Allahabad Court April 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.
Dwarka Singh Vs. Rama Nand Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All232; 51Ind.Cas.275
Rafique, J.1. The two appeals Nos. 419 and 420 are connected and arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondent's for redemption of a mortgage. They stated in their plaint that the mortgage was executed by one Musammat Phulbasi on the 3rd of June 1876 in favour of Bhairon Singh, the predecessor-in interest of the defendants. The mortgage was in lieu of Rs. 300 and was with possession. Musammat Pbulbasi died leaving her surviving a son called Ram Sundar. He executed a sale deed in respect of the mortgaged property in favour of the plaintiffs. The latter served a notice on the defendants asking for re-temption on the 27th of April 1915, alleging that the mortgage had been satisfied by the appropriation of the timber on the property. The defendants declined to make over possession of the mortgaged property and on the 18th of June 1915 the suit, out of which the two appeals have arisen, was instituted by them for redemption. In addition to the recovery of the property without pay...
Gulab and ors. Vs. Mutasaddi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All247; 50Ind.Cas.748
1. The facts connected with this appeal are shortly as follows: More than a year before the institution of the present suit certain property was attached in execution of a decree. An objection was put forward by the plaintiff's vendor that the property was not the property of the judgment-debtor, and, therefore, was not liable to attachment. The objector not only stated the nature of his objection but he made an application to summon his witnesses. Upon a date fixed for the hearing of the case he was not present but the case was adjourned until another date to enable him to appear. Upon the adjourned date he did not appear, and the Court below made an order disallowing the objection 'in the absence' of the objector. The present suit was then instituted by a purchaser from the objector more than a year after the objection of his vendor had been disallowed in the manner stated. The Court of first instance held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Article 11 of the Limitation Act...
Emperor Vs. Harnarain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All599
1. In this case I propose to follow the example of my brother Knox in the case cited to me, viz. Taj-ud-din v. Emperor (1908) 5 A.L.J., 159, and to convert the conviction into one under Section 70 of the Canal Act, No. VIII of 1873, instead of a conviction under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code. I will just say a word or two for the guidance of the lower courts in this matter, which appears to me to be occurring rather frequently just now, possibly because of the shortage of water due to the failure of the rains. This is the converse case to the one which was referred to my brother Piggott and myself a few days ago. If the act is one which has in fact caused, or, but for prompt intervention, would have caused, diminution in the ordinary supply of water for agricultural purposes, it is an act; of mischief within the meaning of Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code which has very much more serious consequences than merely interfering with the banks of a canal and may be punished with ...
Har NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All184; 51Ind.Cas.201
Walsh, J.1. In this case I propose to follow the example of my brother Knox in the case cited to me, viz, Tajuddin v. Emperor 5 A.L.J. 159 ; A.W.N. (1908) 55 ; 7 Cr.L.J. 296 and to convert the conviction into one under Section 70 of the Canal Act No. VIII of 1873 instead of a conviction under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code. I will just say a word or two for the guidance of the lower Courts in this matter, which appears to me to be occurring rather frequently just now, possibly because of the shor age of water due to the failure of the rains. This is the converge case to the one which was referred to my brother Piggott and myself a few days ago, If the act is one which has in fact caused or but for prompt intervention would have caused diminution in the ordinary supply of water for agricultural purposes, it is an act of mischief within the meaning of Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code, which has very much more serious consequences than merely interfering with the banks of a cana...
Gaddar Vs. Kalla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All223(2); 50Ind.Cas.646
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from using a certain well. The facts are quite dear. The well was enjoyed by both the parties prior to a recent partition. When the partition was made, that part of the land in which the well is fell into the plaintiff's Mahal and according to the partition the well was given to the plaintiff. The words in the partition order were that the Pucca well shall be transferred along with the land. It seems quite clear, therefore, that the well and all rights in the well were allotted to the plaintiff to whose share the land was allotted. The lower Appellate Court seems to have thought that the defendants might have an 'easement of necessity.' Section 13 of the Easements Act provides amongst other things that 'Where a partition is' made of the joint property of several persons, if an easement over the share of one, of them is necessary for enjoying the share of another of them the latte...
Mukhram Alias Mikha Vs. Chhajju and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All285; 50Ind.Cas.734
1. This appeal arises qui of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed a declaration of their title to a certain land and ejectment of the defendant. It would seem as if the real facts were that the land originally belonged to the defendant's predecessors, who sold their Zemindari to the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has recently got his name entered as a tenant and that he has laid claim to the property in dispute. The defendant has put in many pleas including a plea of limitation. He also pleaded that the suit was not cognizable in the Civil Court and is barred by res judicata. It appears that the plaintiffs brought a previous suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the defendant. In that suit the plaintiffs stated that the defendant was occupying the land in dispute without their consent and asked that he might be deemed to be a tenant and ejected.2. The Court of first instance, when hearing the present suit, held that the la...
Bindo Bibi Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All270; (1919)ILR61All583
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a Suit in which the plaintiff claimed a considerable amount of property of different descriptions. There were a considerable number of houses, a number of cultivatory holdings, situated in different mauzas and mahals. There were also a number of defendants who were in occupation of different parts of the property claimed. The principal defendant was Ram Chandra. When I say the principal defendant I mean that he appears to have been in possession of a greater number of the houses and some of the holdings. The plaintiff's title was that the property belonged to her father, one Beni Prasad; that he died leaving a widow Musammat Kausilla, the mother of the plaintiff; that the mother died and that the plaintiff thereupon became entitled to the property.2. The defences by the different defendants vary considerably. Some of the defendants allege that the property did not belong to Beni Prasad at all and that the property belonged to other ...
Musammat Bindo Bibi Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.905
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a considerable amount of property of different descriptions. There were a considerable number of houses, a number of cultivatory holdings situated in different Mauzas and Mahals. There were also a number of defendants who were in occupation of different parts of the property claimed. The principal defendant was Ram Chandra. When I say the principal defendant, I mean that he appears to have been in possession of a greater number of the houses and some of the holdings, The plaintiff's title was that the property belonged to her father one Beni Prasad, that he died leaving a widow Musammat Kousilla, the mother of the plaintiff, that the mother died and that the plaintiff thereupon became entitled to the property.2. The defences vary considerably by the different defendants. Some of the defendants allege that the property did not belong to Beni Prasad at all and that the property belonged to other person...
Emperor Vs. Mansur Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All587
1. The question of law raised by this application is whether, on the facts found by the courts below, Mansur Husain has or has not been rightly convicted of an offence punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code. I hold that he has not. In order to constitute an offence under Section 451 aforesaid, the prosecution must first establish all the facts necessary to constitute the offence of simple house-trespass, punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and must then satisfy the court that, in the particular case before it, the house-trespass was committed in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment. The offence in question must obviously be something over and beyond the house-trespass itself, otherwise every case falling under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, would also fall under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not say that it is absolutely necessary for a conviction under the latter section that the prosecution should be a...
Mufti Mansoor HusaIn Vs. Emperor Through Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.827
Piggott, J.1. The question of law raised by this application is whether on the facts found by the Courts below, Mansoor Husain has or has not been rightly convicted of an offence punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code. I hold that he has not. In order to constitute an offence under Section 451 aforesaid, the prosecution must first establish all the facts necessary to constitute the offence of simple house-trespass, punishable under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, and must then satisfy the Court that, in the particular case before it, the house-trespass was committed in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment, The offence in question must obviously be something over and beyond the house-trespass itself, otherwise every case falling under Section 448, Indan Penal Code, would also fall under Section 451, Indian Penal Code. I do not say that it is absolutely necessary for a conviction under the latter section that the prosecution should be able to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »