Allahabad Court July 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.
Balwant Singh Vs. Joti Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All115; (1918)ILR40All692
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding under two decrees dated (I) the 22nd of June, 1917, and (2) the 15th of December, 1917, both of which were passed in one and the same suit No. 63 of 1915, (1) Rai Bahadur Lala Joti Prasad, (2) Lala Raghunath Singh, and (3) Lala Beni Prasad, plaintiffs, versus (1) Chaudhri Balwant Singh, (2) Rana Indar Singh, defendants. The application for execution was made on the 17th of December, 1917, and the prayer made was that possession over taluqa Naogaon, entered in the list annexed to the application, be delivered to the decree-holders against the judgment-debtors Nos. 1 and 2. A further prayer was that the Collector of Saharanpur, who was in possession of the property as a receiver, be asked by a rubkar to deliver possession of the said property to the decree-holders and to hand over to them such sums of money as may be with him in deposit, on account of the profits of the said property. Objections were raised ...
Babu Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.801
Piggott, J.1. Babu Ram appeals against his' conviction on a charge under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878). The case against him is that he had in his possession and under his control two swords, one gun, one pistol and certain ammunition in contravention of the provisions of the Arms Act, that is/to say, without having any license for the same. The evidence has been fully set forth and discussed in the admirably lucid and convincing judgment of the Session? Court and I do not propose to go into it at length. The essential facts are that a certain house was searched upon information given by one Khiali Ram, who has been produced as a witness for the prosecution, and that the arms which are the subject-matter of the charge were found in a receptacle formed by hollowing out a log of wood, the receptacle itself being buried underground in a small room in a corner of the building. The case for the defence is that-' the discovery of the arms in that place does not prove that...
Mohan Lal Vs. Tika Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All104
Abdul Raoof, J.1. This was a suit brought upon an instalment bond, in the court of the Judge of Small Causes. The bond was for Rs. 175, with interest, and it was to be paid by five annual instalments of Rs. 35 each. The method provided for the payment of the instalments was in these words. As regards the payment of the money it was agreed that the said amount will be paid by instalments in 5 years. It was further provided that if there was any default in payment of any of the instalments, then the creditor would have the power to claim the entire amount in a lump sum: 'Daen mausuf ko ikhtiar hai ki kul rupia ek-musht basharah sud ft sadi do rupiya mahwari tarikh tahrir tamassuk haza se ba-ijrai nalish Adalat Diwani wasul kar lewe.' The document was written on the 23rd of February, 1909. The first instalment would be payable, according to this bond, at the end of February, 1910. It appears from the facts, found by the court below, that nothing was paid on account of the first two instal...
Shamsher Singh and ors. Vs. Pearey Dut and Subedar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.761
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption and was before us on a previous occasion. We held that the plaintiff, under the circumstances of the cafe, was entitled to get the property by pre-emption provided that he had not refused to purchase it. The Court below has decided that the plaintiff did not refuse to purchase. The Court disbelieves the evidence adduced by the vendees upon this point and it is to be remembered that although the plea was raised when the case came on originally for trial, it was not until after the order for remand that evidence of refusal to purchase was given. We see no reason to differ from the Court below upon the issue of the refusal to purchase. The learned Subordinate Judge in the course of his judgment held that even if the plaintiff had refused to purchase that would not be sufficient to debar him from his right of pre-emption, and has cited two cases, namely, Munawar Husain v. Khadim Ali 6 A.L.J. 331; A.W.N. (1908) 93 and Kanhai Lal v. Kalka P...
ishwari Dutt Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All257; 46Ind.Cas.701
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The applicant Ishwari Dutt has been ordered to furnish security for good behaviour. The charge against him was that he habitually committed extortion and was so desperate and dangerous that his being at large without security was hazardous to the community. No instance of his having committed extortion has been found or established in fact, no instance has been given in which this man was said to have committed extortion or attempted to commit extortion. All that is proved against him is that he promotes litigation and has considerable influence with Patwaris. Assuming the evidence on these points to be true, they would not necessarily raise the inference that he committed extortion or attempted to do so. In promoting litigation be may have been supporting the right party. If, of course, it was shown that he habitually took or attempted to take money from litigants by offering to them threats of supporting their opponents, that would be a case of extortion or attempt...
Emperor Vs. Gulab and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All420; (1918)ILR40All686; 47Ind.Cas.805
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. Notice was issued by a learned Judge of this Court to the three persons Gulab, Majid and Ghafur to show cause why they should not be convicted of van offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, why the sentences passed on them should not be enhanced, or why they should not be ordered to be re-tried on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case, as found by the court below and which appear to us to have been correctly found, are as follows:--There was a sugarcane crop standing in three fields. It had been sown by the deceased Hardial and his partners Jahangir, Bhagwan Sahai and others. These fields had been given to Hardial by the accused to enable him to recoup himself for certain moneys which he had advanced to them and which were due to him from them. The mortgage of an occupancy holding is of course contrary to law. No bond was executed in this case, but the fields were actually made over to Hardial an...
Mahant Darshan Das Vs. the Collector of Meerut and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All218; 47Ind.Cas.850
1. The facts of this case may be briefly stated. One Puran Atal was the manager of a certain gaddi. It is an admitted fact that the gaddi in question is a trust for religions purposes. Puran Atal was removed from his position as trustee by the order of the District Judge of Meerut on the 7th of May 1909. The present appellant Darshan Das was appointed in his place and certain directions were given to him, among which was one that he should file accounts annually in the month of January. In 1913 two suits were brought against Darshan Das under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure both of which failed. In 1916 Puran Atal filed an application before the District Judge calling attention to the fact that Darchan Das had never filed any accounts and making certain allegations against him. The District. Judge started an enquiry, in the course of which the Collector of Meerut applied through the Government Pleader asking the Court to make some arrangements for the better management of the...
Ali Islam Vs. Wazir Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All683
Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption brought under the circumstances mentioned in detail in the judgment of the court below. It is unnecessary to repeat all the facts, and it h sufficient to say that on the 21st of December, 1864, one Iradat-ullah made a usufructuary mortgage of certain shares in four villages, one of which was the village Gangapur. The present suit is for the redemption of that village. The equity of redemption in one of the mortgaged villages, namely, Pul Ratni, was sold by auction and purchased by one Mazhar Ali in 1874. He sold it in 1882, and the share which he purchased ultimately came to one Sarju Singh. In 1887, Sarju Singh brought a suit for redemption and got a decree for redemption of all the four mortgaged villages and obtained possession in 1891. The present appellant, Wazir Ali, is the purchaser of the rights of Sarju in Gangapur and he is in possession by virtue of his purchase. In 1873 the share in Gang...
Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Kishore Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All97
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents for a declaration that they were co-owners with the defendants, first in a muafi holding and secondly in an occupancy tenure. The court of first instance granted a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. We may point out that, though the plaintiffs asked for a decree for joint possession, the courts below Held that they were in possession and so granted them a declaration only. The defendants have come to this Court on appeal, and the appeal is pressed only in respect to two plots, Nos. 238 and 245, which form portions of the alleged occupancy holding. It was the defendants appellants' case in respect to these two numbers that the plaintiffs were their sub-tenants. It was the plaintiffs respondents' case that they were co-owners with the defendants of the occupancy tenure. In respect to these two numbers there are certain facts which have to be set forth. The defendants instituted a s...
Kishore Singh and ors. Vs. Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All49(2); 48Ind.Cas.470
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that they were co-owners with the defendants, first, in a muafi holding and secondly, in an occupancy tenure. The Court of first instance granted a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. We may point out that though the plaintiffs asked for a decree for joint possession, the Courts below held that they were in possession and so granted them a declaration only. The defendants have come to this Court on appeal, and the appeal is pressed only in respect to two plots Nos. 238 and 245 which form portions of the alleged occupancy holding. It was the defendants appellants' case in respect to these two numbers that the plaintiffs were their sub tenants. It was the plaintiffs-respondents' case that they were co-owners with the defendant's of the occupancy tenure. In respect to these two numbers there are certain facts which have to be set forth. The defendants-appellants instituted a suit in the Revenu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »