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. Lochan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All635
Straight, Offg. C.J.1. This is a case of revision in reference to a decision of the Judge of Gorakhpur, convicting the accused Loch an of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The case was called up by me, on perusal of the Gorakhpur sessions statement for March, and we have had notice issued to the accused to show cause why the conviction recorded against him should not be altered to one of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, and why his sentence should not be enhanced to that provided for that offence.2. The circumstances of the case are shortly these. The accused Lochan, son, of Janki, Sainthwar by caste, aged 25, resided at the village of Balohi in the Tarkalwa Police circle. Along with him lived Musaramat Jadni, deceased, aged about 25, the widow of his deceased first cousin Ramphal. On the evening of Thursday, the 10th of December last year, about 8 o'clock, the accused was near his house, cutting up sugarcane ...
Queen-empress Vs. Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All38
Brodhurst, J.1. One of the grounds for revision is, that sanction under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not have been given until the complainants had been afforded an opportunity of proving their case, which had been thrown out merely on the report of the police.2. This objection is, I think, valid, and it is supported by the judgment of Garth, C.J., and Field, J., in The Government v. Karimdad I.L.R. 6 Cal. 496. Under the circumstances above referred to, I set aside the Magistrate's order of the 25th July 1885....
Thakur Das Vs. Shadilal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All56
Brodhurst and Tyreell, J.1. The Courts below were wrong in applying the provisions of Article 179, Schedule ii of the Limitation Act to this case. The decree made on the 8th December 1881, provided expressly that the decree-holder might not apply for its execution till after expiry of four months from that date, that is to say, till after the 8th of April 1882. Therefore the limitation of Article 178 applies to the case before us. The decree-holder has three years from the date when the right to ask for execution accrued to him. His application of the 17th February 1885, being within three years from the 8th April, 1882, is not barred. The appeal is decreed with costs....
Afzal-un-nissa Begam Vs. Al Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All35
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I am of opinion that this case must go back to be tried by the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, on the ground that nothing that can be called a judgment by a Judge trying the case has ever been given. The observations which I made in Jagram Das v. Narain Lal I.L.R. 7 All. 857 are applicable to the present case, and the considerations which then weighed with me, affect my mind now in the same manner. I should not have thought it necessary to add anything to the observations which I made on that occasion, if I had not been informed that my judgment had led to some confusion as to the mode in which oases of this kind should be dealt with. The only addition I propose to make to my former observations is by pointing out what appears to me to be the course which should have been adopted in the present case, which is a fair illustration of what commonly happens.2. The suit was instituted on the 25th May 1883, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, an offi...
Hardeo Das Vs. Zaman Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All639
Oldfield, J.1. One Dwarka Prasad obtained a decree against the respondent Muhammad Sahib Zaman Khan, and it was affirmed in appeal by the District Court on the 10th December 1881. After this he took out execution to recover costs awarded. The respondent applied to stay execution on the ground that he proposed to file an appeal to the High Court.2. Execution was not, however, stayed and the costs were deposited by the respondent and paid to Dwarka Prasad, and the appellant gave a bond, by which he undertook to refund the amount to the respondent, in the event of the latter succeeding in his appeal to the High Court and of Dwarka Prasad failing to repay to him the amount. The respondent subsequently filed an appeal to the High Court and was successful; and he then applied in the execution department to recover the sum from the appellant, and his application was disallowed by the Court of First Instance, but has been allowed in appeal by the Judge. The appellant appeals to this Court on t...
Param Sukh and ors. Vs. Ram Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All650
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, passed upon objections of the judgment-debtor, against whom a decree of the Privy Council was being executed. The decree-holders took out execution for a sum of 119-11 awarded to them, and the question is, at what rate of exchange that sum should be made available to the decree-holders in rupees.2. It appears to me that, under the last paragraph of Section 610, the amount payable must be estimated at the rate of exchange 'or the time being fixed by the Secretary of State for India in Council,' and that the words 'for the time being' mean the year in which the amount is realized, or paid, or execution taken out, and not the year in which the decree was passed. The rate of exchange being fixed yearly by the Secretary of State for India in Council, the rate of exchange on the date of the application for execution was the proper rate of exchange the decree-holders were entitled to. On this point,...
