Allahabad Court June 1923 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.
Muhammad ZaIn Khan and ors. Vs. Nur-ul-hasan Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All682
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The question for decision in these two connected, appeals is as to the validity of a deed of waqf executed by Abdul Ali Khan and his wife on the 26th of March, 1909. Abdul Ali Khan died on the 7th of May, 1917, and his wife shortly afterwards, and the present suit was brought by his brother Muhammad Ali Khan claiming possession of his legal share of the property as his heir under Muhammadan Law. Muhammad Ali Khan has died during the pendency of the proceedings and the appellants are his legal representatives. The parties to the suit are Sunnis. Muhammad, Ali Khan in his plaint denied that any waqf was ever dedicated and urged further that if there was a waqf it was fictitious and illusory. That a waqf name was executed has never been seriously disputed. The trial court, however, treated it as a waqf which would not really take effect until after the deaths of Abdul Ali Khan and his wife. It accordingly treated it as valid only to the extent of one-third of the ...
Emperor Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All680
Daniels, J.1. This revision raises the question whether water in municipal pipes can be the subject of theft. The two applicants, Mahadeo Prasad and Beni Prasad, are brothers and live in a house in cantonments, which belongs to Mahadeo Prasad. They employed their younger brother Mangru, who was a pipe layer overseer in Military Works service, to put a water connection from the main water pipe into their house. This was done contrary to law, without the permission of, and indeed without the knowledge of, the cantonment authority and the Municipal Board. The tap being in the house, no one has actually seen them taking water from it, but the courts below were quite justified in inferring that they had not gone to, the trouble and expense of putting in this connection, and, having it in. their house for a month and a half, without making use of it and taking water from it. Had they applied for permission to put in a tap in accordance with the rules, they could have got permission, but they...
Suraj NaraIn Vs. Jang Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All687; 74Ind.Cas.2
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. The municipal elections were held in Cawnpore in March, 1923. Suraj Narain was a candidate, as was also one Muhammad Siddiq Hafia Both of these men were defeated by an opponent who secured a larger number of votes. Both of these gentlemen thought they had a case for unseating their opponents and each of them proposed to proceed under the Municipalities Act, Local Act No. II of 1916, and lodged petitions. Section 20 prescribes the form and the manner in which the petition shall be presented, and it also defines who1 are the persons who are permitted by law to present a petition. Section 22 defines who is to hear petitions, and Clause (2) of that section lays down how the proceedings may start by presentation.2. Taking the case, first of all, of Suraj Narain, Miscellaneous Case No. 211 of 1923, the material dates and facts are as follows: The election was held on the 20th of March, 192S, and on the 23rd of March Suraj Narain attended the court of th...
Sultan Baksh and ors. Vs. Abdul Hamid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.24
1. This is a Reference to the High Court under Order XLVI of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 23(e) of the. Municipalities Act, II of 1910. In Ward No. 4 of the Fatehgarh Municipal Elections five candidates were nominated for the Moslem Constituency. Three of them withdrew before the polling day. On that day two candidates were opposed to each other by name Omrao Khan and Abdul Hamid. There being only one seat the Poll was duly opened and voters commenced to record their votes in favour of one or the other candidate. At some time whilst the polling was open and continuing, Omrao Khan went to the Returning Officer and told him that he no longer desired to contest the seat. Thereupon the Returning Officer, thinking that that was the determination of Omrao Khan, closed the Poll and declared that the one remaining candidate Abdul Hamid was duly elected to the one vacancy. It is suggested in the petition that the withdrawal of Omrao Khan was due to some political manoeuvring: b...
Mahadeo Prasad and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.159
Daniels, J.1. This revision raises the question whether water in Municipal pipes can be the subject of theft. The two applicants, Mahadeo Prasad and Beni Prasad, are brothers and live in a house in Cantonments, which belongs to Mahadeo Prasad. They employed their younger brother Mangru, who was a pipe-layer overseer in Military Works Service, to put a water connection from the main water pipe into their house. This was done contrary to law without the permission, of, and indeed without the knowledge of, the Cantonment Authority and the Municipal Board. The tap being in the house no one has actually seen them taking water from it, but the Courts below were quite justified in inferring that they had not gone to the trouble and expense of putting in this connection and their having it in their house for a month and a half without making use of it and taking water from it. Haa they applied for permission to put in a tap in accordance with the rules they could have got permission, but they ...
Shankar Lal Vs. Kirari Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.144
1. On the 7th January 1930 the second and third defendants sold to the first defendant, who is the appellant here, certain property situated in. two mahals Gobind Ram and Baqi Manda. The sale of these items of property wag made by one deed.2. Five plaintiffs brought a suit to preempt this sale. Of these, plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had no share in mahal Baqi Manda. Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 had shares in both mahals. At the time of the purchase the vendee had no share in either mahal and this was the state of affairs at the time the suit was brought.'3. During the pendency of the suit the, vendee got a transfer made in his favour of certain property situated, in both the mahals. This transfer purported to be by way of gift. The Court of first instance, however, held that the transfer was not in reality a gift but was in fact a sale and this view has been affirmed in appeal by the lower Appellate Court.4. The result of the suit in the Court of first instance was that the plaintiffs' claim w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›