Allahabad Court July 1918 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Bhagwati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All60
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Tudball, J.1. The accused in this case has been found guilty of murder and sentenced to transportation for life. The alleged murder took place as far back as the 24th of June, 1904. A trial took place in respect of this murder in the year 1904 and one Khedu was convicted. He was sentenced in the first instance to transportation for life, but that sentence was subsequently enhanced by the High Court to a sentence of death The present accused was arrested on the 8th of February, 1918 at Madras. He was put upon his trial and convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. The depositions of three witnesses were used as evidence against him. All these three persons were dead. Mr. Moss Alston, on behalf of the appellant) has raised the point that these depositions were not admissible The Magistrate in the year 1904 took the evidence of these witnesses having previously made the following order: 'I find that Mahabir and Bhagwati have absconded. The evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All60; 48Ind.Cas.481
1. The accused in this case has beep found guilty of murder and. sentenced to transportation for life. The alleged murder took place as far back as the 24th of June, 1904. A trial took place in respect of this murder in the year 1904 and one Khedu was convicted. He was sentenced in the first instance to transportation for life, but that sentence was subsequently enhanced by the High Court to a sentence of death. The present accused was arrested on the 8th of February 1918 at. Madras. He was put upon his trial and convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. The depositions of three witnesses, were used as evidence against him. All these three persons were dead. Mr. Rosa Alston, on behalf of the appellant, has raised the point that these depositions were not admissible. The Magistrate in the year 1904 took the evidence of these witnesses having previously made the following Order: 'I find that Mahabir and Bhagwati have absconded. The evidence which I am about to lake will be rega...
Tag this Judgment!Tamiz-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Mahmud Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All51
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Tudball, J.1. The main point raised as a ground for revision is that the suit was one which was not cognizable by the Small Cause Court. It is contended that it is excluded by Article (41) of the second schedule to the Small Cause Courts Act. We are satisfied that the suit brought by the plaintiff was not of the nature specified in Article (41) of the Act. We see no sufficient reason to interfere with the decree of the Small Cause Court in any other matter raised by the memorandum of appeal. We reject the application but make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Faqir Vs. Bindeshri Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All52; (1919)ILR61All54; 47Ind.Cas.837
Piggot and Walsh, JJ.1. In the suit out of which this appeal-arises the plaintiff, who is the appellant in this Court, claimed possession of a half share in each of two groves, together with damages. The groves are situated in different villages and may be described by the serial numbers in the village papers under which they are referred to in the judgment of the courts below. One grove was numbered 123 and the other was numbered 2. The court of first instance in substance dismissed the plaintiff's claim in respect of grove No. 2, but it decreed his claim for grove No. 123. [There was an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the court of first instance, in so far as that decree dismissed his claim for grove No. 2. There was also an appeal by the defendants against the same decree in so far as it allowed the plaintiff's claim for grove No. 123. The two appeals were heard together, and a single judgment was written, by which the questions raised in both the appeals were disposed...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Singh Vs. Ausan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All12; (1919)ILR61All108; 48Ind.Cas.422
1. This and the connected appeal arise under the following circumstances. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants, alleging that he was in' separate possession of certain land situate in a Mahal in which both he and the defendants were co-sharers, that there was a crop growing on this land which belonged to him and that he had been dispossessed by the defendants. He claimed possession of the land with the crops growing, His suit was under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court, finding that the plaintiff was in possession, granted him a decree under that section granting him possession of both the crops and land. Before the decree could be executed, the defendants took possession of the crops and out and removed them. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this and the connected appeal arise. In this * he claimed that he was entitled to damages for the crops. It seems to us to make no difference whether he called it damages or asked for the price of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmud Ali Vs. Tamiz-un-nissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All9; 47Ind.Cas.842
1. The main point raised as a ground for revision is that the suit was one which was not cognizable by the Small Cause Court. It is contended that it is excluded by Article 41 to the Schedule to the Small Causes Courts Act. We are satisfied that the suit brought by the plaintiff was not of the nature specified in Article 41 of the Act. We see no sufficient reason to interfere with the decree of the Small Cause Court in any other matter raised by the memorandum of appeal. We reject the application and make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Hirde NaraIn Vs. Alam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All47
Henery Richards, Kt. C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff in a pre-emption suit obtained a decree for pre-emption on the 11th of October, 1915. By this decree he was directed to lodge in court the pre-emption money within six months, and it further decreed that in the event of his failing to do so, the suit would stand dismissed with costs. It will thus be seen that the decree was a decree in favour of the plaintiff on certain conditions. If those conditions where not fulfilled the decree became a decree in favour of the defendant vendee. The plaintiff did not deposit the money within six months. The last day which would have enabled the plaintiff to comply with the decree was the 11th of April, 1916. This was a holiday. It was alleged (and it has been found by the court below) that the money was brought to the Nazir on the 12th of April, a day on which the court was sitting. On that day he obtained a chalan which would have enabled...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Ali Khan Vs. Azhar-ul-hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All45
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Tudball, J.1. The facts connected with this appeal may be shortly stated as follows: One Ali Mazhar having become the owner of the sixteen anna mahal mortgaged the same to the plaintiffs predecessor. The mortgage is most comprehensive in its terms, the mortgagor purporting to mortgage his entire interest without any sort of reservation. A decree was obtained on foot of this mortgage. The property was sold and purchased by the plaintiff or his predecessor. The present suit is brought to recover certain fractional shares ia three groves. It appears that prior to the mortgage which we have mentioned above Ali Mazhar obtained decrees against certain persons who had certain rights as grove-holders. In execution of these decrees he put up to sale the interest (whatever it was) of the grove-holders and purchased it himself. The argument put forward on behalf of the defendants is that this interest was an interest separate altogether from the zamindari, and it did...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Ali Khan Vs. Azharul Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.367
1. The facts connected with this appeal may be shortly stated as follows : One Ali Mazhar having become the owner of the sixteen-anna Mahal mortgaged the same to the plaintiff's pre-decessor. The mortgage is most comprehensive in its terms, the mortgagor purporting to mortgage his entire interest without any sort of reservation. A decree was obtained on foot of this mortgage The property was sold and purchased by the plaintiff or his predecessor. The pre-sent suit is brought to recover certain fractional shares in three groves. It appears that prior to the mortgage which we have mentioned above, Ali Mazhar obtained decrees against certain persons who had certain rights as grove-holders. In execution of these decrees he put up to sale the interest (whatever it was) of the grove holders and purchased it himself The argument put forward on behalf of the defendants is that this interest was an interest separate altogether from the Zemindari and it did not form portion of the, mortgaged pro...
Tag this Judgment!Data DIn Vs. Nanku and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All397; 47Ind.Cas.864
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A suit was instituted against a father and son on the basis of a mortgage. A plea was put forward on behalf of the son that there was no family necessity. The result of the suit was that the Court gave a simple money decree against the father and held that the son was not liable, and in the decree stated that the son was 'exempted' and that he should get his costs from the plaintiff. We may pause here to say that we consider that this was exactly the same as if the Court had by the decree expressly dismissed the suit with costs as against the son. The plaintiff-decree-holder executed the decree against the father' sestate. That having proved insufficient he sought to attach and sell the son's estate. The son objected in execution and his objection was allowed. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the present suit seeking a declaration that the son's property could be sold in execution of the decree on the principle of the pious obliga...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »