Allahabad Court January 1919 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.
Fazal Rasul Vs. the Collector of Agra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All307(2); 50Ind.Cas.70
1. This appeal arises out of an application made in a land acquisition case. It appears that there was no appearance on behalf of the present appellant, who was an objector in the land acquisition reference, and the case was accordingly dismissed for default. An application was made for restoration of the case. The learned District Judge refused to restore the case on the ground that the general attorney of the applicant had been served with the notice. The general attorney swore an affidavit to say that he was also the servant of another man and that after he got the notice he was busily engaged in collecting rents for the payment of Government revenue. It also appears that the appellant was absent from his home at the time the notice was served. The notice was a notice required to be served having regard to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 45 provides that all notices under the Act should be served by delivering or tendering; wherever practicable such service shoul...
Gulzari Lal Vs. Aziz Fatima and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All138; (1919)ILR61All372; 50Ind.Cas.375
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. The appellant here, Babu Gulzari Lal, was the plaintiff in the court below in a suit brought for the recovery of mortgage money alleged to be due to him in respect of two mortgages executed in his favour on the 22nd of March, 1911, by one Sayid Ali Ahsan, The mortgage transaction was cast in the form of zar-i-peshgi leases and the mortgage money was Rs. 6,000. The property comprised in the mortgage consisted of a certain zamindari share of the mortgagor, situate in a village called Kura Mai and also a house situate in the town of Marehra. The first defendant in the suit was the mortgagor, Ali Ahsan, and in addition to him there were 18 other defendants who were represented to have interests of one kind or another in the property mortgaged. The suit, as we have said, was a suit for sale, but the claim was not merely for sale of the property mortgaged under these documents of the 22nd of March, 1911. There was in addition a claim to bring to sale certain...
Sangto Vs. Paras Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All203; 49Ind.Cas.542
1. The finding is that the testator 'Intended to make an independent gift of Bs. 800 to the plaintiff by his Will. The testator was the divided brother of the plaintiff's father; and managed the properties which she inherited, during her minority. Before his death, the testator bequeathed a portion of the properties which he was then managing to the 2nd defendant: by the same instrument he gave the plaintiff Rs. 800. She now sues to recover the devised inherited property and also the legacy of Rs. 800. The 8th issue in the case raises the question of election. In our opinion, the doctrine is applicable to the present case. The weight of authority in England is to regard the doctrine as based on the principle of compensation and not on that of forfeiture. [See Ker v. Wauchope (1) and Kandiffe (Lord) v. Parkyns (2).] The fact that the 2nd defendant may be compelled at the instance of the reversionary to give up the property after the lifetime of the plaintiff whereas she will have an abs...
Jaddo Tiwari Vs. Baram Deo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All357(1); 51Ind.Cas.88
1. This is an appeal by a guardian against an order which has subjected him to disciplinary action on the part of the Court under the provisions of Section 45, Clause 1(6), of Act VIII of 1890. The main point taken is that the order appointing the appellant Jaddo Tewari to be guardian of the minor Sri Kant Acharya was made subject to his furnishing certain security. He admittedly failed to furnish the security required and the contention is that by so failing he made his appointment a nullity and ceased to be liable to any action on the part of the District Judge under the provisions of the Act in question. In view of the wording of Section 34. Clause (a), of the Act there seems no force in this contention from a technical point of view. As a matter of fact we note that the appellant did enter into possession and management of the minor's property as his guardian and can scarcely be heard to say that, by failing to comply with one of the orders of the Court, he has escaped the liabilit...
Narsingh Das Vs. Sada Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All142; (1919)ILR61All329; 50Ind.Cas.398
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for libel. The alleged libel is contained in a letter admittedly written by the defendant Sada Ram. A translation will be found at page 49A and is in the following words:Our compliments to you, We pray God to protect you and ourselves Bai Sardari died on Maghsar sudi 9th. We informed you of it in a previous post card which we trust you have received. The son of Bhikam Das (son of Net Ram) of Aligarh has been betrothed to the girl at Sikandra. The girl of Sikandra came and she was accompanied by the gumashta of brother Narsingh Das. Maheah Das caused her to be married in the family of a Chandak of Bhongra. Please inform Bhikam Das of it. We promised to pay Rs. 100 to the state employes provided they did not let the marriage to be celebrated, but Mahesh Das paid a larger amount and consequently the marriage could not but be held. We did not receive any letter from Bhikam Das. Other persons of Ghan...
Suraj Kumar Vs. Chet Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All369
Henry Richards Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts connected with the suit out of which this appeal arises are as follows:The defendants made a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff of their zamindari, For the convenience of the parties the mortgagee made a letting of the mortgaged property to the defendants. Thus the defendants became tenants at a rent to their own mortgagee. Later on the plaintiff distrained for the rent alleged to be due under the letting. The defendants alleged that the distraint was illegal because (as they alleged) the mortgage had been discharged and that therefore the tenancy had come to an end, They instituted a suit under Section 142 of the Agra Tenancy Act, challenging the validity of the distraint on these grounds, That suit resulted in a finding by the Revenue Court that the mortgage had been discharged. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the present suit, alleging that her mukhiar-am in collusion with the defendants had fraudule...
Musammat Suraj Kuar Vs. Chet Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All225; 49Ind.Cas.591
1. The facts connected with the suit out of which this appeal arises areas follows: The defendants made a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff of their Zemindari. For the convenience of the parties the mortgagee made a letting of the mortgaged property to the defendants. Thus the defendants became tenants at a rent to their own mortgagee. Later on the plaintiff distrained for the rent alleged to be due under the letting. The defendants alleged that the distraint was illegal because (as they alleged) the mortgage had been discharged and that, therefore, the tenancy had come to an end. They instituted a suit under Section 142 of the Agra Tenancy Act, challenging the validity of the distraint on these grounds. That suit resulted in a finding by the Revenue Court that the mortgage had bean discharged. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the present suit alleging that her Mukhtaram, in collusion with the defendants, had fraudulently endorsed payment on the bond and returned it to...
Parshotam Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All125; 50Ind.Cas.494
George Knox, J.1. Parshottam Das has been convicted by a Magistrate of the first class at Mirzapur of an offence which is set out in the judgment as violating the provisions of Rule 53(c) of the Water Supply Rules in throwing vegetables in the water whereby the water was likely to be fouled. He has applied to this Court in revision against his conviction, and one of the grounds on which he bases his application is that the only officer who could have made a regular complaint was the Secretary of the Municipal Board and the Inspector of Water Works had mo authority to start a, prosecution. The Water Works Act of 1891 has been repealed by the Local Act II of 1916. Section 314 of that Act says that unless otherwise expressly provided, no Court shall take cognizance of any of the offences punishable under t hat Act except on the complaint of or upon information received from the Board or some person authorized by the Board by general or special order in this behalf. It has not been shown t...
Emperor Vs. Tulla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All366
Lindsay, J.1. This case has been referred by the Session Judge of Saharanpur for the purposes of having an order passed by a Magistrate set aside. The Magistrate was dealing with a case under the Gambling Act and after convicting the persons who were accused before him he made an order confiscating some of the money which was found in possession of the persons concerned. The Judge, I think, is right in saying that the law does not contemplate the confiscation of the money found on the person of the accused. He refers to a ruling of this Court, Emperor v. Maturwa. (1918) I.L.R., 40 All., 517. I accept the recommendation of the learned Judge and direct that the order of confiscation be set aside....
Tulla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All72(1); 54Ind.Cas.250
Lindsay, J.1. This case has been referred by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur for the purpose of having an order passed by a Magistrate set aside. The Magistrate was dealing with a case under the Gambling act and after convicting the persons who were accused before him, he made an order confiscating some of the money which was found in possession of the persons concerned. The Judge, I think, is right in saying that the law does not contemplate the confiscation of the money found on the person of the accused. He refers to a ruling of this Court, Maturwa v. Emperoi 46 Ind. Cas. 166 : 16 A.L.J. 428 : 40 A. 617 : 19 Cr. L.J. 700. I accept the recommendation of the learned Judge and direct that the order of confiscation be set aside....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »