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.
Emperor Vs. Dunyapat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All53
George Knox, A.C.J.1. A complaint was instituted by one Pandit Bawa Ram to the effect that on the 20th of June a dust-storm swept through the village of Mahotra with the result chat nine mahwa and one mango tree were uprooted. In addition to these trees uprooted by this dust-storm there were two old mahwa trees which had fallen a year before and were lying on the ground. The accused, who are tenants in the village Mahotra, removed these uprooted trees and the two mahwa trees which had fallen the year previous and took possession of them. The tenants appeared and admitted having taken the trees and kept them within their possession. The courts below have found that the removal of these trees amounted to an offence of theft. It has been argued in revision in this Court that the act of the tenants was wanting in the element of dishonesty which is a necessary essential of every theft. The argument is that the zamindar has been attempting to enforce his rights without having recourse to the...
Qadam Singh Vs. Nathu Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All211; 52Ind.Cas.362
1. This appeal is in our judgment wholly without merit. A decree was passed against the appellant on the 13th of August 1910 for payment of Rs. 1,446 by six annual instalments of Rs. 241 payable on the 1st of August of each year. The decree farther provided that in the event of default being made in the payment of any of the instalments the decree holders would be entitled to realise the whole of the decretal amount with interest. The first application for execution was made on the 21st of February 1912 on the allegation that the first instalment had not been paid. That application was subsequently withdrawn upon the judgment-debtor paying to the decree-holders the amount of the first instalment On the 4th of August 1915 the second application for execution was made on the allegation that the second and third, instalments had been paid but default had been made in the payment of the fourth instalment. The present application for execution was made in 1917. The contention on behalf of t...
Musammat Imam Bandi Vs. Puran Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All187; 52Ind.Cas.646
1. The judgment of the Court below cannot, in our opinion, be supported. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The facts of the case are set forth in his judgment. It appears that Muhammadi Begam and one Agha Meer mortgaged the property in suit on the 20th of September 1807 to the respondents. After this mortgage the plaintiff brought a suit on the 14th of December 1907 against the respondents' mortgagors to recover possession of the property mortgaged. She obtained a decree from the Court of first instance and that decree was affirmed by the High Court. To that suit the present respondents were not parties, and, therefore, the decree in that suit is not binding on them. They brought a suit on the basis of their mortgage and obtained a decree against the mortgagors on the 5th of August 1912. They made the present plaintiff a party to that suit but the suit was dismissed against her with costs. However, in execution of that decree they h...
Dunyapat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All90(2); 52Ind.Cas.790
George Knox, A.C.J.1. Complaint was instituted by one Pandit Bawa Ram to the effect tat on the 20th of June a duststorm 'Swept through the village of Mahotra, with the result that nine Mahwa and one mango tree were uprooted. In addition to these trees uprooted by this duststorm there were two old Mahwa trees which had fallen a year before and were lying on the ground. The accused, who are tenants in the village Mahotra, removed these uprooted trees and the two Mahwa trees which had fallen the year previous and took possession of them The tenants appeared and admitted having taken the trees and kept them within their possession. The Courts below have found that the removal of these trees amounted to an offence of theft. It has been argued in revision in this Court that the act of the tenants was wanting in the element of dishonesty which is a necessary essential of every theft. The argument is that the Zemindar has been attempting to enforce his rights without having recourse to the Civ...
Jang Bahadur Rai and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.289
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was practically a suit for a declaration that the adoption of the defendant Jang Bahadur Rai, alleged to have been made by Deo Saran Rai, did not, in fact, take place and that Jang Bahadur is not the adopted son of Deo Saran Rai. The plaintiff is the brother of Deo Saran Rai, who is now dead. Musammat Parmati defendant is Deo Saran's widow. She executed a document in which she declared that her husband had adopted Jang Bahadur Rai son of another brother of Deo Saran Rai and that Jang Bahadur was Dao Saran's adopted son. The plaintiff's allegation was that he and Deo Saran were joint and that in fact Deo Saran never adopted any boy. The Court of first instance held in favour of the adoption and dismissed the claim. The lower Appellate Court was of opinion that no adoption took place and that the allegation of an adoption is untrue. It, however, held that the two brothers were separate and not joint as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendan...
Durga Prasad Vs. Bhajan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All6(2); (1920)ILR42All50; 58Ind.Cas.487
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage made by one Baiju in favour of Jaman, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Baiju is dead. He left two sons Ram Din and Phunki. Phunki died leaving sons who together with Ram Din have been found to be members of a joint family. Ram Din is the head of that family. He executed a sale-deed of the mortgaged property in favour of the plaintiff, and by virtue of this sale-deed the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for redemption, The defendants are (1) the sons of the mortgagee and (2) Ram Dip, the plaintiff's vendor. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that it had not been proved that there was legal necessity for the sale made by Ram Din. This decision has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. In our opinion the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit upon the ground mentioned above. Ram Din is the head of the family and apparently exerted the sales deed in favour of the plaintif...
Jang Bahadur Rai and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Rai and Parwati Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All49(1); (1920)ILR42All48
Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal has Arisen was practically a suit for a declaration that the adoption of the defendant, Jang Bahadur Rai, alleged to have been made by Deo Saran Rai, did not in fact take place and that Jang Bahadur is not the adopted son, of Deo Saran Rai. The plaintiff is the brother of Deo Saran Rai, who is now dead. Musammat Parwati, defendant, is Deo Saran's widow. She executed a document in which she declared that her husband had adopted Jang Bahadur Rai, son of another brother of Deo Saran Rai, and that Jang Bahadur was Deo Saran's adopted son. The plaintiff's allegation was that he and Deo Saran were joint and that in fact Deo Saran never adopted any boy. The court of first instance held in favour of the adoption and dismissed the claim. The lower appellate, court was of opinion that no adoption took place and that the allegation of an adoption was untrue. It, however held that the two brothers were separate and not joint...
Laddo Begam Vs. Jamal-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All45
Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff against the brother of her deceased husband for recovery of certain movable property or in the alternative, for the value thereof. The plaintiff's allegation was that her husband died on the 22nd of March, 1911, and that on that date she handed over the articles claimed by her to the defendant for Safe custody, as she was a minor. It appears that she was prosecuted for having poisoned the wife of the defendant and was convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. This sentence she is now serving. Her brother on her behalf sent a notice to the defendant in May, 1912, demanding the articles, but as they were not returned and the defendant denied that he had received them, the present suit was instituted. The court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the claim. Upon appeal the learned Judge did not go into the merits. The case on the face of it...
Musammat Laddo Begam Vs. Jamal-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.382
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff against the brother of her deceased husband for recovery of certain moveable property or in the alternative for the value thereof. The plaintiff's allegation was that her husband died on the 22nd of March 1911, and that on that date she handed over the articles claimed by her to the defendant for safe custody, as she was a minor. It appears that she was prosecuted for having poisoned the wife of the defendant and was convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. This sentence she is now serving. Her brother on her behalf sent a notice to the defendant in May 1912 demanding the articles but as they were not returned and the defendant denied that he had received them, the present suit was instituted. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiff: and decreed the claim. Upon appeal the learned Judge did not go into the merits. The case on the face of it was not a very probable one. There was ...
Gopal Prasad Vs. Kashi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All39
Stuart and Ryves, JJ.1. Kashi Nath Brought a suit against Keshab Deo and others and attached before judgment two shops and other property belonging to the defendants on the 20th of August, 1909, under the order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. On the 27th of August, 1909, the Subordinate Judge set aside that order. It appears that he did so owing to his having misunderstood an order of the High Court. The High Court ordered the attachment to be restored on the 16th of March, 1910. In the interval between the 27th of August, 1909, and the 16th of March, 1910, when as a matter of fact, there was no order in existence attaching the property, Gopal Prasad, the plaintiff, appellant here, purchased the two shops in dispute. In execution of the decree against Keshab Deo and others it was sought to attach and bring these two shops to sale, Gopal Prasad objected that they were Ms property and on his objection being disallowed, brought this suit for a declaration that they were not liable to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »