Allahabad Court April 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.
Khubi and ors. Vs. Bakhtayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All407; 46Ind.Cas.414
George Knox, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the District Magistrate of Meerut under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereby he directed the Police to give possession over some disputed land to one of the parties. Whether the District Magistrate has or has not the authority to pass the order in question it seems to me unnecessary to decide. The order which the learned Magistrate has cow passed is an order which could and should have been passed long ago. I decline to interfere and dismiss the application. Let the record be returned....
Mohammad Zaki Vs. the Municipal Board of Mainpuri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All177(1); 47Ind.Cas.577
1. We think that the order of the Court below was clearly wrong One Nisar Ali brought a suit and made an application to sue in forma pauperis. Eventually he was permitted to bring the suit in this way. Meanwhile he was adjudicated an insolvent. The Receiver in the insolvency wished to continue the proceedings. The learned Subordinate Judge points out that he had never given leave to the Receiver to sue in forma pauperis and that the Receiver not being personally liable either to the Government or to the defendants, he ought to pay Court-fees. He accordingly made an order that the Receiver should pay the Court-fees on the plaint and on all the applications. We think that once Nisar Ali obtained leave to sue in forma pauperis in a suit which had been commenced before his insolvency, the Receiver was entitled to continue the suit just as Nisar Ali could have done, and in this respect the order of the Court below was wrong. The Court is, of course entitled, to order the Receiver to give se...
Emperor Vs. Sahdeo Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All577
Knox, J.1. The reference made has been properly made. No offence under Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed. I set aside the conviction and direct that the fine, or any part of it which has been paid, be refunded. The sentence of imprisonment has been served....
Sahdeo Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.522
George Knox, J. 1. The reference made has been properly mane. No offence under Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed. I set aside the conviction and direct that the fine or any part of it which has been paid be refunded. The sentence of imprisonment has been served....
Dhara Singh Vs. Gayan Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All186(1); 45Ind.Cas.761
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application. The suit was brought upon a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that he was a minor at the date of the note. The Munsif held that he was a minor and dismissed the suit. In appeal the Subordinate Judge found that the defendant was a minor but that he had fraudulently misrepresented his age to the plaintiff, and on this ground reversed the desision of the Munsif and decreed the suit. The preliminary objection is that the suit being of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, the Code does not provide for a second appeal and that the defendant is not entitled to apply in revision under the provisions of Section 115. It is quite clear that the Court had jurisdiction to determine the matter and in exercise of its jurisdiction, if it made a mistake in law, this does not entitle the party against whom the decision is to come here in revision. We may mention that the Court was clearly wrong in holding the min...
Jai Kishan Singh Vs. Naulakhi Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All575
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration of his title to certain property. On the findings the only question which is open to consideration is whether or not Musammat Naulakhi Kunwar took an absolute estate under a deed of gift executed by one Dirgaj Singh. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate court held that on the true construction of the deed of gift, the lady took only a life-estate. Under the terms of the deed the lady is made absolute owner. The words used are 'malik mustaqil.' Their Lordships of the Privy Council held in the case of Surajmani v. Rati Nath Ojha (1) that the word 'malik' alone, unless there were something definite to the contrary in the surrounding circumstances to qualify the meaning of the expression, indicates an absolute estate. Here we have the word 'malik' followed by the word 'mustaqil' which even makes it stronger. The learned...
Naulakhi Kuar and ors. Vs. Jai Kishen Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All255; 46Ind.Cas.905
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration of his title to certain property. On the findings the only question which is open to consideration is whether or not Musammat Naulakhi Kunwar took an absolute estate under a deed of gift executed by one Dirgaj Singh. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower Appellate Court held that on the true construction of the deed of gift, the lady took only a life-estate. Under the terms of the deed the lady is made absolute owner. The words used are 'malik mustaqil.' Their Lordships of the Privy Council held in the case of Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha 30 A. 84 : 5 A.L.J. 67 : 12 C.W.N. 231 : 18 M.L.J. 7 : 10 Bom. L.R. 59 : 7 C.L.J. 131 : 3 M.L.T. 144 : 35 I.A. 17 (P.C.) that the word 'malik' alone, unless there were something definite to the contrary in the surrounding circumstances to qualify the meaning of the expression, indicates an absolute estate. Here we have the word 'malik' followe...
Chabraj Singh and ors. Vs. Mahesh NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All259; (1918)ILR40All572; 46Ind.Cas.976
1. It appears from the finding of the court below that the vendee had become a co-sharer by purchase on the 27th of November, 1913, that is to say, before the present suit was instituted. No suit for pre-emption was ever instituted in respect of this second purchase. The result is that not only on the day upon which the court of first instance might have made its decree in favour of the plaintiff but even before the institution of the suit, the defendant vendee had become a co-sharer. It may be unfortunate that this matter was not gone into by the court in the first instance, which might have had the effect of giving the plaintiff express notice of the sale of the 27th of November, 1913 (which the learned vakil says he was ignorant of). This may have been an unfortunate circumstance for the plaintiff and a lucky one for the defendant vendee, but the fact remains that when the case was tried the vendee was able to prove that he was a co-sharer with the vendor before the date of the inst...
Kalyan Das and ors. Vs. Maqbul Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All497
E. M. Des and C. Chamier, JJ.1. On this appeal-Sir W. Garth for the appellants contended that the rights of Dahi Das as mortgagee were merged and extinguished on his purchase of the equity of redemption in 1881, and could not be and were not revived by the proceedings in 1897; and that the respondents having only purchased mortgagees' rights which did not exist, took nothing whatever by their purchase. The intention of Debi Das to extinguish the mortgage has been found as fact; the mortgagee's rights therefore no longer exist. There are cases where a mortgagee purchasing can keep a mortgage alive, but here his intention to do so was not established and under Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is submitted, the charge was extinguished. Here the purchase was before that Act came into force, but it merely declares the law as it was before the Act. The appellants contend that the respondents took nothing by the sale in 1897. [DeGruyther, KC. 'That question is not now open: no ...
Emperor Vs. Amir Hasan Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All569
Piggott, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore has referred to this Conrt in revision two orders passed by a Magistrate of the first class subordinate to him in connection with certain prolonged proceedings which have been going on between, the Municipal Board of Fatehpur and a gentleman of the name of Munshi Amir Hasan Khan, who, I understand, is a member of the legal profession for something more than one and a half years past. On the 8th of January, 1917, it was proved against the said Amir Hasan Khan that he had failed to comply with a notice directing him to execute a certain work in respect of certain property, namely, a drain, about which there was some contention between him and the Municipal Board. Under Section 307, Clause (b), of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, which came into force on the 1st of July, 1916, Munshi Amir Hasan Khan was liable to a fine which might extend to Rs 500, and in case of a continuing breach, he was liable to a further fine which might ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »