Allahabad Court February 1920 Judgments
Musammat Imaman Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All176; 55Ind.Cas.850
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order purporting to have been made under Section 247 of the Municipalities Act No. II of 1916. It appears that an application was presented to the Municipal Board by a number of persona complaining of the existence of houses occupied by prostitutes in a particular Mohalla in the city of Cawnpore. This application was forwarded to the Joint Magistrate, (who is a Magistrate of the first class) for necessary action. The Magistrate thus received information within the meaning of Section 247. Clause (a) of that section was not applicable to the case because the brothel complained of was not alleged to be in the vicinity of a place of worship or an educational institution or a boarding house, hostel or mess used or occupied by students. It was apparently an application which fell under Clause (b) of the sectior, namely, that the house complained of was being used as a brothel or for the purpose of habitual prostitution to the annoy...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Nath and ors. Vs. Prem Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All382
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The main question in issue in this case was whether one Badri Das had or had not been validly adopted as his son by one Ramanand, who died about the year 1822. One of the principal documents on the record does prove that the adoption, assuming it to have been made, was not made by Ramanand personally but by that gentleman's widow. Even then it must have been made prior to the execution of this document, which is a deed of gift of the 12th of February, 1847. It is not surprising in dealing with a transation so ancient that there was a complete want of direct evidence as to the factum of the adoption, as to the performance of ceremonies, or as to formal authorization by Ramanand of his widow to adopt a son to him. 'What the defendants who set up the adoption relied upon was a mass of documentary evidence, supported by some oral evidence, to the effect that Badri Das had as a matter of fact been treated, and had behaved himself, over a long course of years as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shahzadi Begam Vs. Mahbub Ali Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All353
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Banbrji, J.1. A question has been raised in this appeal as to the amount of court fee to be paid in respect of relief (a), claimed in paragraph 13 of the plaint. That relief is in the following terms: 'It may be declared as against the defendants that the plaintiff and her descendants, generation after generation, are entitled to receive from the defendants and their representatives Rs. 100 per mensem which is a charge on the property mentioned in Schedule A.' There is a further prayer for the recovery of Rs. 1,800, as arrears. Court fees were paid as to the first relief of a sum of Rs. 10, it being contended on behalf of the plaintiff that she was liable under Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act to the payment of a court fee of Rs. 10 only, An objection was raised in the court below as to the amount of court; fee in respect of this part) of the claim. The learned Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the plaintiff. The claim was, however, dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Shahzadi Begum Vs. Mahbub Ali Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All40; 55Ind.Cas.809
1. A question has been raised in this appeal as to the amount of Court-fee to be paid in respect of relief (a), claimed in paragraph 13 of the plaint. That relief is in the following terms: I may be declared as against the defendants that the plaintiff and her descendants generation after generation are entitled to receive from the defendants and their representatives Rs. 100 per mensem, which is a charge on the property mentioned in Schedule A.' There is a further prayer for the recovery of Rs. 1,800 as arrears. Court fees were paid as to the first relief of a sum of Rs. 10, it being contended on behalf of the plaintiff that she was liable under Clause 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act to the payment of a Court fee of Rs. 10 only. An objection was raised in the Court below as to the amount of Court-fee in respect of this part of the claim. The learned Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the plaintiff. The claim was, however, dismissed and an appeal has been preferred by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Devi and ors. Vs. Shambhu Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All322; 76Ind.Cas.601
1. The main question in issue in this, ease was whether one Badri Das had or tad not been validly adopted as his son by one Ramanand, who died about the year 1822. One of the principal documents on the record does prove that the adoption, assuming it to have been made, was not made by Ramanand personally but by that gentleman's widow. Even then it must have been made prior to the execution of this document, which is a deed of gift of the 12th of February 1847. It is not surprising in dealing with a transaction so ancient that there was a complete want of direct evidence as to the factum of the adoption, as to the performance of ceremonies, or as to former authorization by Ramanand of his widow to adopt a son to him. What the defendants who set up the adoption relied upon was a mass of documentary evidence, supported by some oral evidence to the effect that Badri Das had, as a matter of fact, been treated, and had behaved himself, over a long course of years, as the adopted son of Raman...
Tag this Judgment!Sharif-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Masum Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All347
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a first appeal from an order passed under the Succession Certificate Act. The first point taken is that the order complained of is not an order refusing a certificate, but is an order refusing to revoke a certificate, against which no appeal is provided by Section 19 of Act VII of 1889. In our opinion the order is in effect one refusing to grant a certificate to Musammat Sharif-un-nissa, the applicant, and we are bound to entertain the appeal. On the merits the case seems a clear one, except for one difficulty which has greatly influenced the decision in the court below, namely, the principles laid down in the case of Ghafur Khan v. Kalandari Begam (1910) I.L.R. 33 All. 327 as to the granting of a succession certificate for the collection of the dower debt of a Muhammadan widow when her husband has died without satisfying her claim in respect of the same. The essential facts of this case are quite simple. The appellant before us is the daughter of Qazi ...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Prasad Shukul and anr. Vs. Musammat Devi Shuklian and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All28; 58Ind.Cas.576
Piggott, J.1. This is a Second appeal in a ease in which the plaintiffs claimed certain property as the nearest reversioners under the Hindu Law to the estate of one Mangal Nath, who died in 1903. It is common ground that possession over the estate of the deceased passed to his mother, Musammat Lekhraji, and we must take it that she took the fame as a Hindu widow. On January 1st, 1905, Lakhraji executed a deed of sale by which she purported to transfer outright the bulk of the landed property which had some to her from Mangal Nath to four vendees. One of the reliefs sought is to have this alienation set aside, or at least to have it declared inoperative after the death of the vendor. This is not the first litigation to which this sale deed has given rise; and as there is an issue of res judicata raised in the present suit, it will be convenient to consider at once the circumstances under which the previous suit was brought and the effect of the decision arrived at.2. The husband of Mus...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Sharif-un-nissa Vs. Qazi Masoom Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All139; 56Ind.Cas.380
1. This is a first appeal from an order passed under the Succession Certificate Act. The first point taken is that the order complained of is not an order re fusing a certificate, bat is an order refusing to revoke a certificate against which no appeal is provided by Section 19 of Act VII of 1889, In our opinion the order is in effect one refusing to grant a certificate to Musammat Sharif-un-nisa, the applicant, and we are bound to entertain the appeal. On the merits the case seems a clear one, except for one difficulty which has greatly influenced the decision in the Court below, namely, the principles laid down in the case of Ghafoor Khan v. Kalandari Begam 9 Ind, Cas. 127: 33 A. 327: 8 A. L. J. 79 as to the granting of a succession certificate for the collection of the dower debt of a Muhammadan widow when her husband has died without satisfying her claim in respect of the sama. The essential facts of this case are quite simple. The appellant before us is the daughter of Kazi Masum ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All180; 58Ind.Cas.246
1. This is one of those cases, always somewhat difficult to deal with in revision, in which the trial Court and the Appellate Court have taken widely divergent views as to the effect of the evidence produced, although they have concurred in convicting one, at leapt, of the persons accused. The broad facts are that an Excise Inspector, along with Police Officers and witnesses, raided a certain house and searched it on suspicion that illicit cocaine would be found there The result of the search was the discovery of a small phial containing adulterated cocaine and the prosecution of four persons as owners or occupiers of the house for an offense against the excise laws. The case was actually dealt with by the trial Court under Section 60A of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910, as amended by the United Provinces Excise (Amendment) Act (No. IV of 1919). The defense on the merits was that the phial in question had been planted on the accused persons, that is to say, that some member of th...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Sheo Bakhsh Rai Gunpat Rai Through Lala Suraj Mal Vs. Firm Mansum ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All63; 63Ind.Cas.399
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision arising out of a suit decided in the Small Cause Court at Cawnpore. In the course of that suit there was a submission to arbitration and the Court ordered the arbitrator to submit the award on the 29th of 1919. As a matter of actual fact the arbitrator filed the award in Court on the 27th of May 1919, and on the 29th of May 1919 an order was passed by the Court below informing and calling on the parties to file any objection they might wish to within the time allowed by the law. The applicant before me filed his objection on the 7th of June 1919 that is, within ten days from the 29th of May 1919, The Court below rejected his objection as being time-barred, in view of the language of Article 158 of the Limitation Act, which then directed that the time from which the period of ten days begins to run is the time when the award is submitted to the Court, this was the language in column 3 of Article 158 of the Act on the date when the lower C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »