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.
Naubat Singh Vs. Bhagirath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All115
Turner and Oldfield, JJ.1. Mahtab Singh, Balwant Singh, and Naubat Singh, the respondent, held mauza Darni in equal one-third shares and Mahtab Singh also held a 21/2 biswa share in mauza Atwa. On the 3rd January 1863, Mahtab Singh and Balwant Singh hypothecated their share in mauza Darni to secure a loan advanced by Ladli Begam. On the 16th March 1870, Mahtab Singh, Balwant Singh, and Naubat Singh hypothecated mauza Darni to the appellant to secure a loan of Rs. 600, and by another deed executed on the same date the same persons hypothecated mauza Darni, and Mahtab Singh his 21/2 biswa share in mauza Atwa, to the appellant to secure a loan of Rs. 1, 600. On the 8th December 1875, Ladli Begam obtained a decree for the sale of the shares of Mahtab Singh and Balwant Singh in mauza Darni for the satisfaction of the mortgage debt to her. These shares were accordingly sold on the 23rd October 1876, and purchased by the appellant for Rs. 7,000. Of this sum Rs. 5,954-12-0 were applied to sati...
Queen-empress Vs. Ajudhia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All121
Banerji, J.1. The appellant Ajudhia was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur charged with the offence of house-breaking by night in order to the committing of theft punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. He had four previous convictions.2. It has been proved by clear and unimpeachable evidence that Ajudhia was caught in the act of digging a hole through the wall of the house of Ram Lakhan, Sonar. There can be no doubt that his intention was to commit theft. As he did not enter the house he was guilty of an attempt to commit the offence punishable under the last clause of Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, and was properly convicted by the then Officiating Sessions Judge.3. On the question of sentence the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that as Ajudhia had previous convictions for offences punishable with rigorous imprisonment for three years and upwards under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, Section 75 of that Code applied to his case....
Bisheshur Singh Vs. Musammat Sugundhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All366
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. In this case I am clear that there is a question of proprietary title within the meaning of Sections 93 and 189, Act XVIII of 1873, and that the Judge was bound to hear and determine the appeal to him, and that being so, this special appeal was under Section 191 of the same Act competently preferred. The suit is to recover Es 5 on account of arrears of rent, and in defence defendant asserts a sub-proprietary right in respect of which a sub-settlement was made with her for revenue, and that she is not a tenant liable to pay rent. Thus a question of title is directly raised, and it is unnecessary to say more. We therefore allow this appeal, reverse the order of the Judge, and remand this case for disposal on the merits under Section 351 of Act VIII of 1859. Costs to abide the result.Oldfield, J.2. The first and second pleas in appeal are valid. The plaintiff sues defendant as a tenant for the recovery of arrears of rent, and the defendant pleaded that she held the l...
Debi DIn Vs. Chunna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All264
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant to bring upon the record the representative of the deceased defendant-respondent The defendant-respondent died on the 4th January 1888. This application was presented to the Court on the 19th March last. Mr. Ross also applied, on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased defendant-respondent, for an order directing that the appeal should abate. The question raised is whether Article 171B of Schedule ii of the Limitation Act applies to this case. It has been decided in the case of Balkrishna Gopal v. Bal Joshi Sadashiv Joshi I. L. R., 10 Bom., 663, that Article 171B, sch. ii, of the Limitation Act does not apply to the case of a defendant-respondent. Having regard to the fact that by art. 171 the Legislature provided, specifically for the cases of the death of an appellant or the death of a plaintiff, and there is no express reference in art. 171B to the death of a respondent, I am of opinion tha...
Baldeo Das Vs. Haji Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All90
Burkitt, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging that the defendant was tenant of a certain house belonging to the plaintiff; that the tenancy had commenced some eleven years before; that for the last three years the defendant had ceased to pay rent, and had denied the plaintiff's title. Both the Courts have found that the allegations as to the tenancy are untrue, and have found that the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been shown to have existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. They have therefore dismissed the suit, so far as it was founded on the allegation of tenancy, but have given the plaintiff a decree for possession as owner. Now it seems to me that this decree cannot be supported on the allegations of the plaint. The only way the plaintiff stated himself to be in possession of the property in suit was by alleging that the defendant was his tenant. Had the tenancy been proved, it would have followed that the plaintiff was in possession th...
