Allahabad Court February 1922 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.
Mahendra Singh Vs. Musammat Rajpatti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All99; 65Ind.Cas.861
Ryves, J.1. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The Court has some to the conclusion that there in a dispute relating to immovable property which is likely to cause a breach of the peace, and after an exhaustive judgment, has found itself unable to decide which of the two parties is in possession, or rather it has found that both parties have tried to take possession. Under these circumstances, it passed an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 435, paragraph 3, this Court cannot interfere in revision. One point, however, is taken that the Court that passed the order had no jurisdiction. It arises in this way. The Sub-Divisional Officer instituted proceedings under Section 145 and transferred them to the Court which ultimately held the enquiry and passed its order. It is said that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to transfer the case. Having regard to Section 132, which provides that a Sub-...
Mubarak Fatima Vs. Muhammad Quli Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All413
Piggott and Stuart, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for profits. These were claimed on account of three years, 1323, 1324 and 1325 Fasli, in respect of a share of 7 1/4 biswas and add in a certain mahal. The defendant replied that the plaintiff was the proprietor only of a share of 12 biswansis and add, that is to say, about one-twelfth of the share stated in the plaint. The court found that during the years 1323 and 1324 Fasli the plaintiff stood recorded as proprietor of the entire share claimed by her, but that this entry had been altered under the orders of a Revenue Court, and the entry recording the plaintiff as proprietor of only 12 biswansis and add had been made before the commencement of the revenue year 1325 Fasli. Both the courts below have held that the entry of the year 1325 Fasli, made before the institution of the present suit, raised an irrebuttable presumption that the plaintiff's share was only that shown in the said entry (namely 12 biswansis and add), ...
Musammat Mubarak Fatima Vs. Muhammad Quli Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.125
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for profits. These wore a aimed on account of three years, 1323, 1324 and 1325 Fasli, in respect of a share of 71/2 biswas and add in a certain mahai The defendant replied that the plaintiff was the proprietor only of a share of 12 biswansis and odd, that is to say, about one twelfth of the share stated in the plaint The Court found that during the years 1323 and 1324 Fasli the plaintiff stood recorded as proprietor of the entire share claimed by her it but that this entry had been altered under the orders of a Revenue Court, and the entry recording the plaintiff as proprietor of only 12 biswansis and odd had been made before the commencement of the revenue year 1325 Fasli. Both the Courts below have held that the entry of the year 1325 Fasli, made before the institution of the present suit, raised an irrebuttable presumption that the plaintiff's share was only that shown in the said entry (namely, 12 biswansis and odd), and they have based the...
Jiwa Ram Vs. Nand Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All223; (1922)ILR44All407; 66Ind.Cas.144
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, passed in certain proceedings taken under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of obtaining restitution.2. The facts are as follows:One Gobardhan Das died in the month of August, 1900, leaving two widows, Musammat Rupo and Musammat Singhari.3. The latter made a waqf of a certain portion of the property which had belonged to her husband, in favour of a temple, and appointed Nand Ram, the respondent in the present appeal, the trustee.4. After the death of Musammat Singhari, a suit was brought against Nand Ram by the surviving widow Musammat Rupo and one Jiwa Ram, who, it was alleged, was her adopted son.5. This suit was successful and a decree was passed in favour of Musammat Rupo and Jiwa Ram in the month of February, 1910, and in execution of this decree Rupo and Jiwa Ram obtained possession of the property on the 4th of May, 1910.6. There was an appeal agains...
Muhammad Ismail and anr. Vs. Manohar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.838
1. This is a second appeal from an order of the District Judge of Allahabad declaring that an appeal pending before him had abated. It has been held in this Court for more than twenty-fire years that such an appeal does not lie, see Hamida Bibi v. Ali Husen Khan 17 A. 172 : A.W.N. (1895) 42 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 436. That case was followed recently in Walayat Hasain v. Ram Lal 25 Ind Cas. 613 : 12 A.L.J. 1113. This being the view of our Court, we feel bound to follow it and hold that no appeal lies. We have been asked, in that view, to treat this memorandum of appeal as an application in civil revision, but we do not think it necessary to accede to this request. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Bhagwat Prasad Tewari Vs. Muhammad Shibli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.892
1. In our opinion this case bas not been properly tried and must be sent back to the Court of first instance for a fresh trial.2. The suit was brought to enforce two mortgages against two persons, Bhagwat Prasad and his son Kalka Prasad, Bhagwat Prasad was alleged to be the executant of the mortgage deeds. The summons issued to the defendants was served personally on Kalka Prasad, but it was affixed to the house of Bhagwat Prasad, who was not found. On the first date fixed for hearing, Kalka Prasad appeared and filed his defense. Bhagwat Pre sad did not appear, and the Court recorded an order directing that the case should be heard against him ex parte. The case, however, was not heard on that date, and the hearing wets postponed to a subsequent date. On that date, Bhagwat Prasad appeared and asked for an adjournment to enable him to file his written statement and to put forward his defense and to adduce his evidence. This application was refused, but the case was, for some reason, adj...
Hirde Ram Vs. L.F. Marten
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All397
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The decision in this appeal turns entirely upon the view which we take of the proper construction of the will of a Mrs. Margaret Jane Marten.2. The following table will make clear the relationship of the Marten family:Thomas Sinclair Marten = Margaret Jane Marten testatrix: died December 10th, 1915. _________________________|________________________________ | |Harry Kenneth Marten=Lily F. Marten, Frederick William married, childless, Appellant Marten, died un- died December (defendant in suit). married, August 23rd, 1915. 20th, 1917.3. The testatrix are her husband had been separated for many years. The will was executed on the 2nd of November, 1901. It at first purports to give to her two sons Harry Kenneth and Frederick William all her estates and effects in equal shares for their own use and benefit absolutely and for ever. Certain immovable property is then more specifically set out. Then the will proceeds:I further direct that ...
Emperor Vs. C. Dunn
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All401
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. We have before us Criminal Reference No. 747 of 1921 from the Sessions Judge of Benares, and Criminal Revisions Nos. 16 and 17 of 1922. The same point arises in all: 'Has the High Court authority to expunge from the judgments of lower courts remarks reflecting unfavourably upon the credibility or the character of witnesses in cases in which the effective orders of the courts are not before the High Court either in appeal or on revision?' In the reference, the station-master of Benares Cantonment took exception to remarks reflecting upon himself made by a Magistrate at Benares in a judgment in a criminal case. In that case the accused persons were acquitted. The station-master appeared as a witness for the defence The Magistrate, while finding that the evidence did not justify a conviction, disbelieved the station-master in certain particulars. We have it that the learned Sessions Judge believed the station-master to be telling the truth--a circumstance wh...
Jokhan Singh Vs. Sabhajeet Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All182; 65Ind.Cas.832
1. This is a second appeal in a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff claims as a co-sharer under a custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of the year 1874 A.D. It is admitted that according to this wajib-ul-arz a co-sharer in the same mahal with the vendor would have a right of pre-emption against another, person resident in the same village, even though that other person might be a co-sharer in a different mahal. Since this wajib-ul-arz was drawn up, however, there has been a partition. The former mahals were broken up and new mahals formed. Before the partition the vendees and the vendor were m the same mahal, Since the partition the vendor and the plaintiff are in the same mahal and the vendees are not.2. The Courts below have held themselves bound by the decision in Daria v. Harkhial (l). They understand that decision as meaning that the effect of a partition under circumstances like the present is to put an end to any custom of pre-emption that might exist as between co-sharers in the...
Mrs. L. F. Marten Vs. Hirdby Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.869
1. The decision in this appeal tarns entirely upon the view which we take of the proper construction of the Will of a Mrs. Margaret Jane Marten.2. The following table will make clear the relationship of the Marten family.3. The testatrix and her husband had been separated for many years. The Will was executed op November 2, 1901. It at first purports to give to her two sons, Harry Kenneth and Frederick William, all her estates and effects in equal shares for their own use and benefit absolutely and for ever. Certain immoveable property is then more specifically set out. Then the Will proceeds.I further direct that on the death of either of my sons above named his share of the property herein bequeathed shall go in the first instance to his children and grandchildren, etc. in the direct line, if there be any, at the time but not to the widow or any other person, but failing his children and grandchildren as aforesaid, the property herein bequeathed shall revert immediately to the childr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »