Allahabad Court February 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.
Emperor Vs. Maiku
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All483
George, Knox, J.1. Maiku was on his trial before the Sessions Court of Farrukhabad on the 24th of July, 1918, He was being tried or the offence of dacoity. He was acquitted, and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge ran as follows: 'I acquit Maiku of offences charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and direct that he be set as liberty.' Instead of being released from custody, as this order directed, he was then and there re-arrested, and as a matter of fact was not released from custody until the 17th of January, 1919. As we shall presently see, the order of re-arrest and subsequent proceedings were entirely illegal and some one is responsible for this very serious act of detaining a person in illegal custody. I examined Syed Ali Abid, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was stationed at Fatehgarh in July, 1918, and he says that the usual procedure in oases of this kind is that the accused, who are acquitted, in order to be released, are sent back to jail; the bar ...
Maiku Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All160(2); 50Ind.Cas.989
Knox, J.1. Maiku was on his trial before the Sessions Court of Farrukhabad on the 24th of July 1918. He was being tried for the offence of dacoity. He was acquitted and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge ran as follows: I acquit Maiku of offences charged under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and direct that he be set at liberty.' Instead of being released from custody as this order directed, he was then and there re-arrested and as a matter of fact was not released from custody until the 17th of January 1919. As we shall presently, see the order of re-arrest and subsequent proceedings were entirely illegal and some one is responsible for this very serious act of detaining a person in illegal custody. I examined Syed Ali Abid, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was stationed at Fatehgarh in July 1918, and be says that the usual procedure in eases of this kind is that the accused, who are acquitted, in order to be released are sent back to jail, the bar fittings are removed...
Shaikh SirajuddIn Vs. Shiakh SharfuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All403(1); 50Ind.Cas.152
1. We think there is no force in this appeal. A preliminary decree for partition was made and a Commissioner was appointed to make the partition. He submitted his report on the 29th of January 1917 and on that date the Court ordered that the parties should file objections, if any, within ten days. Notice of this order was given to the Pleaders for the parties. The 10th of February 1917 was fixed for hearing. On that date the defendant-appellant, who had not filed any objections within the ten days, put in a petition of objections. The Court declined to hear them and made an order accepting the Commissioner's report and made a final decree. It is contended that the Court had no power to fix any particular period for the filing of objections arid that it was bound to hear and decide them before it made its final decree. We do not agree with this contention. The Court had inherent power to fix a time within which objections were to be filed and if its order was not complied with, the Cour...
Sheikh Amirullah Vs. Sheikh Rasul Baksh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All292; 50Ind.Cas.744
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to sell certain property which was mortgaged to him. The mortgage was made in the year 1903 and consisted of two rooms (No. 35 and No. 36). The mortgage was in form usufructuary. It is admitted that the mortgagor put the mortgagee into possession. It is admitted that the mortgagee's possession has never been disturbed, but the plaintiff alleges that in the year 1905 (that is two years after the mortgage and 12 years prior to the institution of the present suit) be discovered that there was a defect in the mortgagor's title to one of the rooms, namely, No. 36, and that the mortgagor's title to No. 35 was only to the extent of two-thirds. He alleges that having made this discovery he went to the persons whom he supposed to be the owners of No. 36 and the owners of the one-third of room No. 35, and that he took benami usufructuary mortgages of No. 36 and of one-third share in room No. 85. He does allege in his plaint that af...
Jugal Kishore and anr. Vs. Bankim Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All255(1); (1919)ILR61All481; 51Ind.Cas.192
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of insolvency proceedings. The appellants are mortgagees of the property of the insolvent. The mortgaged property has been taken possession of by the receiver and sold. The court below thought that the mortgagee was only entitled to interest at the contractual rate up to date of the insolvency. In our judgment the court below was quite wrong. The mortgagee according to law is clearly entitled to receive out of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property his principal, interest and costs. He is entitled to receive interest up to the date of payment. A mortgagee as mortgagee is not a person proving in the bankrupt's estate--he is a secured creditor and entitled to look to his security to realize the amount of the debt secured thereon, We do not think that the cases cited by the learned District Judge have any bearing on the question involved in this appeal. We allow the appeal, and modify the order of the co...
Amina Bibi and ors. Vs. Ram Shankar Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All473
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an application by certain decree-holders who are minors, and represented by their mother as guardian ad litem, to enforce against a mortgagor personally or by sale of any property which can be lawfully sold in execution of a personal decree against him an order for costs passed in an appellate decree of this High Court. A suit for sale was brought at a time when the money payable under the mortgage was statute-barred. It resulted in a final decree for sale, dated May, 1912. One of the mortgagors appealed from that decree. His appeal was dismissed on the 28th of May, 1913, and by the well-known authority of a Full Bench decision that decree became the final decree in the mortgage suit. Some of the mortgagors had transferred their interests and were not made parties to the appeal. This point has been relied upon by Dr. Sulaiman, for the appellants, but in the view we take of the other point in the case it is not necessary to say anything more ...
Musammat Amina Bibi and anr. Vs. Rama Shankar Misar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.730
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an application by certain decree-holders, who are minors and represented by their mother as guardian ad litem, to enforce against a mortgagor personally, or by sale of any property which can be lawfully sold in execution of a personal decree against him, an order for costs passed in an appellate decree of this High Court. A suit for sale was brought at a time when the money, payable under the mortgage was Statute-barred. It resulted in a final decree for sale dated May 1912. One of the mortgagors appealed from that decree. His appeal was dismissed on the 28th of May 1913 and by the well-known authority of a Full Bench decision that decree became the final decree in the mortgage suit. Some of the mortgagors had transferred their interests and were not made parties to the appeal. This point has been relied upon by Dr. Suleman for the appellants, but in the view we take of the other point in the case it is not necessary to say anything more abo...
Piari Lal and ors. Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All479
Piggott, J.The question for determination in this appeal is one of limitation. The facts are not in dispute. The decree under execution was one of the 3rd of December, 1912, and the application for execution out of which this appeal arises was presented on the 15th of March, 1917. It was, therefore, beyond limitation, unless the decree-holder could show that there had been in the interval, and within three years of this present application, another application made in accordance with law to the proper court to take some step in aid of the execution of the decree or order within the meaning of Article 182, Clause (5), of the first schedule to the Indian Limitation Act (Act No. IX of 1908). Now it is admitted that there had been in the interval a partial satisfaction of the decree by a sale of a portion of the property. At this sale the hypothecated property was sold and the decree-holder had purchased it with the leave of the court on the 20th of January, 1914. On the 26th of June, 1914...
Muhammad HusaIn Khan and anr. Vs. Chhagan Lal and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All456
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, brought to recover the amount alleged to be due upon foot of a mortgage, dated the 17th of May, 1904. Portion of the property comprised or alleged to have been comprised, in this mortgage, originally belonged to one Mamraj. On the 11th of July, 1893, Mamraj mortgaged a one-third share in a certain khata in favour of Chajju Khan. On the 29th of November, 1893, he made a mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs. Exactly what property was comprised in this second mortgage is not very clear. On the 21st of August, 1894, he made a third mortgage in favour of Amolak. We are again uncertain what was the exact property that was mortgaged in this last mentioned mortgage or whether it was the same as was mortgaged in one or other or both of the mortgages of 1893. The plaintiffs instituted a suit on foot of their mortgage of the 29th of November, 1893, and obtained a decree. They made Chajju Khan a party, and the decree directed that the p...
Chhaggan Lal Minor, Through Musammat Lachhi Vs. Muhammad HussaIn Khan ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All105; 51Ind.Cas.133
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The facts connected with this appeal are stated in my judgment delivered on the 1st of August 1916 and it is unnecessary to repeat them. It may, however, be well to summarise the result of the findings of the Court below upon the issues referred in conjunction with the statements made by the learned Counsel upon each side as to the mortgages. It appears that the principal property mortgaged in the mortgage of the 11th of July 1893 was a one third share in a certain Khata. The property hypothecated in the mortgage of the 29th of November 1893 was practically the same. In the mortgage of the 21st of August 1894 the same share in this Khata was mortgaged, and there was some additional property. In the mortgage of the 17th of May 1904 one sixth of this Khata (instead of one-third) is mortgaged and some additional property as well. The plaintiffs obtained a decree on foot of the mortgage of the 29th of November 1893, where by they were ordered to redeem the mortgage o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »