Jats, the girl, respe...
Hamida Bibi Vs. Fatima Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All180; 45Ind.Cas.991
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the Court below. The question was one of limitation and application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The parties to this suit were co tenants in a holding. A suit was brought against them for rent and a decree was obtained (against them jointly) on the 6th of July 1910. On the 19th of August 1910 the plaintiff paid the decretal debt. On the 20th May 1913, some ninety days before the expiry of the period of limitation which is fixed by Article 99 of the First Schedule, she instituted a suit in the Small Cause Court. An objection was taken that the Court had no jurisdiction, and on the 27th of November 1913, the Small Cause Court held that it had no jurisdiction and directed the plaintiff to take back the plaint aud file it in the proper Court.The plaintiff refused to take back the plaint.On the 19th of February 1914, that is nearly ninety days after the order of the Small Cause Court, she filed an application in the High Cour...
Emperor Vs. Bhagwani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All228(2); 45Ind.Cas.146
Piggott, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge has been Quite right to refer this case. The proceedings in the Magistrate's Court have been distinctly irregular. Two persons were sent up for trial, Achuta and Musammat Bhagwani, in connection with an alleged offence of kidnapping under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate framed the charge under that section, convicted both aesused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months. A chut a appealed against his conviction, but Mmammat Bhagwani did not. The learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to deal with the case of Achuta under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and ordered Achuta to be committed for trial on a properly framed charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code; he being of opinion that the offence disclosed by the evidence, if committed, fell under that section and was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The case of ...
Debi Prasad and anr. Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All102(2); (1918)ILR40All461
Tudball and Raoof, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The facts of the case are as follows. In the year 1867 the father of the two plaintiffs, one Madan Gopal, was the mortgagee of certain zamindari rights in the village of Runni Chursai. There was a public unmetalled road which ran from the village lands of this village up to the pucca road some short distance away. This public road belonged to the State and still belongs to it. In 1867 there were no trees standing on it and Madan Gopal applied to the Collector of the district in writing, pointing out this fact and that he wished to plant trees upon the public road for the benefit of the public; that he would tend and look after them, and that he would only claim the wood that might fall from the trees as his own. He would have no right to sell the trees. The Collector agreed to this and Madan Gopal planted these trees along the public road. It is quite clear, as the land vested in the state, the ownership of the trees did not...
Anandi Kunwar Vs. Ram Niranjan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All505; 45Ind.Cas.494
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought a declaration that certain property was not saleable in execution of a certain decree. It appears that the principal defendants bad a decree against the plaintiffs husband. In execution of that decree they attached certain property alleging it to be the property of their judgment-debtor. The decree was for about Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff in the present suit objected to the attachment. The objection was overruled, and the plaintiff had to bring the present suit. The court of first instance held that the property was the property of the judgment-debtor and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has now preferred this second appeal. The first and main objection urged is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the value of the property was over Rs. 5,000. This objection does not come very well from the plaintiff, considering that it was s...
Debi Prasad and anr. Vs. Badri Parshad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.980
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The facts of the case are as follows. In the year 1867 the father of the two plaintiffs, one Madan Gopal, was the mortgagee of certain Zamindari rights in the village of Runni Chursai. There was a public unmetalled road which ran from the village lands of this village up to the pucca road some short distance away. This public road belonged to the State and still belongs to it. In 1867 there were no trees standing on it, and Madan Gopal applied to the Collector of the District in writing pointing out this fact and that he wished to plant trees upon the public road for the benefit of the public, that he would tend and look after them, and that he would only claim the wood that might fall from the trees as his own. He would have no right to sell the trees. The Collector agreed to this and Madan Gopal planted these trees along the public road. It is quite clear, as the land vested in the State, the ownership of the trees did not vest in Madan Gopal, ...
Ramzan Khan and ors. Vs. Mir Dad Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All449
Piggott, J.1. The suit out of which this first appeal arises is based upon the following state of facts:Mir Dad Khan and others were the owners of proprietary rights in a certain mahal. Appurtenant to these proprietary rights was a considerable area of land of which these zamindars were in possession either as sir or khudkasht. With reference to the khudkasht land it is sufficient to say that it was land which had been held by the proprietors in their own cultivation for the full statutory period and which had, therefore, acquired the essential character of sir land, so far as Section 10 of the Local Tenancy Act, No. II of 1901, is concerned. For purposes of brevity, therefore, it will be convenient hereafter to speak of the sir lauds of Mir Dad Khan and others. Now these proprietors were indebted, and the evidence on the record shows that there was a decree out against them for a sum of Rs. 9,000, held by Thakur Das and others. The proprietors endeavoured to come to terms with these c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »