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.
Queen-empress Vs. Dungar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All29
Brodhurst, J.1. In this case Dungar Singh, Chuni Singh, and five other accused persons were tried by the Deputy Magistrate of Pilibhit for the offences of rioting and causing grievous hurt, punishable respectively under Sections 147 and 825 of the Indian Penal Code. Dungar, Chunni, and one Nathu Khan were convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, and were also convicted under Section 325, and were each sentenced to a further term of six months' rigorous imprisonment. The remaining four persons were each sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147.2. The prisoners preferred appeals which were dismissed by the Sessions Judge, and Dungar and Chunni have each now presented an application to this Court, for revision of the orders of the lower Courts. Four objections to these orders were taken; three of them are now abandoned by the applicants' learned Counsel; and the fourth and remaining one is: 'Because, under a ruling of this Hon...
Surajbali and anr. Vs. Sri Pal Rai and ors. and Raghunath Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All82
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. In this appeal the game question arises which arose in Letters Patent Appeal No. 24 of 1900, which we have just decided, namely, whether the share which a mother gets at a partition between her sons is her stridhan. We have held in that case that such a share must be deemed to be a woman's stridhan. That being so, Musammat Phuljhari was, competent to make the alienation which has been impeached in this case. It, is conceded that the decree for possession which, was made by the lower appellate court could not in any event be sustained. There is another reason why the suit must fail. Raghunath is a nearer reversioner than the plaintiffs, and as it has not been found that he is in collusion with the widow, the plaintiff's are not entitled to maintain the suit. On both these grounds the suit must fail. The result is that we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court with costs, and restore that of the court of first instance. The appellant...
Gopal Lalji Maharaj Vs. Raman Lalji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All244
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The parties to this appeal and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the Court below are joint owners of certain temples in Muttra and Gokal. Disputes having arisen between them in regard to the temple property, those disputes were referred to arbitration, and on the 15th of March 1888, an award was made by the arbitrators which defined the rights of the parties With the exception of three temples, which remained the joint property of the parties, all other property was divided. As regards those temples the award provided that the expenses connected with them and the income arising from them should be borne and received in equal moieties; the defendant No. 1, appellant here, being liable for and entitled to one moiety. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the respondent on the 27th of April 1893, on the allegation that a sum of Rs. 4,000 was due to him by the defendant No. 1 on account of a debt which the said defendant was liable to discharge ...
Pirthi Pal Vs. Ganga Bisheshar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All635
Spankie, J.1. The appellant before us was the appellant before the Judge, and he urged, first, that the deed impeached had been executed with the consent and admission of the plaintiff, respondent, who had remained silent from 1872 to 1878, having thus ratified his father's act; secondly, that the plaintiff could not sue under any circumstances to set aside the gift save with respect to his own share, viz., two annas and two pies in the property in suit. The Subordinate Judge held that there was no proof of consent on the part of the plaintiff and no sufficient evidence of acquiescence in what was done by the father. He also appears to hold that the plaintiff could sue to set aside the deed altogether, and not only in regard to his own share. We must not lose sight of these objections which the Court below had to determine. Before us the first plea goes beyond the objections urged before the lower Appellate Court and contends that as the transfer was not made for any illegal or immoral...
Kesri Vs. Muhammad Baksh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All221
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. This case has been very properly referred to us by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Moradabad. A complaint was instituted before a Magistrate of the first class. That Magistrate took cognizance of it, and under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was imperative upon him to at once examine the complainant upon oath and also to reduce the substance of that examination to writing. The learned Magistrate did not examine the complainant and did not reduce the substance of the examination or have it reduced to writing. He contented himself with taking the complaint as it was filed in his Court and asking the complainant to swear to it and sign it. He defends this procedure by reference to the precedent of Queen-Empress v. Murphy I.L.R. 9 All. 666. That case was of an exceptional character. The complaint was made by an Englishman against an Englishman. The contents of the complaint, which was drawn up in English, had evidently been drawn up with a g...
Fazal Haq Vs. Maha Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All557
1. As we understand the facts, it would appear that land which belonged to and formed part of the old public road and adjoined the plaintiff's premises has been sold by the Municipality to the defendant, hut that a. sufficient portion of land remains in use as the public road, and the defendant has appropriated to his own exclusive use that portion which he has purchased and which lies between the plaintiff's premises and the present public road, and by so doing the plaintiff avers that defendant has interfered with his right of way and prevented approach as of old on his part from his premises to what now constitutes the public road. The plaintiff asks that a passage three yards wide be opened across the purchased land to the public road for his use; he also seeks to have a drain opened which defendant has closed. The Court of first Instance decreed the opening of the drain, and dismissed the rest of the claim, and the lower Appellate Court has affirmed this decision. The Subordinate ...
Shibcharan Vs. Ratiram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All20
Mahmood, J.1. We are of opinion that this appeal must prevail on the first ground urged before us, if not also on the second ground. It appears that after the order of reference had reached the arbitrators, they all filed a joint application stating that they did not consent to arbitrate in the case, and with this refusal to act, they returned the papers which had been sent to them by the Court The Subordinate Judge, instead of accepting the refusal, passed an order directing that the record be sent back to them, and they should arbitrate and send the award within ten days from the date of the order their refusal cannot be admitted; when the arbitrators first took this record and agreed to hold arbitration, so much so that they even obtained time from the Court their refusal now is not free from suspicion.' Upon this order being passed the arbitrators proceeded to make the award, the legality of which is now in question, as the judgments of both the lower Courts have upheld it.2. Expre...
Haidri Begam Vs. Nathu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All45
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal arose, was one (or ejectment and also for arrears of rent. As to the claim for arrears of rent, that was barred under Section 13 of Act No. XIV of 1882 by the decision in a prior suit brought in a Court of Small Causes. It was contended here that as a Court of Small Causes could not have tried the suit for ejectment, its decision did not operate as res judicata qua the claim for rent. That is a mistaken contention. A Court of Small Causes is competent to try this suit so far as it relates to the cause of action with reference to the rent, and the fact that the Court of Small Causes is not competent to try this suit so far as it is a suit for ejectment, does not make Section 13 of the Act inapplicable on the question of the rent. The suit, so far as the claim for rent was concerned, was rightly dismissed, and we dismiss this appeal, so far as it relates to the claim for rent, with proportionate costs.2. The suit f...
Baldeo Sahai Vs. Bateshar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All75
1. In 1873 the respondents purchased the share of which the appellant claims pre-emption. The appellant denied the title of the vendor, but the respondents instituted a suit against the appellant, and having succeeded in establishing their vendor's title, they obtained a decree for possession. The appellant then instituted the present suit to have the sale to the respondents set aside, and a sale concluded in his favour as pre-emptor. It is contended that the respondents having succeeded in obtaining a decree for possession in a suit to which the appellant was a party, he is now debarred from suing to enforce a claim which he might have asserted in reply to the claim formerly made by the respondents, and decreed in their favour. We admit the validity of the plea. It would have been a good answer to the claim then advanced that the sale on which it was founded was invalid, in that the defendant was entitled to a prior right of purchase and ready to exercise it. In Srimut Rajah Mootoo Vi...
B.J. Lacy Vs. Rani Kanno Dai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All235
John Edge, C.J. and Blair, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Agra in execution of a decree for money. The applicant for execution describes himself as Mr. B.J. Lacy, son of Dr. J.C. Lacy, Englishman, occupation service, resident of Agra Cantonments, decree-holder. It is rather difficult from the record to ascertain who the real parties arc. One of the papers is headed--'Dr. J. Lacy, decree-bolder.' Another paper is signed--'A. Lacy, attorney of the Revd. B. Lacy'; and Mr. A. Lacy describes himself as the decree-holder's brother. These proceedings in execution recall to the mind of any Judge who has sat in this Court in recent years the sad story of the ruin of Bishambar Nath of Agra. However, in this case, we have got to see what are the rights in law to which the Revd. B. Lacy is entitled; and we have also got to see that he gets nothing further than the law entitles him to. He applied for attachment, and he followed that up immediately by an appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »