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.
Prosonno Mai Debi Vs. Mansa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All35
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. I am of opinion that this case must be remanded to the Court of First Instance, to be tried and disposed of according to law. I think the lower Court has taken an incorrect view of the effect and scope of Section 93 of the Bent Act. This suit was not one for ejectment; it was a suit brought by a landlord who, so far as appears, was not asking for the ejectment of his tenant, but was seeking to compel him to remove trees which, we must assume for the purposes of the present case, the plaintiff was in a position to show had been planted upon land contrary to custom or the terms of the tenure. Now, with all due deference to the opinion of the Judges who decided the case of Deodat Tewari v. Gopi Misr, Weekly Notes, 1882, p. 102, I have much doubt whether in that case I should have come to the same conclusion. It might possibly be said that this was a suit to prohibit an act or breach mentioned in Clause (cc) of Section 93 of the Bent Act. The suit, however, is one to...
The Empress of India Vs. Rameshar Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All379
Spankie, J.1. It is admitted that the pins were stolen property. It was brought home to the prisoner, Rameshar Rai, that he had voluntarily assisted in concealing, or disposing of or making away with this property which he knew, or had reason to believe, to be stolen property, and he was punished for this offence. He also is found to have concealed the property in the field of one Sedari, an enemy of his own, with a view that it might be found in his (Sedan's) house and field, and that he might be apprehended and charged with the theft. There is also a strong presumption that he instigated one Bhagi to conceal pins in Sedan's house. It is argued that if the disposal of the property was committed with the object of placing it, or causing to be placed, in Sedan's field to bring him into trouble, one offence only and not two distinct offences were committed. But I cannot accept this view of the case. It may be that the Magistrate was of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to sh...
Sheoraj Singh Vs. Gauri Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All227
Knox and Banerji, JJ.1. Raja Sheoraj Singh, the appellant before us, is a judgment-debtor of the respondents. The respondents hold a decree against him, dated the 5th March 1885, for sale under a mortgage deed. Before the decree had been passed Raja Sheoraj Singh had applied, under the provisions of Chapter XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be declared an insolvent. With his application he filed a list of his creditors. The list was subsequently amended by him, and in the amended list under the head No. 8 Har Sahai,. father of the respondent, was entered as a creditor holding a decree dated the 5th March 1885, arising out of a mortgage bond in favour of Har Sahai, which bore date the 5th March 1879. The judgment-debtor was eventually declared an insolvent by the order of this Court dated the 16th July 1886. Upon this the creditors mentioned in the application were called upon to produce evidence as to the amount and particulars of their respective pecuniary claims, and the record p...
Dalip Rai Vs. Deoki Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All204
Arthur Strachey, C.J. and Knox, J.1. The question raised by this appeal is whether the failure of a tenant to apply under Section 95(w) of the North-Western Provinces Rent Act, 1981, for the recovery of the occupancy of land, of which he has been wrongfully dispossessed, within the period of six months after the date of the dispossession prescribed for such applications by Section 96(e) has the effect of extinguishing his title or only of barring his remedy. The facts as found by the Lower Appellate Court are these. The plaintiffs are zamindars, and the land in suit forms part of their sir. Previous to the year 1832 the defendant was in possession of the land as the plaintiff's tenant-at-will. In that year the plaintiffs, without taking any of the steps necessary under the Rent Act for the defendant's ejectment, wrongfully dispossessed him of the occupancy of the land and assumed the cultivation of it by a shikmi tenant whom they put in possession and whose name was entered in the sett...
Queen-empress Vs. Ajudhia Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All350
Mahmood, J.1. This is an application which invokes the interference of this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, on behalf of the petitioners, in respect of whom permission was given by the learned Sessions Judge to the opposite party for prosecuting the petitioners under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners produced in a former litigation a document which has been held by both the lower Courts to be a forgery, and that litigation came to an end on the 24th June 1886, by a decision of this Court which was adverse to the interests of the present petitioners. Then, on the 6th November 1886, the present application was made for a sanction to prosecute, such as is contemplated by Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the Munsif declined to give permission. The learned Sessions Judge, in the exercise of the powers of a Court of appeal, has, however, granted the sanction prayed for, and in disputing the propriety of this order, Mr. Niblett has rel...
Bhikham Das Vs. Pura and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All141
Pearson, J.1. The decisions to which the lower Courts have referred do not rule that an ancestral house cannot be sold in execution of a decree, if the judgment-debtor's widow be residing in it. They relate to the question not at present raised in this case, as to whether the widow could be ousted by the auction-purchaser. In the present case the house was hypothecated before the rights of the respondents arising out of the demise of Lachmi Narain had accrued. We accept and decree the appeal with costs, and in modification of the decree of the lower Courts decree that portion of the claim which was dismissed by them....
Queen-empress Vs. Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All166
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Farakhabad dismissing the appeal of the applicants from a conviction under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The fighbing appears to have taken place on a chabutra, which from the evidence in the Court below appears to have been private property adjoining a public thoroughfare. We infer from the evidence that that chabutra was neither a place to which the public had a right of access, nor a place to which the public were used to have access, nor was it a place to which the public were ever permitted to have access, though it adjoined a public road. We must look to Section 159 of the Indian Penal Code to see what are the ingredients of the offence of an 'affray.' Section 159 runs as follows:3. 'When two or more persons by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an 'affray.' It will be observed that this section does not make fighting...
Lachho Vs. Maya Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All631
Oldfield, J.1. The property in this suit, comprising the share in Mouza Tholai belonging to Mahummad Ibrahim Khan, was sold by him to the defendants under a deed of sale dated 1st March 1878, and the plaintiff claims the same by right of pre-emption under the wajib-ul-arz. The lower Court decreed the claim, and one of the objections taken in appeal is that, under the pre-emption clause in the administration-paper on which the plaintiff relies as her ground of action, she is not entitled to recover the property. The clause is as follows:-- 'Each sharer is by all means at liberty to transfer his right and share, but first of all the transfer should be effected by him in favour of his own brothers and nephews who may be sharers, and in case of their refusal in favour of the other owners of the thoke: if they refuse to make the purchase, the transfer may be effected in favour of any one.' The plaintiff does not come under the first description of persons named who have a right of preemptio...
Empress of India Vs. Ram AdhIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All139
Pearson, J.1. To day it is brought to my notice that the learned Judges Norman and Seton-Karr in the case of the Queen v. Kallachand 7 W.R. Cr. 60, disposed of by them on the 29th April 1867, held rioting armed with deadly weapons to be a distinct offence from stabbing a person on whose premises the riot took place, and each to be separately punishable. It appears that in the case of Queen v. Hargobind H.C.R. N.W.P. 1871, p. 174, decided by this Court on 7th July 1871, Mr. Justice Turner held that persons found guilty of rioting may, if the circumstances warrant it, be convicted of the several offences of rioting armed with deadly weapons, culpable homicide, and grievous hurt. The learned Judge referred to the case of Rabi-ulla mentioned above, and expressed his dissent from the ruling therein, and observed that a different view of the law had heretofore obtained in this Court. It further appears that the learned Judges of the Calcutta Court who disposed of Rabi-ulla's case ruled in a ...
R. Wall and anr. Vs. J.E. Howard and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All215
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. This is a first appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Allahabad. In the memorandum of appeal it is stated that the appeal is brought from an order dated the 30th of April 1894 and the 19th of May 1894. A memorandum of appeal can only deal with one particular order, but, as will be seen hereafter, part of the contention of the appellants is that the learned Judge gave an order of the 30th of April 1894 and completed that order on the 19th of May 1894. The proceeding before the Judge out of which the order appealed against arose consisted of an application praying the Judge to grant in inquiry under Section 163 and Section 214 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882. Both the orders mentioned in the memorandum of appeal were as a fact passed upon the proceeding which arose out of that application. On the 30th of April, the Judge dismissed the application so far as any inquiry under Section 214 of the Act was concerned. On the 19th of May he dismissed the ap...