Racha Rai and anr. Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All363
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. I agree with Mr. Justice PEAKSON that although an order on an application for a review of judgment is final, objection may be taken in special appeal against that order, and that, therefore, the present special appeal was competently preferred. lam also of opinion with him that the review of judgment was properly granted in this case, and that the evidence on which it was based was material and essential to the just determination of the suit.2. In his judgment of the 29th November 1875, the first Subordinate Judge points out the particulars in the way of evidence in regard to which the plaintiffs' case in his opinion was defective, viz., the absence of any sufficient evidence of the arbitration award and of the patwari's deposition; and further, in allusion to the circumstances that the plaintiffs had not adduced any parol testimony, he remarks-- Besides this no documentary evidence, such as 'khasra,' 'khatani,' or rent-roll, has been filed on the part of the plai...
Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Chajmal Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All260
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree from the Court below. From that decree an appeal was filed in this Court on the 15th April 1884. The plaintiff-respondent died on the 17th September 1885. No application has been made by or on behalf of the appellant to bring upon the record the representative of the deceased plaintiff-respondent, nor has any representative of the deceased plaintiff-respondent, applied to be brought upon the record. The present application, which was preferred on the 20th March 1888, is made on behalf of the mother of the deceased plaintiff-respondent. It is an application for an order of the Court decreeing that the appeal has abated. I consider that the judgment of the majority of the Full Bench in the case of Narain Das v. Lajja Ram I. L. R., 7 All., 693, not withstanding the head-note, simply decided that article 171B of sch. ii of the Limitation Act of 1877 did not apply in that case. That case is on all fours with that now under ...
Dubey Sahai Vs. Ganeshi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All34
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. The question submitted in this reference is, whether, as a preliminary objection taken in behalf of the respondent, the order of a single Judge admitting an appeal after time is liable to be impugned and set aside by the Bench before whom it is brought for hearing, and my answer is in the affirmative. But I confess I have not derived much assistance from Act IX of 1871. The sections of that Act which bear on the subject are Sections 4 and 5, and appended to Section 4 are two illustrations, the latter of which (b) is in the following terms:--'An appeal presented after the prescribed period is admitted and registered. The appeal shall, nevertheless be dismissed.' This appears to meet the present case, showing clearly, as it does, that, in the opinion of the person who prepared it, such a preliminary objection as the present might be entertained. But it is a mere illustration and not binding as law, and I can find no direct authority for it in either of the sections ...
Kishan Prasad and ors. Vs. Beni Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All85
Burkitt and Chamier, JJ.1. The appellant obtained against the respondents a decree for the payment of money by instalments, one of the terms of which was that the respondents were to pay Rs. 75 on or before the last day of Sawan in each year, and in case of default, execution might be taken out for the whole amount of the decree. The respondents paid the instalments by due date in 1303 and 1304F., and there is no dispute as to them. The question which we have to decide in this appeal concerns the instalment which was payable on or before the last day of Sawan 1305F. (August 2nd, 1898;. On July 23rd, 1898, the respondents despatched a money-order for Rs. 75 to the address of Jamna Prasad, one of the appellants, who resided in a locality in which, under the rules in force, the Post Office does not pay the amount of a money-order to the payee at his house, but sends notice of the arrival of the money-order, requesting him to attend personally at the Post Office, or send a duly authorized ...
Mannu Vs. Sarasuti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All134
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiff, who is an ahir, brought this suit for a declaration of his right as heir to all the property left by his father, Baldeo Prasad. The Court of First Instance found the plaintiff to be an illegitimate son of Baldeo Prasad, and therefore not entitled to inherit. The appeal came before the Judge, Mr. Tyrrell, and, on an objection as to the insufficiency of the stamp, he permitted the plaintiff to make up the full amount of fees required for a suit for possession of the property, which the Judge considered was the real object of the suit. He also found plaintiff to be the illegitimate son of Baldeo Prasad by a woman of the ahir class, and he remanded the suit for a finding as to the custom prevailing in respect to the right of inheritance of such a son. The appeal was finally disposed of by Mr. Young, before whom the finding on the issue remitted came, which was to the effect that the issue of a concubine of the same caste inherits property equally with the chil...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »