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.
Gopal Prasad Vs. Kashinath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All356; 52Ind.Cas.343
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 Maroh 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 his property and on his objection being disallowed, brought this suit for a declaration that they were not liable to sale in execution of the decre...
Rameshar Singh Vs. Madho Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All36
Stuart and Ryves, JJ.1. The present respondent gave some land to Swami Bishudha Nand, it is said, some fifty-six years ago, to plant a grove. In 1899, the Swami died. Subsequently the Maharaja of Darbhanga was admitted as a tenant and paid the respondent Rs. 14 a year as rent. It appears that ho was recorded in the revenue papers as a non-occupancy tenant. Be that as it may, he continued to pay the rent up till the year 1910, when the respondent brought a suit to eject him under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act. In his reply to that suit the Maharaja of Darbhanga made two somewhat contradictory statements. In paragraph 2 of his written statement he stated that the holding was a grove, pure and simple, and that he was merely managing it as a sort of shebait. In the 3rd paragraph he went on to say that, inasmuch as he. had been in charge and management of the property for over twelve years, he had acquired a right of occupancy. Both the Assistant Collector and the Commissioner dismissed the...
Maharaja Sri Rameshar Singh Sahib Bahadur Vs. Raja Munshi Madho Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All32; 52Ind.Cas.191
1. The present respondent gave some land to Swami Bishudha Nand, it is said some 56 years ago, to plant a grove. In 1899 the Swami died. Subsequently, the Maharaja of Darbhanga was admitted as a tenant and paid the respondent Rs. 14 a year as rent. It appears that he was recorded in the revenue papers as a non-occupancy tenant. Be that as it may, he continued paying the rent up till the year 1910 when the respondent brought a suit to eject him under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act. In his reply to that suit the Maharaja of Darbhanga made two somewhat contradictory statements. In paragraph 2 of his written statement he stated that the holding was a grove pure and simple, and that he was merely managing it as a sort of Shebait. In the 3rd paragraph he went on to say that, inasmuch as he had been in charge and management of the property for over 12 years, he had acquired a right of occupancy. Both the Assistant Collector and the Commissioner dismissed the suit holding that the defendant had...
In Re: Kadhori and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All26
Walsh, J.1. In this case the Munsif of Etawah was holding his ordinary court on a certain Friday, the 2nd of May, 1919. It is alleged, and not denied, that he announced that miscellaneous cases only would be taken that day and the following day which was a Saturday. Certain minors/represented by their guardians were plaintiffs in a suit pending in the court. They were represented by a vakil and after waiting until 4:30 p. m. they left the Court. The ordinary sitting of the court is 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. and speaking from my limited experience of this country I should say that anybody who began a civil case after 4:30 p. m. in the month of May would be extremely foolish, and that the parties engaged would have a right to object. Next day, the plaintiffs' vakil discovered that the case had been dismissed for default. The Munsif has not condescended to explain what this means, why the case was called on and what the default was, for which it was dismissed. It is obvious on the facts before...
Rup Singh Vs. Bhabhuti Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All30; 58Ind.Cas.632
George Knox, A.C.J. and Piggott, J.1. In this case the plaintiff Rup Singh is suing his sole surviving brother, Bhabhuti Singh, and the three minor sons of a deceased brother, Ratan Singh, for separate possession by partition in respect of a one-third share of certain properties, movable and immovable, specified at the foot of the plaint. He also asks for the cancellation of a certain award, dated the 28th of February, 1912, made by two arbitrators, Bijai Singh and Mihin Lal, under circumstances to be noted presently. The plaint recites that the joint family consisting of the plaintiff, his brothers and his nephews ' was divided and made separate in food ' about the year 1909 or 1910 A. 1). From this time the plaintiff and another nephew, a major, by name Hukam Singh, son of a deceased brother named Sarup Singh, each continued to utilize the family property to the extent of their respective one-fourth shares. Hukam Singh has now secured separate possession of his share after a complete...
Mewa Ram Singh Vs. Ganga Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All401; 52Ind.Cas.229
1. The three appeals Nos. 548, 734 and 831 are connected and arise out of one and the same suit brought by Mewa Ram for redemption of certain property. The claim was resisted on the grounds, among others, that the suit was premature and that the mortgage sought to be redeemed was barred by limitation. The learned Munsif decreed the claim for redemption on the payment of Rs. 325, 1/4th of the mortgage money. Both parties appealed to the Court of the District Judge. The learned Judge varied the decree of the first Court by decreeing the claim of the plaintiff for some property in excess of that which was sought to be redeemed and upon payment of the full amount of the mortgage money. There are three appeals before us, as already stated, from the two decrees of the lower Appellate Court. No. 548 is the appeal of the plaintiff and the other two appeals are by Ganga Ram, the chief contesting defendant in the case. We shall dispose of the three appeals together. Mewa Ram, the plaintiff, cont...
Kadhory and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.279
Walsh, J.1. In this case the Munsif of Etawah was holding his ordinary Court on a certain Friday, the 2nd of May 1919. It is alleged, and not denied, that he announced that miscellaneous oases only would be taken that day and the following day, which was a Saturday. Certain minors represented by their guardians were plaintiffs in a suit pending in the Court. They were represented by a Vakil and after waiting until 4-30 p. m. they left the Court. The ordinary sitting of the Court is 10-30 A. m. to 4 p. m. and speaking from my limited experience of this country, I should say that anybody who began a civil case after 4-30 p. m. in the month of May would be extremely foolish, and that the parties engaged would have a right to object. Next day the plaintiffs' Vakil discovered that the case had been dismissed for default. The Munsif has not condescended to explain what this means, why the case was called on and what the default was, for which it was dismissed It is obvious on the facts befor...
Kundan Singh Vs. Jadon Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All80; 58Ind.Cas.552
Ryves, J.1. I am doubtful whether on the facts the difficult questions of law which have been so elaborately argued both before Lindsay, J., and ourselves really arise.2. The facts are these:-- Puran Singh and his two sons, Kunr Singh and Kundan Singh (plaintiff-appellant), formed a joint Hindu family owning considerable Zamindari property. They agreed to partition this property, and this was done by two awards in 1912 according to which the undivided property was divided into three shares. By these awards Puran Singh acquired fall proprietary rights in the specific property allotted to him, and he became sole owner thereof. That property included the Chaupal or 'collection house' which is in dispute here.3. In 1913 Kuar Singh applied to have the awards made a rule of Court. It appears that Puran Singh and Kundan Singh raised objections but ultimately they agreed to a compromise and the Court passed a decree, not indeed in terms of the awards, but in terms of the compromise which modif...
Emperor Vs. Kadhe Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All24
Piggott, J.1. This appeal is closely connected with another which I have just disposed of, but the two cases differ in one essential point. In a certain civil suit in which one Debi Singh was being sued as a defendant for the recovery of a certain sum ' of money, Debi Singh produced in evidence a receipt purporting to have been given him by one Kishan Singh. The Civil Court decided against the genuineness of that receipt, and eventually Debi Singh was put on his trial for having produced in evidence a forged document, knowing it to be forged, and Kadhe Mal was separately placed on his trial for abetment of the forgery and for having given false evidence before the Civil Court. The two accused persona were tried separately, as required by the law, but in reality there had been no separate trial. The learned Sessions Judge commences his judgment against Kadhe Mal with the remark that the receipt in question has already been found to be a forged document in the trial of Dobi Singh. He doe...
Laltu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All369; 52Ind.Cas.60
Piggott, J.1. The point raised by this application in revision may be stated thus: One Laltu was arrested by certain Police Officers along with a number of other persons in a lane in the City of Cawnpore under what were undoubtedly suspicious circumstances. The matter came before the Joint Magistrate of Cawnpore, and he was of opinion that Laltu had not given a true explanation of his presence on the night in question at the spot where the Police arrested him. Upon this finding Laltu has been bound over to be of good behaviour under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have ascertained that Laltu resides within the jurisdiction of the Joint Magistrate before whom proceedings were taken. I do not think it is possible to apply the provisions of Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the state of facts above set forth. There are two oases of this Court more or less in point, that of Sharif Ahmad v. Emperor 12 Ind. Cas. 304 : 8 A.L.J. 1097 : 12 Cr. L.J. and that of Gh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »