Allahabad Court August 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.
Pohkar Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.640
1. This is an application in revision from an order of an Assistant Collector rejecting the application of the applicant for restitution. It appears that a suit was brought against the applicant for recovery of profits. The learned Assistant Collector, in whose Court the suit was filed, decreed the claim of the opposite party for about Rs. 700. On appeal the decree in favour or the plaintiff was increased by a few hundred rupees on account of interest. In second appeal to this Court the decree was reduced to about Rs. 200. In the meantime the opposite party had executed the decree of the first Appellate Court. After the decision of the case in this Court, the applicant before us presented a petition to the Assistant Collector for restitution, namely, for the recovery of the difference between the decree of the first Appellate Court and the decree of this Court. The Assistant Collector rejected the application and directed the applicant to file a regular suit. There can be no doubt that...
Manni Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All399; 52Ind.Cas.796
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the District Magistrate, dated the 17th of June 1919, confirming an order of Thakar Pateshwari Prasad Singh, Magistrate, First Class, dated the 28th of May 1919, directing the applicants to furnish security in different sums under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that the learned Magistrate committed several irregularities in the proceedings that he held against them, under Section 1G0 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the evidence for the defence with regard to the character of the applicants is just as good as, if not better than, that for the prosecution. In support of the first contention the learned Counsel refers this Court to the order of the Magistrate made sometime about the 2nd of April 1919. Under that order the applicants were brought before him under a warrant instead of summonses. The learned Counsel refers to the provisions of Section 114 of t...
Gokaran Singh Vs. Ganga Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All229; (1920)ILR42All91; 52Ind.Cas.779
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The principal question which arises in this appeal is whether the court below had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred to it from the decision of the court of first instance. The facts of the case are these. The plaintiff, Ganga Singh, alleged that under a perfect partition which took place between him and the defendant the disputed plots of land were allotted to his share, inasmuch as the defendant held more air and khudkasht lands than he was entitled to; that after the partition the defendant forcibly took possession of the disputed lands, and that in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Agra Tenancy Act the plaintiff was entitled to treat the defend- ant as bis tenant. Treating the defendant as such, the plaintiff brought the present suit in the Revenue Court to eject the defendant from the disputed plots of land, the defendant being 'according to him, a non-occupancy tenant. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that he had a rig...
In Re: Tika Ram, Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All125
Pramada Charan Banerji, Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an application by one Ram Sarup praying that notice be taken of the conduct of Babu Tika Ram, a vakil of this Court, now practising at Agra, it being alleged that he is guilty of professional misconduct. The misconduct imputed to the vakil is a violation of Rule 26, Part II, of the High Court Rules. The first paragraph of that rule provides that ' if an applicant for admission as a legal practitioner hold any appointment or carry on any trade or other business, the High Court may refuse to admit him, or pass such orders on his application as it thinks proper.' That paragraph has no-bearing on the present case, inasmuch as in the petition before us it is not asserted that) at the time when the vakil applied in 1894 for admission he was carrying on any trade or business. It is the provisions of the second paragraph of the rule which the vakil is alleged to have contravened. That paragraph requires that ' any person who, Ha...
Ram Sarup Vs. Tika Ram, Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All18(2); 52Ind.Cas.638
1. This is an application by one Ram Sarup praying that notice be taken of the conduct of Babu Tika Ram, a Vakil of this Court, now practising at Agra, it being alleged that he is guilty of professional misconduct. The misconduct imputed to the Vakil is a violation of Rule 26, Part II, of the High Court Rules. The first paragraph of that rule provides that if an applicant for admission as a practitioner holds any appointment or carries on any trade or other business the High Court may refuse to admit him, or pass such orders on his application as it thinks proper. That paragraph has no bearing on the present case, inasmuch as in the petition before us it is not asserted that at the time when the Vakil applied in 1894 for admission, he was carrying on any trade or business. It is the provision of the second paragraph of the rule which the Vakil is alleged to have contravened. That paragraph requires that any person who, having been admitted as a legal practitioner, shall accept any appo...
Emperor Vs. Nandu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All89
Wallach, J.1. The applicants have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20 and in default to three weeks' rigorous imprisonment for offences under Section 13 of Act III of 1867, alleged to have been committed in Kamptee, which is a Native State. Objection was ' taken at the hearing of the case that gambling was not shown to be an offence in the Native State in question, and, secondly, that the requirements of the proviso to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been satisfied. That proviso sets out that ' when a native Indian subject of His Majesty commits an offence in the territories of any native Prince or Chief in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within British India at which he may be found. Provided that no charge as to any such offence shall be inquired into in British India, unless the Political Agent, if there is one in the territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, certifies that i...
Shiam Karan and ors. Vs. the Collector of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All118
Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. This and the connected appeal arise out of execution proceedings in connection with a simple decree for money passed on the 18th of December, 1897. Various applications for execution were made between that year and the year 1906; In 1905 the property of the judgment-debtors in the district of Hamirpur was taken charge of by the Collector, apparently under the provisions of Section 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. The management of the Collector continued down to 1917, when he released the property. On the 4th of April, 1917, the Court of Wards, now in charge of the estate of the decree-holder, applied for attachment and sale of the property situated in the Hamirpur district. This application was resisted by the judgment-debtors on the ground of limitation. They contended that the application was barfed by the three years' rule of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act and also under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The o...
Thakur Ganeshi Singh Vs. Shyam Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All342; 52Ind.Cas.636
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these: One Yad Ram made a mortgage of joint ancestral property in favour of Ganeshi Singh appellant on the 8th of February 1897. On the 7th of February 1908 a suit was brought by the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage and the defendants to the suit were Yad Ram and his four sons, two of whom, Shib Dayal and Shib Singh, were of full age and the other two, namely, Shyam Singh and Sheo Dan Singh were minors. An application was made to the Court, supported apparently by an affidavit, praying that Yad Ram should be appointed guardian ad litem of the two minor defendants. This application was granted by the Court and Yad Ram was appointed guardian of the minors for the suit. This proceeding took place under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which was in force at the time when the suit was filed. The suit was not defended and an ex parte decree was made in favour of the* mortgagee on the 10th of March 1909. The present suit was broug...
Nandu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All44; 52Ind.Cas.668
Wallach, J.1. The applicants have been sentenced to fines of Rs. 20 and in default to three weeks' rigorous imprisonment for offences under Section 13 of Act III of 1867, alleged to have been committed in Kampta, which is a Native State. Objection was taken at the hearing of the case that gambling was not shown to be an offence in the Native State in question, and secondly, that the requirements of the proviso to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been satisfied. That proviso sets out that 'when a native Indian subject of His Majesty commits an offence in the territories of any Native Prince or Chief in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence an if it had been committed at any place within British India at which he may be found Provided that no charge as to any such offence shall be enquired into in British India, unless the Political Agent, if there is one in the territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, certifies that in his o...
Seth Shyam Karan and ors. Vs. the Collector of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All64(2); 52Ind.Cas.742
1. This and the connected appeal arise out of execution proceedings in connection with a simple decree for money passed on the 18th of December 1897. Various applications for execution were made between that year and the year 1906. In 1905 the' property of the judgement-debtor in the District of Hamirpur was taken charge of by the Colleotor, apparently under the provisions of Section 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. [The management of the Collector continued down to 1917, when he released the property. Oh the 4th of April 1917 the Court of Wards, now in charge of the estate of the decree-holder, applied for attachment and sale of the property situated in the Hamirpur district. This application was resisted by the judgment debtors on the ground of limitation. They contended that the application was barred by the three years' rule of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act and also under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was allowed by the Court of fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »