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.
Amir Hasan Vs. Ahmad Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All36
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to me, under Section 623 of the Civil Procedure Code, for a review of an order made by me on the 28th of August lass, staying the execution of a decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Allahabad, in the case of Ahmad Ali v. Amir Hasan Khan.2. It appears that the suit, out of which the application on which I made the order to stay arose, was one brought by Ahmad Alt against Amir Hasan Khan for malicious prosecution. The action came on for trial before Mr. Abinash Chander Banerji, Subordinate Judge, who, on the 30th June 1884, decreed Rs. 500 against the defendant with proportionate costs and interest at 6 per cent. per annum. Against this decree each side appealed to the Judge of Allahabad, with the result that on the 6th May 1885, the defendant's appeal was dismissed with costs, and the Judge, on the plaintiff's appeal made a decree in his favour for Rs. 2,835, with costs proportionate to that sum in both Courts. By a judgment of this...
Sri Ram and anr. Vs. Makka
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All108
Burkitt and Chamier, JJ.1. The facts of this case are somewhat peculiar. The respondents in the present appeal, i.e. Sri Ram and Damodar Das, obtained a decree against the appellant Makka, in execution of which certain immovable property was sold. The decree-holders obtained permission to bid at the sale, and eventually became purchasers.="" property="" knocked="" down="" jointly.="" then="" purchasers="purchasers">2. On appeal to the District Judge, that officer set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and passed an order confirming the sale. In this appeal the only point taken before us is, that no appeal lay to the District Judge. The learned vakil for the appellant first of all contended that the order was purely interlocutory. This, however, he did not seriously press, and we do not think there is anything in it. His second and third contentions were, that the order was not appealable under Section 588, nor was it appealable under Section 244. Now the facts show that an applic...
Paras Ram Vs. Gardner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All355
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. We are asked by the reference whether the application of the 25th March 1875, has been brought within the period allowed by Article 167, Schedule 2, Act IX of 1871. It was suggested that Article 167 does not apply to such a case, and no doubt it does not come so literally and precisely within the limits provided by that article. But in my view Article 167 does apply, inasmuch as the application of the 25th March 1875, was not a new or fresh act, but was in legal continuance of the application of June 1871, and in my judgment therefore Article 167 applies constructively, the three years allowed by the article being reckoned from the 10th August 1872, when Paras Ram's rights as against Dabi Das were restored to him.2. That the execution of the decree is not barred clearly appears from the dates and legal character of the procedure. Paras Ram, the appellant, obtained his decree on the 23rd March 1871, and he applied for execution of it by attachment and sale of the h...
Durga Devi Vs. GoshaIn Girdhariji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All119
Spankie, J.1. The Assistant Collector in this case referred a rent suit under Section 93 of Act XVIII of 1873, to arbitration by consent of parties. He determined the suit and made his decree in accordance with the award. In appeal the Judge maintained the decree. It is contended in second appeal that, in the absence of any provision in the rent law permitting reference to arbitration, the Assistant Collector had no authority to act as he did act, and that his decree and the decision of the Judge supporting it are bad.2. It is argued that Section 96 of the Rent Act expressly authorises reference to arbitration by consent of parties on applications made under Section 95 of the Act, but the law is silent as regards arbitration in suits. This is so, and I feel the weight of the argument.3. It might perhaps be answered that Revenue Courts, as defined in Section 3 of Act XIX of 1873, published simultaneously with Act XVIII, have general authority under Section 220 of Act XIX of 1873 (which ...
Queen-empress Vs. Fazl Azim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All36
Knox, Blair and Burkitt, JJ.1. This is an application calling upon us to set aside an order passed by the Sessions Court of Bijnor-Budaun dismissing an, appeal presented by one Fazl Azim who was convicted of offences under Sections 265 and 266 of the Indian Penal Code. The main contention urged upon our notice was that the order of the Sessions Judge was a nullity, it having been passed at Moradabad, a place outside the local limits of the Sessions division known as the, Bijnor-Budaun Sessions Division. It appears from the record that the appeal was presented at Bijnor, and there can therefore be no doubt whatever that the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The question therefore remaining for our decision is whether the order dismissing the appeal was a valid order or a nullity.2. The Sessions division of Bijnor-Budaun was constituted by an order of Government, No. 545, dated the 12th of May 1880. Under that order and under Section 13 of Act No. X of 1872...
Queen-empress Vs. Ghulet and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All44
Duthoit, J.1. This is a case submitted under the provisions of the final clause of Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came before me in single Bench. Being of opinion that sanction to prosecute for the offence of giving false evidence should not be granted unless there be good prima facie ground for considering that a conviction will follow, and that, in this case, unless the charge be drawn in the alternative form provided as No. XXVIII (4) in Schedule V, Act X of 1882, such result is improbable, I had to consider the law regarding an alternative charge of offences made punishable by Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, as laid down for these Provinces in Empress v. Niaz Ali I.L.R. 5 All. 17 at p. 22. The passage to which I refer is the following: 'It is not of itself sufficient to warrant a conviction either for giving false evidence or making a false oath, that an accused person has made one statement on oath at one time, and a directly contradictory one at anothe...
Misri Lal and ors. Vs. Karim Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All295
Oldfield, J.1. This application has been rejected with reference to the provisions of Section 351(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, that the statements in the application were not substantially true. Before, however, rejecting his application, it is necessary that the Court should be satisfied that the applicant has wilfully made false statements: unintentional inaccuracies are not sufficient for rejection.2. His explanation as to the omission of assets which were easily discoverable from the account-books, which were not in his possession when he made his application, may be accepted, and we cannot say that there is any sufficient proof of his concealment of the sum of Rs. 2,702 to which the Judge refers.3. On a consideration of the evidence we find no sufficient reason why the applicant should not be declared an insolvent; and an order for appointing a 'receiver should be made.4. The order of the Judge is set aside, and the case will go back, in order that the Judge may appoint a recei...
Queen-empress Vs. Bharosa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All123
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. Bharosa Bhar has appealed against a conviction for an attempt to commit the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment passed thereon. He has had notice to show cause why he should not be convicted of an offence under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code and why his sentence should not accordingly be enhanced. The case against him is a very clear one. A prostitute, her brother and her servant were sleeping in the verandah of her house, which was made practically a part of her house by chiks or screens which cut it off from the outside. In this in closed verandah where the persons were sleeping there was a box containing six hundred rupees' worth of jewelry and articles of clothing. The prisoner was caught in the act of trying to remove the box. He was charged with the commission of the offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Peinal Code. The Officiating Sessions Judge considered ...
Sana-ullah Vs. Yarbo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All259
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Knox, J.1. This was a suit for an injunction. The plaintiff had been entitled to light and air to the full extent of his window for over twenty years. He carried on the business of a manufacturer of kincob at Benares. The defendant proceeded to build a wall which would have the effect practically of reducing the plaintiff's light to such an extent that he could not carry on his business. The Lower Appellate Court granted an injunction. It is said in appeal here that the Lower Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction because it could have awarded damages; and the decision in Dhunjibhoy Cowasji Umrigar v. Lisboa I.L.R. 13 Bom. 252, and Ghanasham Nilkant Nadkarni v. Moroba Ram Chandra Pai I.L.R. 18 Bom. 474, were relied on. In our opinion the rule of law in such cases was correctly laid down by Sir George Jessel in Aynsley v. Glover L.R. 18 Eq. 544, and by the late Mr. Justice Pearson in Holland v. Worley L.R. 26 Ch. D. 585. In our opinion it was...
Sri Girdhariji Maharaj Vs. Chote Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All248
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This appeal has arisen in a suit brought by the zamindar against the occupiers of a house in the abadi of his village and against one Ghote Lal, who purchased at auotion-sale under a decree against the occupiers such rights as the occupiers had in the house. The occupiers made no defenoe to the suit. Chote Lal only has defended the suit. The plaintiff alleged a special agreement under which the house had been originally built; he also relied upon the wajib-ul-arz. He did not specifically set up in his plaint, or apparently in his argument before our brother AlKMAN in this Court, the real point on which this case must be decided, and that is that, according to the general and well known custom of these Provinces, a custom so well established that it may be treatedas the common law of the Provinces, a person, agriculturist or agricultural tenant, who is allowed by a zamindar to build a house for his occupation in the abadi, obtains, if there is no specia...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »