Allahabad Court December 1969 Judgments
Godha and anr. Vs. Naik Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All152
Straight, Oldfield, Brodhurst and Tyrrell, JJ.1. The question submitted to us by the Division Bench arises as follows: The plaintiffs allege that certain crops cultivated by them, worth Rs. 200, were caused to be attached by Naik Ram, defendant, as the property of his judgment-debtor, Murli Singh, defendant, under an order of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, and that they objected to such attachment under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code, but such objection was rejected on the 13th June 1882. They therefore pray 'that the produce or crop specified hereafter be declared to be the plaintiffs' property, and be delivered to them; and in case of this prayer being impracticable, Rs. 200, value thereof, may be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants.'2. The point for our determination is, whether such a suit is to be regarded as one 'for personal property or for the value of such property,' within the meaning of Section 6 of Act XI of 1865, and, as such, exclusively cognizable b...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Soneju and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All175
Arthur Strachey, C.J. and Knox, J.1. Held that there was nothing in the previous rulings of the Court which would make inadmissible, under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the statement of the approver made before the Magistrate....
Tag this Judgment!Kishna Ram Vs. Rakmini Sewak Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All222
Straight and Brodhurst, JJ.1. On the 16th September 1880, Hingu Lal and others sued,--(1) Kishna Ram, plaintiff in the present suit, (2) Rai Rakmini Sawak Singh, (3) Musammat Ati Kuar, (4) Musammat Rajuat Kuar, for declaration of their right as auction-purchasers at sale in execution of a decree obtained by them on the 12th March 1874, upon a bond made in their favour by one Ajudhia Prasad Singh, ancestor and manager of the joint property of himself and Rai Rakmini Sewak Singh, Musammat Ati Kuar, and Musammat Rajuat Kuar. On the 28th August 1874, Kishna Ram, plaintiff in the present suit, got a decree on a bond made in his favour by Ajudhia Prasad Singh, Nar-singh Sewak, Musammat Ati Kuar, and Musammat Rajuat Kuar, and, in execution, advertized for sale four of the immoveable properties which Hingu Lal and others had bought in execution of their decree. Consequently these latter persons objected in the execution department, but their objections were disallowed on the 17th September 187...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Lalit Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All177
Arthur Strachey, C.J. and Knox, J.1. Held that, having regard to the rules of the Court, a judgment was not complete until it was sealed, and that until a judgment was sealed it might be altered by the Judge concerned without the necessity of having recourse to any formal procedure by way of review of judgment....
Tag this Judgment!Madho Das Vs. Kamta Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All539
Spankie, J.1. Who, after stating the facts, continued: With reference to former precedents of the late Sudder Dewanny Adawlut of those Provinces, we cannot say that the Subordinate Judge was in error in dismissing both claims for the reasons assigned by him, since it was not for him to make out a title which neither plaintiff alleged for himself as his ground of action. But he was right in noticing the defect, because it had been pleaded by the defendant in appeal.2. It has been laid down by the late Sudder Dewanny Adawlut In Nirunjun Barthee v. Padaruth Barthee S.D.A. N.W.P. 1864 vol. I 512 that amongst the general tribe of fakirs called Saniasis (and the plaintiffs here appear to be of the description) a right of inheritance strictly so speaking to the property of a deceased guru or spiritual preceptor does not exist; but the right of succession depends upon the nomination of one amongst his disciples by the deceased guru in his own lifetime, which nomination is generally confirmed b...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Teja and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All86
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. Teja and Zaharia have appealed against sentences of death passed upon them for the offence of dacoity with murder, under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. It is clearly proved that on the 29th of April 1892, a dacoity was committed at the village of Hath Kant, in the commission of which dacoity a villager named Janki Prasad was shot dead by one of the dacoits. There is evidence showing that the person who fired the shot was Zaharia. Janki Prasad and the dacoits who actually killed him were outside the house. At the time Teja was inside the house, plundering it. The evidence leaves no doubt that these two men were members of the gang of dacoits engaged actually in that dacoity. As to Zaharia there can be no question that he has brought himself within Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. But as to Teja it is necessary to consider whether the fact that the murder was committed outside the house at a time when he was inside the house takes his ca...
Tag this Judgment!Sanwal Singh Vs. Lachman Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All543
Oldfield, J.1. The plaint in the former suit is badly drawn up, but the claim, so far as the mortgage-debt is concerned, was clearly for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a fifth share in the sum lent under the mortgage-deed. The plaintiff stated the principal sum to be Rs. 5,600, and his own share in that sum Rs. 1,120. He did not sue to recover any portion of the debt. He claimed by right of succession, and his cause of action was the obstruction offered by the defendants to his possession of the family estate. It appears that at the time he instituted the first suit the defendant had realised the original debt with interest to the amount of Rs. 8,624. The plaintiff had no knowledge of this fact which was concealed from him; and he now sues to recover his share of that sum. We find that the defendant wrongfully appropriated the assets of the estate, and the Judge's finding is to the effect that he dishonestly concealed from the plaintiff information that he had realise...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Karim-ullah-khan Vs. Amani Bega and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All93
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought for possession by partition by one of the heirs of a deceased Muhammadan. The property in dispute was a house in which the Muhammadan had lived. Two of the defendants-respondents were widows of the deceased Muhammadan, and after his death they continued to live in the house in undisputed possession for more than a year. They resisted the suit on the ground that they were in possession for their dower. It is found that dower in fact was due. The case came before our brother Burkitt on appeal on behalf of the defendants. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. This appeal has been brought by the plaintiff. What the Subordinate Judge found in first appeal with regard to possession for dower was this--'From the evidence on record it is not conclusively proved that the defendants came into possession in lieu of dower with the permission and consent of the heirs.' It appears to us that when ...
Tag this Judgment!inayat Khan Vs. Rahmat Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All97
Turner, J.1. The respondent's pleader, in support of his application for a review of judgment, has adduced a precedent of this Bench (unreported), which, it must be admitted, is in his favour. On reconsideration of the point raised, we are of opinion that the application for review should be granted. The former suit between the parties was a suit for rent cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and the special appeal presented against the decree of the lower Appellate Court in that suit was rejected on the ground that the suit was of that character. In a suit for rent instituted in a Small Cause Court the question of title would only be determined incidentally. It appears to us that it would be inequitable to rule that no special appeal lies in a suit of such a nature when instituted in a Civil Court, and nevertheless to hold that the decision of the issue of title in the trial of such a suit should finally estop the parties from raising the same issue in a suit brought to try the title...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rajendro Nath Mukerji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All174
John Edge, Kt., C.J., Knox, Blair, Banerji, Burkitt and Aikman, JJ.1. In this case, which is a proceeding under Section 8 of the Letters Patent of this Court consequent on the conviction by the Court of Session of Allahabad of a vakil upon the rolls of this Court of the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, which conviction was upheld on appeal to this Court, Mr. Porter has contended on the authority of In the matter of Durga Charan, Pleader I.L.R. 7 All. 290 and In re. Weare Solicitor L.R. 1893 2 Q.B.D. 439, that he was entitled to show that his client the vakil was not guilty of the offence of which he was convicted. If the observation of the Chief Justice on page 290 of the Indian Law Reports, 7 Allahabad, is to be taken as the decision of the Court on that point, we entirely dissent from it. It is to be observed that the Court, in refusing to exercise its power in that case under Section 12 of Act No. XVIII of 1879, did not suggest that the conviction was b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »