Allahabad Court December 1969 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.
Babu Nand Vs. Sohawan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All26
Straight, Offg., C.J.1. I am of opinion that the so-called judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, to which exception is taken, was in law no judgment at all, because it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 574 of the Civil Procedure Code, in not stating the points for determination raised by the pleas in appeal, the decision upon them, and the reasons for that decision. The remarks made by me in the recent case of Mahadeo Prasad v. Sarju Prasad I. L. R., 8 All., 614, apply, mutatis mutandis, to that now before me, and no useful purpose would be served by repeating to-day the grounds stated therein by me for holding that decisions, like that of the Subordinate Judge here, are neither within the letter or the spirit of the law declared in that behalf.2. I decree the appeal and setting aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, direct that the record be returned to the Subordinate Judge, in order that he may adjudicate upon it in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Pro...
Gopal Das Vs. Bihari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All218
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. In this case Bihari Lal obtained a decree against Babu Gopal Das in his capacity of trustee: He also was entitled under a decree in appeal in the suit to costs. Bihari Lal proceeded to execute the decree. In execution of that 'decree Babu Gopal Das was arrested. Babu Gopal Das applied under Section 344 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be declared an insolvent. The Court, taking into consideration the bad faith and fraud in the matter of the misappropriation of, the trust funds in respect of which the decree was obtained, refused to declare Babu Gopal Das an insolvent. From that order Babu Gopal Das has appealed to this Court.2. It has been contended that the Court was not justified under Section 351 of the Code of Civil Procedure in rejecting the application of Babu Gopal Das, and could not for the purposes of that section take into consideration what were the circumstances under which the liability which ended in the decree in execution arose. In support of tha...
Sibta Kunwar Vs. Bhagoli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All196
Arthur Strachey, C.J. and Knox, J.1. This was a suit for the possession of certain shares in two villages, namely, Amirta and Nadeli, and of a share in a house in the village Amirba, which belonged originally to one Kishan Lal. The plaintiff is one of two daughters of Kishan Lal. The defendant is the daughter of a pre-deceased son of Kishan Lal, named Lokman. Lokman's widow was Musammat Natholi, who survived Kishan Lal, but is now dead. On the 19th of February 1884, Kishan Lal executed a deed of gift in favour of Musammat Natholi is respect of the village Nadeli and a house. In execution of a decree which a creditor of Kishan Lal had obtained against him the share in the zamindari of Amirta was sold by auction on the 20th of June 1884, and was purchased in the name of Musammat Natholi. Upon the death of Musammat Natholi the property now in suit was taken possession of by her daughter, Musammat Bbagoli. Hence the present suit.2. The plaintiff asserts that the deed of gift relating to th...
Ganga Bakhsh Singh Vs. Dalip Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All13
Hobhouse, J.1. In this case their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty to discharge the decree of the Additional Judical Commissioner of Oudh of the 17th of August, 1396, to allow the appeal, and to remand the case to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, to be tried by the Judicial Commissioner and the Additional Judicial Commissioner sitting together, as provided by law.2. Their Lordships give no costs of the present proceedings....
Dhanraj Dube and ors. Vs. Sheopargash Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All225
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Judge of Gorakhpur, dated the 22nd December 1885, by which he modified the judgment of the Court below. This was a pre-emption suit, and the Judge of Gorakhpur, in appeal, held that the value of the property is only Rs. 250, and that the price set out in the sale deed was a fictitious price. In second appeal we have to consider whether there was evidence upon the record from which the Judge of Gorakhpur could have arrived at that conclusion. On the question of burden of proof in these cases I have one or two observations to make. It appears to me that in these cases the rule expressed in the judgment delivered by my brother Brodhurst and Mr. Justice Mahmood in Bhagwan Singh v. Mahabir Singh I. L. R., 5 All., 184, is a correct rule to follow. That rule is that, in the first instance, the plaintiff, who alleges the price to be fictitious, must give some prima facie evidence which would lead to the presumption that the pric...
Balli Rai and ors. Vs. Mahabir Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All178
Burkitt, J.1. I think a court fee of Rs. 2 is sufficient. That is the fee leviable on an appeal against an order of a District Court remanding a case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I know of no reason why a higher fee should be leviable on a memorandum of appeal against an order of a similar nature passed by a Judge of this Court. The wording of the Letters Patent does not affect the question....
Bakhtawar and ors. Vs. Zahur Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All327
Duthoit, J.1. We do not agree with the Lower Appellate Court that it is immaterial whether four annual instalments had or had not been paid under the decree, for we consider that if they were not paid, the execution of the decree was time-barred We are unable, however, to accept the contention of the learned pleader for the appellants, that cognizance of payment of such instalments is barred by the terms of Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code. This contention is opposed to the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Sham Lal v. Kanahia Lal I.L.R. 4 All. 316 which followed and approved a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta Court--Fakir Chand Bose v. Madan Mohan Ghose 4 B.L.R. 130.2. We reverse the decision of the Lower Appellate Court upon the preliminary point noted above, and remand the case for disposal on the merits, after ascertainment of the fact whether the four instalments were or were not paid under the decree as asserted by the decree-holders and denied by the judgment...
Shibban Lal Vs. Tiloke Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All619
Oldfield, J.1. Shibban Lal made an application under Section 108 of Act XIX of 1873, for a perfect partition of his share in Pasvara. The Assistant Collector issued the usual notification and served notices as required by law, requiring co-sharers who may object to the partition to appear before him on a specified day, and no objectors appearing he directed that the partition should be made and gave the necessary directions for carrying his order into effect. In the course of carrying out his order for a partition and of assigning the lands to each share-holder, Tiloke Chand and others olaimed certain plots as belonging to them in severalty and demanded that those should be assigned to them, and the Collector decided that some of these plots belonged to one of the objectors and one was held in common. Shibban Lal appealed from this decision to the Judge, who has dismissed the appeal, holding that no appeal lay to his Court. The question in second appeal is, whether the Judge's order is...
Queen Vs. Thakur Parshad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All151
Pearson, J.1. The question upon which I understand that the opinion of the Full Bench is required is whether the Court of Session at Allahabad was warranted by the terms of Section 390, Act X of 1872, in directing the Magistrate to admit to bail a person who had been convicted and sentenced to one month's imprisonment under Section 352, Indian Penal Code. My answer to that question is in the negative. Section 390 declares that 'the Court of Session may in any case, whether there he an appeal on conviction or not, direct that an accused person shall he admitted to bail.' The section occurs in a part of the Code which prescribes procedure incidental to enquiry and trial; and it is thus evident that an accused person is one against whom an accusation is the subject of inquiry and trial and not a convicted person. That this is so further appears from the context, if Section 390 be read in connection with the preceding and following section. By 'any case' is meant only any case the subject ...
Diwan Singh and ors. Vs. Jadho Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All252
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. In this case it is contended in appeal that the holder of a registered deed of sale of immovable property who, at the time of the making of his contract of sale, had notice of a prior unregistered mortgage, which did not require registration, was entitled to priority by reason of Section 50 of the Indian Registration Act, 1877, over the holder of the unregistered mortgage. The rule of equity on this subject which has always been followed in this Court has been applied by our brother Aikman in the decree from which this appeal has been brought. We dismiss this appeal with costs....