Queen-empress Vs. Ismail Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All649
Straight, Offg. C.J.1. In this case the evidence against the appellants was, that on the early morning of the 13th April last, they were disturbed by a chaukidar while engaged in making a hole in the wall of the house of the complainant. Immediately upon being so disturbed they attempted to make their escape, the appellant Ismail Khan firing off a pistol, in what manner and direction it does not appear from the evidence, and the other two appellants attempting to prevent their apprehension by using their lathis. It is not suggested that these latter two appellants inflicted any serious hurt upon the police officers, and I do not think that any grave importance attaches to that part of the case. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Ismail Khan of attempting to commit the offence provided for in Section 459, Indian Penal Code, and he has convicted the other two appellants of an attempt to commit the offence provided for in Section 460 of the same Act. I am very clearly ...
Tahal Vs. Bisheshar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All57
Brodhurst and Tyreell, J.1. It is admitted in this case that the parties agreed to an arbitration on the 18th May 1883. One of them has brought this suit for part of the subject-matter referred to the arbitrators more than a year after that date. The defendants plead the bar of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, but they do not allege in their answer to the plaint that the plaintiff refused to perform his contract to submit to arbitration. And one of the arbitrators, a witness in this case, has sworn that the arbitrators did not decide the case because 'the parties were contentious among themselves.' The Judge, in appeal, held that the mere act of filing this suit on the part of the plaintiff is tantamount to a refusal to perform his contract in the sense of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. We cannot take this view; and we hold that the contract, the existence of which would bar a suit under the circumstances contemplated by this section, must be an operative contract and not...
Gobind Saran Vs. Dharup Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All614
Mahmood, J.1. These two connected appeals, numbered 1622 and 1750 of 1885, can be disposed of together, as they arise out of one and the same decree and suit; and the following pedigree shows the relative position of persona whose rights have to be considered in I his case: Hanuman Dat. | ______________________________________________________________ | | Musammat Banai Musammat Sheo Kuaria (1st wife). (2nd wife) Musammat Matara (daughter). | _______________________________________________________________ | | Gobind Saran. Gopal Saran. | Dharup Nath (defendant).2. Hanuman Dat had two wives, one of whom was Musammat Bansi, who gave birth to Matara, a daughter, who had two sons, Gobind Saran and v Gopal Saran. Gobind Saran had a son named Dharup Nath, who is the defendant in the suit.2. The property in suit to which S.A. No. 1622 relates has been found to have formed the estate of Hanuman Dat, and upon his death without a son, it would, by the usual course of Hindu law, devolve upon his t...
Sujan Kuar and ors. Vs. Gopi Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All646
Oldfield and Tyreell, JJ.1. This suit has been brought be set aside a gift of certain property made by one Rani Bai, defendant, in favour of the co-defendants, her nephews. The property belonged to Gur Bakhsh; from him it passed to his son Kuar Chand, and at his death his heir was his widow Musammat Anandi. He left also a daughter, the plaintiff, and her sons, also plaintiffs. They sue as reversioners to set aside the gift.2. It appears that on Kuar Chand's death, his mother, Rani Bai, and his widow Anandi, disputed as to the property, and the dispute was referred to arbitration. An award was made, by which the property left was divided between Rani Bai and Anandi. This was in 1868, and a decision given on the award, and the property, the subject of the gift, was part of what came to Rani Bai. The plaintiffs assert that Rani Bai had no power to give the property, having only a life-interest under Hindu law.3. The parties are Sadhs, and the defence is that Hindu law does not govern the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- Next ›
- Last »