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.
Musammat Kadma PasIn Vs. Muhammad Ali Alias Chandai Mian
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All485; 50Ind.Cas.134
Piggott, J.1. In this case the two Courts below have differed upon a question of law of some difficulty regarding the application of the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 14, of the Code of Civil Procedure to the facts of this particular case. The respondent obtained from the original judgment-debtor-appellant a possessory mortgage in respect of certain property. That property comprised a fixed rate holding and also the right to collect a portion of the dues received at a certain temple. Under the terms of the mortgage the mortgagee was entitled to possession over the holding and to realise for himself the share of the temple dues specified in the document. We are informed that he obtained possession over the fixed rate holding. With regard to the temple dues the respondent, who ii a Mahomedan, seems to have found some difficulty about realising them himself. He entered into a further contract with his mortgagor, which may be described as a lease or farm of the right secured to the mortg...
Brahma Nath Vs. Sundar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All311(2); 51Ind.Cas.170
George Knox, J.1. This is an application for criminal revision of certain proceedings connected with property within the District of Gorakhpur. The proceedings are proceedings purporting to have been taken under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application in this Court was filed on the 21st of December 1918. The applicant prayed that this Court might be pleased to call for the record and quash all proceedings on the following grounds:1. Because the proceedings are absolutely without jurisdiction and are illegal.2. Because the right and title to possession having been just decided by a competent Court, fresh proceedings, ostensibly under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be started with the object of continuing the attachment of the property.3. Because the order dated the 23rd of July 1918, attaching the property is under the circumstances beyond the competence of the Criminal Court.4. Because the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts has ceased with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›