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.
Jiwat Dube Vs. Kali Charan Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All478
Blair and Aikman, JJ.1. This is the appeal of a decree-holder. The sole point urged upon us is one of limitation. It has been found that the application before the Court below was an application not made within three years of a previous legal application. The facts are these. An ex parte decree was obtained by the present decree-holder on the 25th November 1885. That decree was subsequently set aside. Another decree, however, was made in favour of the decree-holder on the 21st September 1886. That was then his only extant decree, the only one therefore capable of execution, and, we cannot doubt, the one he wished to execute. He made his first application on the 21st January 1889, within the three years' period, but, we are informed by Mr. Niblett, specified in his application the date November 25th, 1885, as being the date of the decree sought to be executed. Assuming that application to be a good one in point of law, the second application made on the 14th November 1891, would have be...
Queen-empress Vs. Bandhu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All51
Straight, J.1. I am much indebted to Munshi Kashi Prasad for taking so much pains to put the case for the accused man before the Court. I entirely agree with what fell from the Junior Government Pleader, that an animal of the kind to which this case has reference was not 'property' at the time of the alleged misappropriation, within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code, for it was not only not the subject of ownership by any person, but the original owner had surrendered all his rights as its proprietor, and had given the beast its freedom to go whithersoever it chose. It was therefore 'nullius proprietas,' and as incapable of larceny being committed in respect of it as if it had been feroe naturoe.' I am not now concerned to determine whether cases may not occur in which the killing of such an animal would be an offence; but I have simply to decide whether the conviction of Bandhu, under Section 411, can be upheld. I do not think that it can be; and, setting aside the orders of the Ma...
Queen-empress Vs. Mitthu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All18
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I am of opinion that the accused, Mitthu Lal, has not been guilty of the offence of abetment as defined by Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts, as proved, are that the accused paid a sum of money to a creditor, and that when the money was paid and he was to receive a receipt, the creditor said that he could not give a stamped one as he had no stamp. Upon this the accused accepted a receipt without a stamp, and promised himself to affix one. Upon these facts it is clear that the accused did not aid the offence by any act, because he did nothing; and the only question is, whether he illegally omitted to do anything which he was bound by law to do. As far as I can see, he did all that he could do; he asked for a stamped receipt, and, on being informed that it was impossible to give him one, as the creditor had no stamp, he took the only thing he could get, that is, the receipt without the stamp. The decision of Brodhurst, J., in the case of Bahadur Si...
Sada Shankar and anr. Vs. Brij Mohan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All480
Blair and Aikman, JJ.1. Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba's preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal must prevail. A cause is none the less a cause cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, because that Court exercised the discretion conferred on it by Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts' Act No IX of 1887, and returned the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. We concur with the judgment of the Calcutta Court in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Izzat-an-nissa Khatun I.L.R. 24 Cal. 557. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Udit Singh Vs. Padarath Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All54
Straight, J.1. The article of the Limitation Law admittedly applicable to this case is Article 120, and the only question is, from what point are the six years to be held to commence. Now, although the final order for the foreclosure was made in December 1875, Padarath Singh, the vendee, was compelled to bring a suit for declaration of his title and possession, and it was not until the 28th April 1881, that he obtained a decree, under which possession was subsequently given him on the 30th November 1883. For the reasons given by me in Rasik Lal v. Gajraj Singh I.L.R. 4 All. 414 I think that the pre-emptor is entitled to contend that his full right to impeach the sale had not accrued until the validity of the sale, as between the vendor and vendee, had been established by a Court, for non constat, but that it might have been found invalid, in which case his cause of action would have disappeared. It is not necessary for me to discuss here whether I am prepared to adopt the view expresse...
Krishna Ram Vs. Gobind Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All20
Straight, J.1. The circumstances of this case appear to be these: The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh, on the 24th June 1884, against the defendants, for establishment of his right to certain property which he alleged he had acquired by purchase in 1880, and for a declaration that such property was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree obtained by the defendant Gobind Prasad on the 29th September 1883, against the vendors of such property to the plaintiff. The suit, which was originally instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court, was removed to the file of the Judge of Azamgarh for trial; and on the 15th November 1884, after settling the issues, the Judge made an order, professedly under Section 66 of the Code, for the attendance of the plaintiff in person at an adjourned hearing on the 4th December following, with certain documents he considered material for the decision of the subject-matters in dispute between the parties. On...
Bahori Lal Vs. Gauri Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All626
Straight, Offg. C.J.1. In order to make the questions that have been raised in this appeal intelligible, it is necessary to state the following facts, and the accompanying table may facilitate the doing so: Jawahir. Kashi Ram. |______________________________| Kalian Singh, married (1) Bbagirathi, married Musammat Janki. (2) Bijai Kuar. | Bahori Lal (appellant).2. On the 2nd January 1875, Kalian Singh executed a bond in favour of Gauri Sahai, respondent, hypothecating his zamindari rights and interests in mauza Deva Kanohan. He was at that time recorded in the kheuiat as proprietor of a 5 biswas share in that mauza, and Musammats Bhagirathi and Bijai Kuar, the widows of his deceased uncle, Kashi Ram, were respectively described therein as owners each of a 5 biswas share. On the 28th September 1883, Gauri Sahai obtained a decree for enforcement of lien against the entire zamindari rights of Kalian Singh in mauza Deva, hypothecated in the bond of the 2nd January. 1875, but his claim again...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. Achobandil Kuari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All641
Tyreell, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit as heir to his brother, who, in January 1876, is said to have purchased from the appellant and her mother and other persons a two annas and eight pies share in mauza Nagpur. The plaintiff alleges that his brother got possession after the purchase, and held possession until his death, and after his death, he held possession until (Asarh 1288) 1881, when be was forcibly ejected by the vendors, of whom appellant is one. He therefore sued for reinstatement and for mesne profits. The appellant defended the suit, admitting that the deed of January 1876 bad been executed and registered by the vendors, but alleging that the transaction stopped there, no consideration having been received, and no possession transferred, the plaintiff's allegation as to his possession being untrue. The first Court gave the plaintiff-respondent a decree, and the defendants appealed to the District Judge, who found that the appellant's allegation was true as-to possess...
Queen-empress Vs. Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All622
Brodhurst, J.1. The prisoner, Mohan, was committed to the Sessions on alternate charges under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code; that is, for the offences of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The assessors, for reasons stated by them, were of opinion that Mohan was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Sessions Judge oonvioted Mohan of the offence of murder, and sentenced him to transportation for life. From this conviction and sentence Mohan preferred an appeal which came before me for disposal, and I referred it to a Bench of two Judges for consideration of two points of law; first, whether the confession of the accused before the Assistant Magistrate was, owing to certain defects in recording it, inadmissible in evidence; secondly, whether the offence committed was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The case then came before the Officiating Chief Justice and myself, and we remanded it for certain evidence under Sec...
Anwari Begam Vs. Nizam-ud-dIn Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR21All165
Blair and Aikman, JJ.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit brought by Nizam-ud-din, a minor, through his mother and certified guardian, to set aside a deed of gift which was executed by Ghulam Jilani, the grandfather of the minor, in favour of the appellant, Anwari Begam, daughter of Ghulam Jilani, and to recover possession of one-half of the property covered by the deed, of which, it is said, the donee assumed possession on Ghulam Jilani's death. Mesne profits are also claimed. Two transferees of separate portions of the property from the donee are made defendants to the suit. One of these, Behari Lal, who purchased a portion of the property from Anwari Begam, has filed a separate appeal. The other transferee defendant was a mortgagee of another part of the property and has not appealed.* * * * * *2. The deed, which it was sought to set aside, was executed by Ghulam Jilani on the 21st of October 1891, and was registered by him at the office of the Sub-Registrar of Agra on the fol...
- ‹ Prev
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- Next ›
- Last »