Allahabad Court March 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.
Jai Ram Vs. Muhammad Niaz Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All503
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an action brought for damages for malicious prosecution by reason of proceedings instituted by a certain Muhammadan gentleman, now the defendant, against several Hindus, including the present plaintiff, for an order under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is found as a fact that the defendant set the law in motion (of that there is abundant evidence on the record) in the Magistrate' s court, in which these proceedings were brought It is also found that the proceedings determined in favour of the plaintiff. It is quite true that the Magistrate in whose court the proceeding was brought made an order binding over the present plaintiff in the large sum of Rs. 2,000, in his own security and a further surety of Rs. 1,000. That proceeding is not subject to appeal. But proceedings were brought in order to have it reviewed, which proceedings were described as a revision before the District Magistrate.2. For the purpose of this case it is not nece...
Muhammad Niazullah Khan Vs. Jai Ram Alias Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All388; 50Ind.Cas.140
1. This is an action brought for damages for malicious prosecution by reason of proceedings instituted by a certain Mohammedan gentleman, now the defendant, against several Hindus, including the present plaintiff, for an order under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is found as a fact that the defendant set the law in motion (of that there is abundant evidence on the record) in the Magistrate's Court, in which these proceedings were brought. It is also found that the proceedings determined in favour, of the plaintiff. It is quite true that the Magistrate in whose Court the proceeding was brought made an order binding over the present plaintiff in the large sum of Rs. 2,000 in his own security and a further surety of Rs. 1,000. That proceeding is not subject to appeal. But proceedings were brought in order to have it reviewed, which proceedings were described as a revision before the District Magistrate.2. For the purpose of this case it is not necessary to discuss the appr...
Kali Prasad Misir and ors. Vs. Harbans Misir Alias Dhullu Misir and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.767
Piggott, J.1. The dispute in this case is about a plot of land, shown as plot No. 655 in the village papers prepared at a revision of settlement held in the year 1887. We must take it, as found by the lower Appellate Court, that in the records then prepared this plot of land was, to the knowledge of the litigants in this case, or their predecessors-in-title, recorded as the sole and separate property of the defendants. In the year 1914 these defendants presented an application for partition, in the course of which they alleged that this plot No. 655 belonged to them in severalty, was in their separate possession and should be assigned to their Mahal. The present plaintiffs, who are the remaining co-sharers in the village, objected to the effect that a mistake had been made in the preparation of the Settlement Records of 1887, that as a patter of fact plot No. 655 represented a portion of the inhabited site of the village and, along with the rest of the said inhabited site, was the join...
Sheo Shankar Lal Vs. Radhe Shiam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All447; 50Ind.Cas.278
1. We think that the view taken by the Court below was correct under the circumstances of this case. We dismiss the appeal with costs, including in this Court fees on the higher scale....
Jagan Nath Vs. Ganga Dat Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All486
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of insolvency proceedings. Panda Jagan Nath, the appellant here, presented a petition to be declared an insolvent. He had been arrested in execution of a decree obtained by Ganga Dat Dube. It is quite clear that on the admitted facts Panda Jagan Nath was entitled to have an order declaring him an insolvent. It appears that a civil suit had been brought against Panda Jagan Nath by Ganga Dat Dube in which it was alleged by the latter that Panda Jagan Nath had misappropriated certain diamonds which had been delivered to him for sale on commission. The first court had dismissed the suit. On appeal, however, the decree of the court of first instance was set aside and a decree for Rs. 800 and odd was made against Panda Jagan Nath. The learned District Judge in dismissing the petition of Jagan Nath to be declared an insolvent seems to have considered that the decree against him at the instance of Ganga Dat Dube ...
Prag Dat and anr. Vs. Balbhaddar Prasad and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All492
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. The parties to this appeal are descended from a common ancestor, except defendants Nos. 2 and 6. One Saheb Rai Shukul, as the pedigree given at page 9 of the paper book will show, had three sons, namely, Debi Din, Bhawani Din and Jeorakhan. We are concerned here with the descendants of Bhawani Din and Jeorakhan only. The plaintiffs in the present case are two of the grandsons of Bhawani Din, and the defendants, with the exception of defendants Nos. 2 and 6, are the descendants of Jeorakhan, who died more than 45 years prior to the institution of the suit leaving him surviving a widow, Musammat Sita Kunwar, and three daughters, Musammat Makhan Kunwar, Musammat Rani Kunwar and Musammat Tulsha Kunwar. Jeorakhan had adopted one of his nephews, namely, Sheva Das, who predeceased him. Sheva Das left two children; a son and a daughter called Balgobind and Musammat Bakhta Kunwar, respectively. Balgobind predeceased Jeorakhan. Musammat Bakhta Kunwar is the moth...
Shiam NaraIn Tikkoo and ors. Vs. the Bombay Baroda and Central India R ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All419; (1919)ILR61All488
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought against the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway. There were four plaintiffs, one adult and three minors. The allegation is that the first plaintiff, his wife and three children, (the three minor plaintiff's) were travelling from Agra to Kuchaman Road and purchased tickets at Agra. The party changed their carriage at Bandikui Station and got into another train. It is alleged that in the course of this part of the journey the carriage door opened out through the neglect of the defendant Railway Company, either in not locking the door or in not seeing that it was properly fastened. The plaintiff's wife fell out and subsequently died. One of his minor girls Ram Dulari, plaintiff no. 3, also fell out and was injured. Rupees 25,000 were claimed by the family as damages for the death of the wife of plaintiff no. 1 and Rs. 5,000 claimed by Ram Dulari and Sham Dulari for injuries caused to t...
Pandit Shiam NaraIn Tickoo and ors. Vs. the B.B. and C.i. Railway Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.130
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought against the B.B. and C.I. Railway. There were four plaintiffs, one adult and three minors. The allegation is that the first plaintiff, his wife and throe children (the other three minor plaintiffs) were travelling from Agra to Kuchaman Road and put chafed tickets at Agra The party changed their carriage at Bandigai station and got into another train. It is alleged that in the course of this part of the journey the carriage door opened out through the neglect of the defendant Railway Company, either in not looking the door or in not seeing that it was properly fastened and plaintiff's wife fell out and subsequently died. One of his minor girls Rum Dulari, plaintiff No. 3, also fell out and was injured. Rupees 25.000 were claimed by the family as damages for the death of the wife of plaintiff No. 1 and Rs. 5,000 were claimed by Ram Dulari and Sham Dulari for injuries caused to them. Various pleas were raided by the defendant Company. They conte...
Panda Jagannath Vs. Ganga Dutt Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All344; 50Ind.Cas.192
1. This appeal arises out of insolvency proceedings. Panda Jagannath, thr appellant here, presented a petition to be declared an insolvent. Ha had been arrested in execution of a decree obtained by Ganga Datt Dabe. It is quite clear that on the admitted facts Panda Jagannath was entitled to have an order declaring him an insolvent. It appears that a civil suit had been brought against Panda Jagannath by Ganga Datt Dabe, in which in was alleged by the latter that Panda Jagannath had misappropriated, certain diamonds which had been delivered to him for sale on commission. The first Court had dismissed the suit. On appeal, however, the decree of the Court of first instance was set aside and a decree for Rs. 800 and odd was made against Panda Jagannath. The learned District Judge, in dismissing the petition of Jagannath to be declared an insolvent, seems to have considered that the decree against him at the instance of Ganga Dutt Dube must be taken as an adjudication that the diamonds had ...
Badri Prasad Alias Badri NaraIn and ors. Vs. Gopal Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All243; 50Ind.Cas.752
1. The following pedigree will explain the right under which the parties to this appeal are litigating: MAKHAN LAL, | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Atal Bihari Lal, Bal Makund, Kunj Bihari Lal | | | Chhail Bihari Lal, his --------------------------------------------- ---------- widow Musammat Har | | | | | Bansa Kuar. Brij Bihari Lal, Ramdayal, Raghber Dial, Murli Manohar, | | | | | | | Kishen Dial. | ------------ | | -------------------------------- | | ------------------- | | | | | | | Maha Narain, Shiam Narain. Badn Narain,| | Jai Bihari Lal, Vinod Bihari Lal, Plaintiff. | | | | | ---------------------- | | | | | | Prem Bihari. Anup Bihari. | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------| | | | ------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Sukh Deo Bihari. Basant Bihari Lal, Nit Bihari Lal, | Plaintiff. Plaintiff. | | -----------------------------------------------| | -------------------------------------...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »