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.
Nathu Mal Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All43
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree, ordering the sale of certain immoveable property, had been transferred to the Collector, who, in accordance with the direction, sold. The purchaser alleges that it was after such sale he discovered that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold by the Collector. Thereupon he applied to the Judge to set aside the sale under, I presume, Section 313, Civil Procedure Code.2. The learned Judge was of opinion that, inasmuch as the sale had been transferred to the Collector, he had no jurisdiction in the matter, and declined to entertain the application, from which order an appeal has been preferred before us. The only question before us is, had the Judge jurisdiction to entertain the application made to him? It is contended by Pandit Sundar Lal that when once execution of a decree has been transferred to the Collector, the Civil Courts thenceforth become divested of all jurisdiction, and the only thing they can do is to se...
Queen-empress Vs. Ishri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All67
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blair, J.1. A Deputy Magistrate convicted Ishri and others of the offences punishable under Sections 225B and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and for the offence under Section 225B he sentenced the accused to three months' rigorous imprisonment, and further he sentenced them to four months' rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 342. They appealed. The appeal was heard by the District Magistrate of Agra. He maintained the convictions, but altered the sentences. He sentenced them to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ten rupees, or, in default, 6 weeks, rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 225 B, and to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ten rupees, or, in default, 6 weeks' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 342. He also ordered the accused to enter into their personal recognizances in Rs. 100 with two sureties in Rs. 50 each to keep the peace for one year, or, in default, to unde...
Sita Ram Vs. Nauni Dulaiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All230
Blair and Burkitt, JJ.1. The suit in which this second appeal has been instituted was transferred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the District Judge of Jhansi from the Court of the Subordinate Judge fur trial before himself. After trial the District Judge came to the conclusion that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, and he therefore dismissed the suit. On appeal to the High Court the decision of the Judge was reversed. It was held that the plaint did disclose a cause of action, and the case was remanded to the District Judge under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be heard on the merits.2. The District Judge, however, instead of trying the case himself on the remand, thought fit, for some reason unknown to us, to disregard the orders of this Court, and sent the case for trial to the Subordinate Judge. Subsequently the District Judge heard the case on appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the suit.3. On seco...
Sham NaraIn and anr. Vs. Sahai Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All142
Oldfield, J.1. The facts found are these: The owner of the property in suit, a four-anna share in a certain mauza, mortgaged it to Ramzan in 1272 fasli for Rs. 4,400 and put the mortgagee in possession; a condition of the mortgage being that the mortgagee should enjoy the profits in lieu of interest, and the mortgage should be redeemed on payment of the principal. After this, in the same year, Ramzan sub-mortgaged the same four-anna share to the defendants (appellants) for Rs. 2,351, retaining possession of the share himself. Subsequently in 1276 fasli the owner of the property made a second mortgage of the same share to Ramzan for Rs. 1,600, on the same footing as to interest and enjoyment of rents as the first mortgage, the mortgage being redeemable on payment of the principal due on both mortgages, or a one-anna one-pie share of the estate being redeemable on payment of a proportionate amount of the debt. Ramzan in 1281 fasli sold his interest under this second mortgage to the plain...
Gulab Singh Vs. Natthu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All167
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal has been heard with First Appeal No. 117 of 1893. In First Appeal No. 93 of 1893, the defendant Natthu Singh is the appellant, and in First Appeal No. 117 of 1893, Gulab Singh, plaintiff, is appellant. The suit was for possession of shares in a village which were in the possession of the defendant Natthu Singh at the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff was entitled to the decree which he got in the Court below, if Natthu Singh was not adopted, as alleged by him, by one Tarsi Ram. Tarsi Ram was one of the five sons of Zorawar Singh. Gulab Singh, the plaintiff, was one of those sons. Natthu Singh's case was that Tarsi Ram and Tarsi Ram's then wife, Musammat Lachcho, adopted Natthu Singh about two years before Tarsi Ram died. The plaintiff's case is the utter negation of any such adoption. The adoption is said to have taken place about 1863. In 1876 (Zorawar Singh having died in 1864), Musammat Lachcho, the widow of Tarsi Ram, who had...
Tajammul HusaIn Vs. Nath Mal Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All36
Mahmood, J.1. In the appeal before us, the learned pleader for the appellants has laid the greatest stress on the contention that the suit was not maintainable by the plaintiff, as he was the judgment-debtor of the decrees in execution whereof the property was attached. For this contention, Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code is relied upon, on the ground that the Courts of Revenue, in those matters of procedure on which the Rent Act is silent, have been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Madho Prahash Singh v. Murli Manohar I.L.R. 5 All. 406 to be governed by the principles of the Civil Procedure Code.2. We are, however, of opinion that the suit was maintainable. The plaintiff in this suit is not suing in his own right, but in his capacity as custodian, trustee, or manager of the wakj property, and he must therefore be taken to fill a character separate from that in which the decrees were passed against him by the Revenue Court. Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code does not,...
Empress of India Vs. Ajudhia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All644
Straight, J.1. I must accept the findings of fact. The accused within a very short period of the theft was in possession of the stolen property, and I cannot say the Magistrate was wrong or that the evidence was insufficient in point of law to justify him in convicting. A question has been raised before me on the part of the applicant that his conviction on Sections 380 and 457 of the Penal Code for one and the same offence is illegal, and that he has been improperly sentenced to two distinct and excessive sentences. Although I am not disposed to hold at the present moment that this contention is sound to the full extent urged, yet I think that the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 314, 452, 454 and 455, taken with Section 71 of the Penal Code, as well as convenience of practice, are best consulted by a different course being pursued to that adopted in the present case. It is true that the facts disclosed are consistent both with a charge of 'theft in a dwelling-house' un...
Jagnandan Singh Vs. Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All247
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blair, J.1. The Court of Revenue had no jurisdiction to sell the plaintiff's property. It is true he was a surety; but he was not a surety to whom Section 253 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied, as he became a surety after the passing of the decree. The Court of Revenue in our opinion was without jurisdiction. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
In Re: E. Morgan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All238
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. This is an application presented by one Morgan setting out that Sarah Morgan, to whom alimony had been decreed under the orders of this Court, had married one Sergeant Fox, and that Irene Morgan, for whose maintenance an order had been made, had attained majority on the 16th of April 1895. There was a further allegation that a daughter, Clara, for whose maintenance an order had been made, had married in April 1893. The petitioner prayed for refund of all the moneys paid under the orders of this Court to the three persons, Sarah Morgan, Irene Morgan and Clara Morgan, after the date on which Sarah Morgan had been remarried, Clara Morgan had married and Irene Morgan had attained majority. It was contended on behalf of Irene Morgan that she was still a minor. The authority for this contention was baaed on Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act of 1875. The Indian Divorce Act contains in Section 3, Clause (5), the interpretation which is to be placed on the words 'minor ...
Miller Vs. Phuchand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All340
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that this appeal must be dismissed. The question is, whether a transaction between certain insolvents, or persons who shortly afterwards were adjudicated insolvents, and one of their creditors, is void. The answer to this question depends on what are the proper inferences to be drawn from the facts. The facts are, that on the 12th March the insolvents suspended payment. On the night of the previous day, the 11th March, the creditor, the impending bankruptcy of the insolvents having become known, urged the latter to make over a part of their stock-in-trade as security for the debt, and to this, the insolvents consented. Now, was this a voluntary transfer? because if it were, it is void under Section 24 of 11 and 12 Vic, c. 21. All that appears is that on the 11th March security was demanded from the insolvents. There was no pressure which could not be resisted. There were no legal proceedings against the insolvents existing, nor could they have feared ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »