Allahabad Court January 1920 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.
Mannu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All236; 58Ind.Cas.153
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Mannu, who is the occupier of a certain plot of ground situated on or near the backs of the Ganges within the limits of the Municipality of Cawnpore. In the year 1914 a dispute arose between the said Mannu and the Municipal Board of Cawnpore, the Board claiming that the land in question belonged to them as nazul and that Manna was occupying it without their consent. The attempt then made to eject Mannu from the site by means of proceedings in a Criminal Court same to nothing, because the Court was satisfied that there was a bona fide dispute between the parties on the question of title, After the United Provinces Municipalities Act (No. 11 of 14)16) had some into force, certain bye laws 'were duly promulgated by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore under Part G(x) of Section 298 of the said Act, and since then Mannu has been twine prosecuted for the offense of using the plot of ground in question for storing wood without a lisense gran...
Emperor Vs. Ganga Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All257
Walsh, J.1. In this case a man has been charged under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to pay a fine of lie. 250 for an answer given by him on oath in a civil case. The fine was reduced by the Sessions Judge to Rs. 100. The applicant being still dissatisfied has applied to this Court to set aside the order on the ground that no offence has been committed.2. The circumstances of the case are possibly exceptional. It appears that at an adjourned hearing of a suit the witness, who was a mortgagee, and was suing his mortgagor for his money, was asked by the Munsif who was trying the case why he wanted back his money. His answer was that he did not wish to keep the land of the present complainant, the then defendant, under mortgage, because he was a badmash and a thief, Of course that means that he thought him so.3. It appears that this answer was given to the Munsif at an adjourned hearing after the witness had left the witness-box. So far as good faith is concerned that is...
Musammat Umme Khair Vs. Aziz Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1922All47; 80Ind.Cas.183
Stuart, J.1. The handling of the case both by the parties and by the Courts below has been anything but satisfactory. The plaintiff Musammat Umme Khair instituted a suit in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the first class for arrears of profits. The suit was under there provisions of Section 165 of the Tenancy Act. The plaint as it stood should have been sent back for amendment, for it asserted that the mahal in question consisted of 72 sishams of which the plaintiff owned 19 of which Hamid Hasan owned 15 and Nur Jahan owned 16 and that the plaintiff was in possession of 41. The principal defendant is a certain Aziz Ali, who is never mentioned in the plaint as holding anything. The plaintiff should have been asked to be a little more explicit as to the persons against whom she made her claim. Aziz Ali was of course defendant. Aziz Ali put in an objection that he had not collected anything more than what was due to him. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 70 only but added that if anything ...
Radha Kishen and ors. Vs. Ram Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All318; 76Ind.Cas.673
1. This is a reference by the Local Government under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaon Division. The suit as brought, was by a body of 97 plaintiffs describing themselves as deoprayagi pandas of' the Badrinath Temple in Kumaon. It appears to be admitted that the entire body of pandas entitled to this description is even more numerous, but the plaintiffs have taken the precaution of causing notice to esue under Order I, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code and the result is that there can be no question in the present case as to the plaintiffs' representing the entire guild of pandas in whose names they claim to maintain the suit. Stated, as briefly as possible, the case for the plaintiffs is that their guild or corporation possesses an exclusive right to conduct pilgrims to a certain spring known as the Tapta Kund near the temple of Badrinath, to supervise the ceremonial bath which the pilgrims take in the said spring in accordance with the ritual prescribed by custo...
Wahid-un-nissa Bibi Vs. ZamIn Ali Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All70; (1920)ILR42All290; 55Ind.Cas.89
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by Musammat Wahid-un-nissa Bibi, widow of Saiyid Wajid ALi Shah. There has been a good deal of litigation about this gentleman's estate since his death, Asuit was brought by two persons, Saiyid Zamin Ali and Saiyid Jamshed Ali, in which all the heirs of Wajid Ali Shah, including Musammat Wahid-un-nissa Bibi, were impleaded as defendants, and in which these plaintiffs claimed possession of a one-sixth share in the estate of the deceased, basing their title upon a deed of gift executed in their favour by the mother of the deceased and purporting to convey to them the abovementioned share in the estate., Amongst other pleas taken by Musammat Wahid-un-nissa in resisting this suit was the plea that the deed of gift was invalid and inoperative. That suit resulted in favour of the piaictiffs and an appeal against the decision is-pending in this Court. In the meantime Musammat Wahid-un- nissa has brought another suit in which she impleads as def...
Lala Ishri Mal and anr. Vs. Babu Umrao Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All127; 54Ind.Cas.816
1. Ishri Mal and Sohan Lal Jains brought a suit against Umrao Singh, Sheo Lal and others, also Jains The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, An appeal was made to this Court and the case was pent back but before the decision of this Court was arrive J at, costs which had been awarded to defendants were realised by the defendants from the plaintiff?. The case had been sent back for arbitration and an award was given in favour of Ishri Mal and Sohan Lal. The award ends with the words: Kharcha fariqain zimma fariqain. Ishri Mal and Sohan Lal applied to the Subordinate Judge for restitution of the costs which they had paid in. The application was objected to, and the objection was that the money had been paid to the Treasurer of the Jain Deo Asthan to which the suit had referred. The contention is that the applicants are entitled to the costs and to have restitution. The opposite party rely upon the case of Venkatasami Pillai v. Kuppayes Ammal 14 M.L.J. 377. The facts of that case appea...
Nageshar Pande and ors. Vs. Ram Parsan Upadhya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All317
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. It appears that there are three brothers called Rameshar Pande, Nageshar Pande and Sri Ram Pande, who according to the allegation of Nageshar Pande, the plaintiff, are members' of a joint and undivided Hindu family. Rameshar Pande and Sri Ram Pande, two of the brothers, executed a deed of sale in respect of some of the family property in favour of Parmanand Tiwari. One Ram Parsad Upadhya sued to pre-empt the sale and obtained a decree. After the passing of the pre-emption decree Nageshar Pande brought the suit out of which this application for revision has arisen for a declaration that the sale by Rameshar Pande and Sri Ram Pande in favour of Parmanand Tiwari was invalid and that the decree of Ram Parsan Upadhya on the ground of pre-emption was also invalid and inoperative. Nageshar Pande impleaded as defendant in the case, his two brothers Rameshar Pande and Sri Ram Pande, the vendors, Parmanand Tiwari,, the vendee, and Ram Parsan Upadhya, the pre-emp...
Ram Parsan Upadhya Vs. Nageshar Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All160; 54Ind.Cas.764
1. It appears that there are three brothers called Rameshar Pande, Nageshar Pande and Sri Ram Pande who, according to the allegation of Nageshar Pande, the plaintiff, are members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. Rameshar Pande and Sri Ram Pande, two of the brothers, executed a deed of pale in respect of some of the family property in favour of Parmanand Tewari. One Ram Parsan Upadhya sued to pre erupt the sale and obtained a decree. After the passing of the pre-emption decree, Nageshar Pande brought the suit out of which this application for revision has arisen, for a declaration that the sale by Rameshar Pande and Sri Ram Pande in favour of Parmanand Tewari was invalid and that the decree of Ram Parsan Upadhya on the ground of pre emption was also invalid and inoperative. Nageshar Pande impleaded as defendants in the case his two brothers Rameshar Pande and Sri Ram Pande, the vendors, Permanand Tewari, the vendee, and Ram Parsan Upadbya, the pre emptor. The claim was resisted on...
Lala Phakki Lal Vs. Brij Mohan Singh Alias Bachcha Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All122; 54Ind.Cas.805
1. In this case the decree-holder applied for attachment of certain trees on four plots of land of which the judgment-debtor is the ex-proprietary tenant. Some of these trees are fruit-bearing trees and Ors. are timber trees. Upon the objection of the judgment-debtor the Court below has disallowed the application of the decree holder and he has preferred this appeal. In my opinion, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The trees existing on an ex-proprietary holding are appurtenant to the holding and are not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree in the same way as the holding itself is not liable to attachment and sale. There can be no doubt that an ex-proprietary holding cannot be sold in execution of a decree in view of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. On the principles which apply to the land itself, the trees which exist on the land and appertain to it cannot be sold. The case is fully covered by the decision of the Full Bench in Jugal v. Beok...
Shiam Lal Vs. Parshottam Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All45; (1920)ILR42All277
Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made under paragraph 20 of the second schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure to have an award made in an arbitration conducted without the intervention of the court filed. The party contesting the award put in what we may call a written statement, in which they contested the award on a great variety of grounds. They went so far as to contend that the award sought to be filed had never been made by the gentleman to whose arbitration the matters in dispute between the parties had been referred, but was a forgery concocted after that gentleman's death. On the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were fixed, ten in all and the case was set down for hearing. The objector moved the court to decide first of all two issuer only, in respect of which it was represented to the court that it would not be necessary to take any evidence. The issues as framed ran as follows:Issue No. 2.--''Has the arbitrator determined any matter not refe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »