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.
ChaIn Sukh Vs. Dhanak Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All61
Brodhurst and Tyreell, J.1. The burden of proof has been wrongly laid by the Appellate Court on the lambardar in this case. When a co-sharer claims a dividend on the full rental, and the lambardar pleads in reply that the actual collection fell short of that rental, it is incumbent on the co-sharer to show that the deficient collection was attributable to the conduct of the lambardar in the sense of Section 209 of the Rent Act, before he can succeed in getting a decree for a sum in excess of the actual collections. The Court below has ruled erroneously to the contrary effect; and we must modify his decree to this extent.2. The appeal is allowed, with costs in proportion to the amount by which the decree will be thus reduced....
Queen-empress Vs. Kharga and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All665
John Edge, C.J.1. The appellants here have been convicted under Sections 304 and 301/109 of the Indian Penal Code, and they have also been convicted of an offence under Section 323 of the same Code. They were committed to the Sessions Court--Kharga and Kuar Sen under Section 304 and Nanhua under Sections 304/109 but at the trial the Judge added the charge under Section 323, in respect of an assault upon a man called Chiddu. This assault took place at the same time a or at any rate immediately after, the attack which resulted in the death of Jaisukh. It was objected, both here and in the Sessions Court, that the Sessions Judge had no power to add the charge under Section 323; and it is further argued that even if he had such power, he had no power to try such a charge. The, first objection is met by the Government Pleader by referring to Section 226, Criminal Procedure Code, under which section he argues the Sessions Judge would be empowered to add such a charge. I very much doubt wheth...
The Land Mortgage Bank of India Vs. Moti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All69
Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.1. The claim is by a zamindar to have his right declared to build a house on some waste land in the mauza. Defendants are tenants in the mauza, and assert that they have built wells and watercourses on this land, and have a right also to use it as a threshing-floor and for stacking cow-dung. On these grounds they resist the claim.2. The Court below admits that the defendants have no proprietary right in this land, but has dismissed the claim on the ground that they have acquired a right to use it for the purposes claimed.3. But if they have acquired no right adverse to the plaintiff as owners, by prescription, or otherwise, in the land, their right of use can only be as licensees of the plaintiff; and, on the facts found in this case, it can be revoked by the plaintiff, except in respect of the wells, which are works of a permanent character, and on which the defendants have incurred expenses.2. The principle of Sections 60[1] and 611[2] of the Easements Act ...
Gobind Prasad Vs. Raghunath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All76
Brodhurst and Tyreell, JJ.1. This is a suit brought by an adult son against his father and the trustee of an idol, on whom the father conferred a house and some moveable effects by a deed executed on the 6th May 1881.2. It is conceded that the father and the son are joint owners of a considerable ancestral estate. It is also unquestionable that the shares of the parties in case of a partition between them would be half and half each. On the 8th April 1884, the son brought this suit to cancel the deed of transfer, on the single ground that, under the Hindu law, his father was incompetent to make any disposal whatever of the ancestral estate without his, the son's, consent.3. The first Court tried this issue and decided it in favour of the father, dismissing the claim of the plaintiff. The latter pleaded in appeal before the District Judge the absolute inability of his father to deal with the property as he had done, the absence of any legitimate necessity for the alienation in question,...
Gopal Dai Vs. Chunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All67
Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.1. We are of opinion that Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to this case.2. The plaintiff and defendant held decrees against Babu Bishambhar Nath, and took out execution of them, and the judgment-debtor's estate, mauza Barara, was attached, but no sale took place. The judgment-debtor paid into Court the sum of Rs. 1,200 on account of the plaintiff's decree, and the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to this sum, or it was rateably divisible among the decree-holders.3. We think that this sum cannot be held to be assets realized by sale, or otherwise, in execution of a decree, so as to be rateably divisible under Section 295. It cannot be said that there was a realization from the property of the judgment-debtor, and so the payment does not come within the meaning of Section 295. The payment would not release the property from attachment, or stop sale in execution of the defendant's decree.4. We concur in the view of the law take...
Queen-empress Vs. Girdhari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All653
John Edge, C.J.1. The prisoner in this case has bean convicted of offences M described in two sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, Section 465 and Section 218. Against these convictions he has preferred this appeal, and in order to deal with the same, it will be convenient if I deal first with the conviction, under Section 465 for forgery. It appears to me that the offence, if committed, comes under the third clause of Section 464 of the Penal Code. It is clear that an offence under Section 464 cannot be made out unless the act was dishonestly or fraudulently done; and in order to see how these words are to be construed, it is necessary to refer to Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 24 defines the word 'dishonestly' as follows: 'Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain-to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly.' Section 25 in like manner defines 'fraudulently' thus: 'A person is said to do a th...
In Re: Rajah of Kantit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All668
John Edge, C.J.1. I am of opinion that this application must be dismissed. I am not satisfied that the Sessions Judge did not act within his powers in passing the order he did. Under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a Magistrate is not entitled to require an accused to satisfy him, the Magistrate, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the evidence of a witness, whom the accused desires to be summoned and be included in the list, is material, unless the Magistrates think that such witness 'is included in the list for the purpose of vexation or delay, or of defeating the ends of justice.' When a Magistrate does refuse under this section to summon a witness included in the list of the accused, he must record his reasons for such refusal, and such reasons must show that the evidence of such witness is not material. The only ground stated by the Magistrate for refusing to summon the witness appears, from the uncertified copy of the Magistrate's order before me, to ...
Nivath Singh Vs. Bhikki Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All649
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question raised by this reference is, whether this Court is at liberty, in second appeal, to look into the evidence in the cause for the purpose of ascertaining whether the lower Courts have found the facts correctly.2. I am of opinion that the question must be answered in the negative. I am aware that this opinion differs from many rulings of the High Courts in India, and from that of my brother Judges, but as I think the words of the statute are clear, and that if they are liable to create injustice, the remedy should be applied by the Legislature, I feel it to be my duty to disagree with the many authorities which I have mentioned. Section 585 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that no second appeal shall lie except on the grounds mentioned in Section 584, so that the question resolves itself into one of the construction of that section, and of that section alone. There are only three grounds of appeal mentioned in it, and it will be as well to examin...
Gopal Vs. Basdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All644
Oldfield and Tyreell, JJ.1. The plaintiff claims certain immoveable property by right of succession to one Bhagirath, on the death of the latter's widow, Musammat Rajo. The defendant Basdeo attached the property as ' belonging to his judgment-debtor, Chatarbhuj, defendant, and the plaintiff's objection was disallowed by the Court executing the decree, under Section 281 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff has brought his suit to set aside the order, remove the attachment, and obtain possession. The defendant set up a title based on the adoption of Chatarbhuj by Musammat Rajo.2. The question before us is whether the suit is barred by limitation.3. The suit has been brought within one year of the order of the Court under Section 281 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is not barred with reference to Article 11 of the Limitation Act, but the Court of First Instance held that it was barred by Article 118, treating it as a suit to obtain a declaration that an alleged adoption is invalid ...
Queen-empress Vs. Yusuf Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All677
Straight, J.1. Assuming the rule, in advertence to which the conviction of the petitioner was had, to have been legally made under Section 12 of Act VI of 1868, which is far from clear, and that it was saved by Act XV of 1873; it would, as declared in Section 71 of Act XV of 1883, continue in force until repealed by new rules made under such last-mentioned Act, and be deemed to have been made under that Act. Its operation was therefore, in my opinion, subject to the provisions of Act XV of 1883; and among them, to that contained in Section 69, which made it a condition precedent to the institution of a prosecution against the petitioner, that there should be a complaint of the Municipal Board or of some person authorized by the Board in that behalf. It is not pretended or suggested that the Magistrate of the District acted other than entirely of his own motion and authority in causing proceedings to be taken against the petitioner, which he had no right to do; and, for aught that appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- Next ›
- Last »