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.
Ganga Bai Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All170
Robert Stuart, C.J., Turner and Spankie, JJ.1. As we understand the question put to us we must assume for the purpose of this reference that the father-in-law is in possession neither of ancestral nor immoveable property, that he has no fund with the disposal of which his son, if alive, could interfere, that he has inherited nothing from his son, nor have his rights in any property become enlarged by his son's death. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's pleader has failed to satisfy us that her father-in-law is under any legal obligation to provide her with maintenance. No text has been cited from any work of authority in these Provinces which supports the claim, nor has any decision been produced in which it has been ruled by any Court in these Provinces or in this Presidency, or in those parts of the Presidency of Madras which are governed by the Mitakshara, that such a claim has been allowed. The right, then, of the daughter-in-law appears to be one of moral and not of legal o...
Ajudhia Sahu Vs. Autu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All249
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an action to recover the principal, with interest, agreed to be paid under a bond by enforcement of lien. There is no defence to the claim for the principal. The defendant, as to the claim for interest, in effect, alleges that, subsequent to the making of the bond, a jamog was come to, by which the plaintiff agreed to take the rents of certain tenants in satisfaction of the interest, and those tenants agreed to pay those rents to the plaintiff and in consequence of that the defendant agreed to release those tenants from the payment of the rent to him. That I understand to be the meaning of the defendant's pleadings. If that be the state of facts, it will be necessary to consider how far it would affect the plaintiff's claim to recover interest on the bond.2. Now the Court of First Instance found that the jamog was agreed to, and allowed the plaintiff's claim for the principal only. In the Lower Appellate Court it appears, from the judgment of Mr. Steinbel...
Ghasita Vs. Musammat Ganga Jati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All46
Turner, Officiating C.J.1. It appears to me immaterial whether the property in suit was or was not the stridhan of the grandmother. In either case, I am of opinion that the daughter is not deprived, by her unchastity, of her right of succession under the law administered by our Courts.2. The objection to her succession is only based on the general rule embodied in the text of Narada cited in the Mitakshara (ch. ii, Section 10), and again in the Dayakrama Sangraha (ch iii), and in Dayabhaga (ch. v., Section 13), that a person addicted to vice does not inherit. No doubt this rule is cited and treated as well established by the author of the Mitakshara, but for many years it has not been enforced in our Courts.3. I was myself a party to a decision in which it was held that want of chastity in a mother does not defeat her right of inheritance, and the same rule which, it is contended, deprives a daughter of a right of succession, would also operate to deprive the mother of succession.Pears...
Fada HusaIn and anr. Vs. Kutub Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All38
Mahmood, J.1. It is clear to us that the question in this case is not what might have been sold, but what was actually sold. And upon this question there can be no doubt. There is nothing to show (and indeed it is not seriously maintained) that the Kachar mahal was ever actually attached or advertized for sale, and the only explanation given is that it was under water at the time. The explanation, however, far from supporting the defence, strengthens the plaintiff's case. The two mahals were made into separate properties in 1875, and it is admitted that during the sale-proceedings, in describing the shares to be sold, the revenue assessed on the Uparwar mahal only was mentioned. Such is the case in the sale-certificate itself, which is the basis of the defendant's title. Yet the Courts below have allowed the defendant more than his title-deed includes, apparently on the ground that although the two mahals were separate properties, yet the ownership of the Kachar depended upon the owner...
Naurangi Kunwar Vs. Raghubansi Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All231
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. I agree with the contention of Mr. Juala Prasad that no appeal lies in this case to this Court. The fresh certificate contemplated by Section 6 of Act XXVII of 1860 means a certificate granted to a person other than the person to whom the first certificate was granted. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Oldfield, J.2. I concur....
Queen-empress Vs. Mata Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All249
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for the transfer of certain cases pending in the Court of the District Magistrate of Allahabad to a Court subordinate to him. The cases in question were transferred by the order of this Court from an Assistant Magistrate subordinate to the District Magistrate of Mirzapur to the Court of the District Magistrate of Allahabad without any further direction being given in the order. Personally, I have always understood that, when the High Court made an order of transfer in a criminal case to the Court of a District Magistrate, it gives by that order full power to the Court of the District Magistrate to which the transfer was made to exercise the same jurisdiction precisely as the Magistrate of that Court could have exercised if the case had been instituted in his Court unless the contrary was expressed in the order of this Court. Cases may arise in which it is desirable that the case should be tried by the Magistrate of the District and not by a...
Shiam Lal Vs. Chhaki Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All220
Blair and Burkitt, JJ.1. It is unnecessary for us to set forth the facts of this case, which will be found in the judgment of the Court below. The Lower Appellate Court is wrong in saying that the patwaris' rules in force in 1878 and 1882, issued by the Board of Revenue with the sanction of the Government, had the force of law. In that matter the learned District Judge is clearly mistaken. Under Section 257 of Act XIX of 1873, the only rules which, after publication in the N.W.P. Gazette, acquire the force of law, are the rules mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of that section, and they are rules to be made by the Local Government itself. If the rules as to patwaris be assumed to have been made under Clause (c) of that section, they clearly have not the force of law, and practically would be no more than departmental rules made by the Board of Revenue with the sanction of the Local Government. In this matter, therefore, the Court below was wrong.2. But though, in our opinion, the Court ...
Akbar Khan and ors. Vs. Sheoratan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All373
ORDER1. It has been held by this Court H.C.R. N.W.P. 1870 p. 425, that a Civil Court is not precluded by the terms of Regulation VIII of 1822, Section 9, Clause i, from enquiring into and declaring' a right on the part of the zamindar to cesses and collections, although not avowed and sanctioned, nor taken into account in fixing the Government jama at the time of settlement, notwithstanding that until so avowed and sanctioned they cannot be collected by the zamindar, and there is nothing in the terms of Section 66 of Act XIX of 1873 to a contrary effect. The plaintiff's claim the right and the cess on the old custom, and this question of custom, which has not been distinctly determined, must be tried by the Lower Appellate Court.2. We remand the case for this purpose under Section 354 of Act VIII of 1859, and allow.seven days for filing objections to the finding.3. The Judge's finding on remand having been in favour of the plaintiff's right and confirmatory of the alleged custom, the H...
Hasan Ali and ors. Vs. Mahrban
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All625
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. I generally concur in the view taken in this case by the Subordinate Judge, who, however, appears to have very unnecessarily occupied himself with the consideration of the Evidence Act, and with the remarks of the select committee of the Legislative Council thereon. The suit is brought by the plaintiffs for the establishment of their rights to property on the allegation that the inheritance to them has opened by the disappearance and death, during his father's lifetime, of one Farzand Ali. With respect to this Farzand Ali the facts appear to be these:--He left his home and his family in 1857, the year of the mutiny, at which time he would appear to have been about 30 years old, and therefore, if alive when this suit was instituted, his age would then have been about 51 years. He has not since been heard of, but there is nothing on the record to prove his death. Under these circumstances the first question is what is the law to be applied to the case? The parties a...
Muhammad Allahdad Khan and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ismail Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All289
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. I have had an opportunity of reading and considering and in fact discussing with my brother Straight and my brother Mahmood my brother Straight's judgment, on the status of the plaintiff Allahdad Khan. With that judgment, so far as it deals with the status and rights of inheritance of Allahdad Khan, I concur for the reasons stated by my brother Straight. But I do not agree with him as to the course we should take under the circumstances.2. First of all we must consider Section 562 of the Civil Procedure Code. It appears to me that Section 562 applies not only to a case in which the Judge of the Court of First Instance has expressly excluded evidence, but that also it applies to a case in which the parties may have been or were by the act of the Judge misled as to the issues or the evidence necessary in the case. I think it would apply to a case in which it was apparent that a Judge intended only to consider one issue, such as the status of the plaintiff as an hei...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »