Allahabad Court July 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.
Nur Muhammad Vs. Firm Maulvi Jamil Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All218; 52Ind.Cas.688
1. The appellant presented an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad for leave to sue as a pauper for the recovery of a certain sum of money. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of his Court. He accordingly made an order in the following terms:I return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. 'From this order the present appeal has been preferred. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent to the effect that no appeal lies. It the order is in reality an order returning a plaint an appeal does lie under Order XLIII, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, but what we have to consider is whether there was any plaint before the Court at the time when it made this order. Order XXXIII provides the procedure for suits by paupers. Rule 2 of the Order provides that 'every application for permission to Sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in...
Pahalwan Singh and ors. Vs. Lala Jiwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All345; 59Ind.Cas.162
Ryves, J.1. The facts, as found by the lower Court and not contested, are as follows: One Braj Kishore, who was related to the plaintiffs-respondents, as will be explained later on, inherited a very valuable banking business and Zemindari estate from his mother's family, which he carried on under the style of Jugal Kishore-Chunna Mal, and afterwards of Jugal Kishore-Braj Kishore. He himself became Government Treasurer of Shahjahanpur. He died in 1878 leaving surviving him a widow, Musammat Durga Dei. This lady carried on her late husband's business for something like 25 years till her death on the 8th June 1905. It is admitted that she was careful in her management, and was not a spendthrift. The evidence on the point as to how far she was successful is perhaps vague, but one of the plaintiffs, Kishan Chand, admitted that the value of the property left by Braj Kishore was believed to be about 21 or 22 lakhs, and that at Durga Dei's death, the property left by bar was of about the same ...
Niranjan Singh Vs. Kundan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All402(2); 52Ind.Cas.655
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge's Court at Jhansi had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The parties entered into a partnership to carry on business at a place called Jwalagunj in the District of Jalaun, which is within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jhansi. The partnership came to an end before the institution of the suit. The claim was that an account of the partnership be taken and the balance which might be found due may be awarded to the plaintiffs. The first defendant, who is the principal defendant in the suit, contended that there was a contract between the parties that the final accounts should be rendered at Cawnpore and payments should be made there and that the Jhansi Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court of first instance found in his favour and dismissed the suit. The learned Judge set aside the order of dismissal on appeal and remanded the case. The learned Judge was, in our...
Emperor Vs. Mohomed Naqi Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.670
Wallach, J.1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Aligarh recommending that an order directing the prosecution of one Mohommad Naqi Husain for an offence under section i82, Indian Penal Code, be set aside as having been directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mr. R.H. Niblett, who had no jurisdiction to pass the order. Together with the reference the Magistrate's explanation has also been forwarded to this Court. Mohommad Naqi Husain had complained to the Collector of Aligarh by means of a letter, making certain charges against Mohommad Ayub, pound keeper of Chama. If an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, has been committed with reference to the letter complaining against the pound keeper, then under Section 195, Clause (1) (a), of the Code of Criminal Procedure no Court can take cognizance of the offence without the previous sanction or the complaint of the public servant concerned or of some public servant to whom he is subordinate, The public servant concerned ...
Chaubey Benaik Rao and ors. Vs. PutaIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All426(2); 52Ind.Cas.901
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies. The order from which the appeal has been presented purports to be an order under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application on which that order was passed was an application under the Order and rule mentioned above. From an order granting such an application no appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees on the higher scale....
Barkat-un-nissa Begam Vs. Mahbub Ali Mian and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All70
Stuart and Ryves, JJ.1. Khurshed Ali Mian and his wife, Musammat Latif-un-nissa, executed the two mortgages, the subject of this appeal--(1) dated the 14th of June, 1899, in favour of Darbari Lal, for Rs. 3,000; and (2) dated the 27th July, 1900, for the same amount in favour of Darbari Lal and Lalta Prasad.2. They had also executed two other mortgages, dated the 29th of November,'1897, and the 10th of August, 1899, in favour of Lalta Prasad alone. Those two mortgages formed the subject of the connected suit, and are disposed of by our judgment in First Appeal No. 264.3. The only reason for mentioning this fact is because the two suits were tried together, and the evidence was recorded as one only, and in order to appreciate correctly the evidence in this case, it is necessary to remember the circumstances of the other case as well.4. Khurshed Ali died in 1905, and in 1906, the creditors, that is, Lalta Prasad and Darbari Lal, demanded payment. Musam-mat Latif-un-nissa asked for time, ...
Rani Barkat-un-nissa Begam Vs. Mahboob Ali Mian and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All56; 52Ind.Cas.684
1. Khurshed Ali Mian and his wife Musammat Latifunnissa executed the two mortgages, the subject of this appeal:(1) dated the 14th June 1899, in favour of Darbari Lal for Rs. 3,000, and(2) dated 27th July 1900, for the same amount in favour of Darbari Lal and Lalta Pershad.2. They had also executed two other mortgages, dated 20th November 1897 and 10th August 1899, in favour of Lalta Pershad alone. Those two mortgages formed the subject of the connected suit, and are disposed of by our judgment in First Appeal No. 264.3. The only reason for mentioning this fact is because the two suits were tried together, and the evidence was recorded in one only and in order to appreciate (correctly) the evidence in this case, it is necessary to remember the circumstances of the other case as well.4. Khurshed Ail died in 1905 and in 1906 the creditors, that is Lalta Parshad and Darbari Lal, demanded payment. Musammat Latifunnissa asked for time, which the creditors agreed to give her, provided they go...
Badlu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All393; 52Ind.Cas.887
Wallach, J.1. Badlu applies in revision seeking to have an order passed against him under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set aside. This order was passed by a Magistrate of the First Class on the 13th May 1919 and was upheld in appeal by the District Magistrate of Fatehpur on the 5th Jane 1919. Ordinarily, I would not interfere in revision with findings of fact but this case presents some peculiar features. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that he has been greatly prejudiced by the Court of first instance having been influenced adversely to the petitioner by a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore acquitting him (the petitioner) in a dacoity case on the 29th September 1918. That the petitioner's view in this respect is correct would appear from the following paragraph from the first Court's judgment: 'it would be better to say something regarding the dacoity which occurred at Chak Jahanpur, Police Circle Budki, on the 31st May 1918. The dacoits ca...
Emperor Vs. Nirmal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All67
Wallach, J.1. A Magistrate of the first class convicted eleven persons under Sections 147 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, for rioting and causing hurt to a public servant in discharging his duties, and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment and to fines. On appeal the learned Session Judge of Shahjahanpur allowed the appeal of one, Sukhdeo Singh, but dismissed the appeals of the other ten appellants, upholding the sentences passed on them. These ten persons have filed revisions in this Court against their convictions and sentences and were released on bail by the learned Judge who admitted their applications. The facts of the case are somewhat singular. It appears that a burglary was committed on the night of the 30th of September, 1918, in the house of one Bhujai in the village of Kandar, in which, besides other property, a brass 'that ' and a ' lota ' were lost. A report was made in the ordinary course, and Sub-Inspector, Godhan Lal, second officer of the police station, J...
Nirmal Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All41; 52Ind.Cas.663
Wallach, J.1. A Magistrate of the first class convicted eleven persons under Sections 147 and 332, Indian Penal Code, for rioting and causing hurt to a public servant in discharging his duties, and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment and to fines. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur allowed the appeal of one Sukhdeo Singh but dismissed the appeal of the other ten appellants, upholding the sentences passed on them. These ten persons have filed revisions in this Court against their convictions and sentences and were released on bail by the learned Judge who admitted their applications. The facts of the case are somewhat singular. It appears that a burglary was committed on the night of the 30th September 1918 in the house of one Bhujai in the village of Kandar, in which, besides other property, a brass 'thal' and a 'lota' were lost. A report was made in the ordinary course and Sub Inspector Godhan Lal, second ,officer of the Police Station, Jalalabad, within...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »