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.
Bhagwant Singh and anr. Vs. Tej Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All91
Straight, J.1. I am clearly of opinion that this appeal fails. The only plea pressed upon us by the learned Counsel is the first, which invites us to disagree with the view of the learned Judge upon the point of res judicata. Assuming, though without conceding it, that Musammafc Tej Kuar would be bound by a decree formerly obtained against her mother, Bal Kuar, in respect of the subject-matter of the present suit, such decree would only be binding in the hands of the person who obtained it, or of persons claiming under a title acquired from him. The plaintiffs-appellants before us are not the assignees of Earn Prasad, the plaintiff in the suit of 1868, who, it may be remarked, was unsuccessful in that litigation, but of Chandan and others, who were arrayed in it as defendants along with Bal Kuar and on the same side. In that proceeding the question whether the family was joint or divided was not determined among the defendants inter se, but simply as against the plaintiff; and it could...
Narpat and ors. Vs. Chhiddu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All62
Oldfield, J.1. In this case it is admitted that the defendant has the rights of an occupancy cultivator in this land, and the plaintiff is a lessee from him. The suit is a suit to recover possession of the land under the lease from which the defendant has ejected the plaintiff. The only question before us is, whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. In my opinion the finding of the lower Court on this question is wrong. The suit is exclusively cognizable by the Revenue Courts. The lower Court is wrong in holding that when both the parties are cultivators the suit is cognizable by the Civil Courts, because there is no relation in that case of landholder and tenant as contemplated by the Bent Act. This is not so; the matter in suit is a matter on which an application of the nature mentioned in Section 95(n)--'application for recovery of the occupancy of any land of which a tenant has been wrongfully dispossessed'--might be made. The rulings cited by the learned pl...
Muhammad Abid and anr. Vs. Muhammad Asghar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All64
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Oldfield, J.1. This is a case coming under, Section 523 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff applied in writing to the Court of the Judge of Jaunpur to file an agreement entered into by him and the defendant to refer certain matters to arbitration. The agreement is dated the 27th August 1879, and the application was presented on the 17th August 1883.3. This application was numbered and registered as a suit, as required by the section; and notice was given to the parties to show cause why the agreement should not be filed. The defendant filed some objections, which were disallowed; and the Court made an order of reference, as required by the section, to the two arbitrators named in the agreement.4. By this agreement only two arbitrators were named, and no provision was made for difference of opinion, by appointing an umpire, or otherwise, It appears that one of the arbitrators applied to the Court to appoint an umpire, as the arbitrators could not agr...
Queen-empress Vs. Imdad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All120
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The accused Imdad Khan has been convicted upon two charges, framed under Section 409 of the Penal Code, of criminal breach of trust, and upon three charges framed under Section 50 of the Post Office Act (XIV of 1866). The accusation against him under the last-mentioned section is, in substance, one of falsifying documents with the object of concealing or assisting towards the criminal breach of trust to which the other charges relate. So that, as the Sessions Judge has held, the charges all stand or fall together; and if the accused be found guilty under any one of them, he must also be found guilty under the others, though it is not necessary that there should be a separate sentence in respect of each. These being the matters charged, it is necessary, in the first place, to see what are the facts which are admitted, or, if not admitted, which have been established by the prosecution, and whether they constitute any offence; next, to ascertain what offence, if...
SheonaraIn Vs. Paigi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All78
Straight, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, Sheonarain, a sunar by caste, against Musammat Paigi, his wife, and Musammat Sarasuti, his mother-in-law, for restitution of conjugal rights.2. His allegations are, that he was married to the defendant Musammat Paigi eight years ago; that she now refuses to cohabit with him, and that she is kept from doing so by the second defendant, her mother.3. The defendants pleaded two matters in reply. In the first place, it was pleaded that, under an agreement of the 1st June 1876, the plaintiff had, prior to his marriage to the defendant No. 1, undertaken to live in the house of his mother-in-law, defendant No. 2, with his wife after marriage; that defendant No. 1 was married to him on that condition; that he has left the house and refuses to live in it, and is therefore not entitled to enforce his marital rights, and that the defendant No. 1 can consequently withdraw herself from him. In the second place, it was pleaded that the plaintiff...
Bholai and anr. Vs. Kali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All70
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I am of opinion that this suit is not maintainable. The facts, as alleged by the plaintiffs-appellants themselves, are, that the female defendant is the widow of a Hindu who was a member of an undivided Hindu family, and that they (the plaintiffs) represent the other members of that family. They allege that, after the death of their brother, they allowed the widow's name to be recorded in his place, in respect of his rights and interests in the property in dispute, out of compliment to her, and that subsequently, although she was not entitled to any interest in the property itself, but only to receive maintenance from them, she was allowed to receive the profits in lieu of the maintenance. They further state that, under this arrangement, she obtained and still continues in possession, and that she executed a deed mortgaging the property to the other defendant. They bring this suit to obtain a declaration that the mortgage was an illegal transaction. It is a su...
Shambhu Nath and ors. Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All86
Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.1. Kunj Behari and Musammat Tejo mortgaged the property in suit by a registered deed, dated 29th May 1869, to the plaintiff. Under the deed the plaintiff had a right to immediate possession: by arrangement, however, between the mortgagors and mortgagee, the former remained in possession. The right, however, of the plaintiff to obtain possession as against the mortgagors was kept alive. The mortgagors, however, on the 7th October 1869, sold the mortgaged property in suit to one Bansidhar. One Raghobar brought a suit in respect of the sale to enforce pre-emption and obtained a decree in his favour and got the property; and he made a sale of it on the 20th April 1871, to the defendant in this suit.2. The plaintiff-mortgagee has now brought this suit against the defendant to obtain possession under his mortgage. The suit was instituted on the 17th March 1983. His claim has been decreed, and the material question in appeal is, whether the defendant can successfull...
Queen-empress Vs. Ishri Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All672
John Edge, C.J.1. In this case I am of opinion that on the evidence of Musammat Durga and that contained in the deposition of Musammat Chittan taken before the Magistrate, there can be no doubt that one Ishri Singh took part in the murder of Fakir Ghand, deceased. I have also no doubt on the evidence that the Ishri Singh who took part in the murder of Fakir Chand is the prisoner who has now been convicted.2. Besides Musammat Durga, Lal Singh, who says he knew him for 20 years, Sita Ram, Ahir, who knew him for 12 or 13 years, Ganga, Brahman, who says he taught him fencing--all speak to his identity. This is enough to say in reference to the appeal of the prisoner, which is dismissed and the conviction affirmed. As regards the sentence, considering the time that has elapsed, I think the ends of justice will be sufficiently met by reducing the sentence to one of transportation for life.3. I have a few words to add regarding the proceedings and the evidence admitted in the case. It is said...
Surta and ors. Vs. Ganga and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All875
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. For the reasons stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Mahmood, I am of opinion that this application must be allowed with costs.Straight, Brodhurst, and Tyrrell, JJ.2. Concurred....
Data Ram and anr. Vs. Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All82
Straight, J.1. I must deal with this preliminary objection first, and upon it I have only this much to say, that it seems to me that the order with which the Judge closes his judgment must be treated and regarded as one disposing of the suit and the appeal before him. It must, I think, be held to have put an end to the decree which had been passed in the defendants' favour by the Munsif, and it was therefore such an adjudication as must be regarded in the light of a decree. In this view of the matter, it affords a proper ground for a second appeal to this Court.2. The next question to consider is the first point taken by the appellant. Had the Judge, sitting as a Court of appeal, power to make the order he did, with reference to the provisions of Section 373 of the Civil Procedure Code? Now, by Section 582 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is provided that a Court of appeal shall have in appeals the same powers, and shall perform, as nearly as may be, the same duties, as are conferred an...