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.
Jiwan Singh and ors. Vs. Ratan Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All194
Robert Stuart, C.J. and Oldfield, J.1. On the first ground of appeal we are of opinion that there is not such a clear adverse possession by the defendants, appellants, for 12 years, as will bar this claim.2. Though the defendants assert their purchase to have been made in 1842, yet there is no very clear evidence of their possession under it till Tej Singh's death, for up to that time he continued to be recorded in the revenue records as proprietor, and there is no evidence of any acts of proprietorship on the part of defendants betokening possession. They have produced some dakhilas, or receipts for revenue, in their names for 1841, but these are prior to the alleged sale, and made by them as lessees, and there is no other material evidence, except some entries in certain papers, one copy of a khewat of 1268 Fasli or 1856 (No. 103 exhibit), where it is entered that Kirat Singh is in possession as purchaser, and similar entries in certain nikasis: these may be of use to support the sal...
Queen-empress Vs. Shere Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All362
Straight, J.1. Without in the least degree expressing any opinion upon the views enunciated by the District Magistrate in his referring letter with regard to the case of Shere Singh, I have, after consulting the learned Chief Justice on the matter, come to the conclusion that the Registrar should return the reference to the Magistrate, with an intimation that this Court is of opinion that the method he has adopted of calling the attention of the Court to the case is an inconvenient one, which, if it received sanction, might lead to difficulties and complications, and possible friction between District Magistrates and Judges. I think the practice to be followed in these matters should be for the Magistrate, if he considers there has been a miscarriage of justice, to communicate with the Public Prosecutor as to the case in which he thinks it has occurred, and to invite his assistance to move the Court with regard to it. This course will secure the twofold advantage (i) of enabling the Ma...
ishri Prasad Singh Vs. Lalli Jas Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All294
Arthur Strachey, C.J. and Banerji, J. 1. The plaintiff in this case claiming to be the nearest reversioner to the estate of Thakur Chaturbhuj Singh, deceased, sues for declaratory relief in respect of certain acts done by Thakurain Mahtab Kunwar, widow of Chaturbhuj, by Lalli Jas Kunwar, his daughter, and by the second defendant Thakur Umrao Singh. The acts complained of are:(1) a transfer made about the year 1850 by the widow Mahtab Kunwar of two villages belonging to the Kotla estate left by Chaturbhuj, namely, Ajaibpur Rakhauli and Ahmadpur Madha, in favour of her daughter, the defendant Lalli Jas Kunwar;(2) a transfer made by Lalli Jas Kunwar on the 18th February 1876, during the lifetime of Mahtab Kunwar, of the same two villages, in favour of Mohinder Kunwar, the deceased wife of the second defendant, who is in possession of them by inheritance from her;(3) an entry obtained by Lalli Jas Kunwar after Mahtab Kunwar's death in April 1889, of her name in the revenue records in respe...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Durjan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All639
Spankie, J.1. The first condition of the deed was that the money borrowed should be repaid with interest at the rate of Re. 1-12-0 per cent. per mensem on Katik Sudi Puran Mashi, Sambat 1930. The next condition is that for the further satisfaction of the creditor the debtor hypothecates certain property until repayment of the loan, promising not to alienate the same in any form or shape. The third condition is that the debtor will pay interest every six months, and if he fails to do so, he will pay compound interest in future. Then comes the fourth condition that if he fails to pay the loan with interest at the stipulated time, the creditor shall be at liberty to realise the money from the debtor personally and from his property in the best way he can. The case appears to me to be very similar to that of Baldeo Pandey v. Gokal I.L.R. 1 All. 603 to which I was a party. If the debtor was unable to repay the money at the stipulated time, the creditor would allow it to remain out with the ...
Jaikaran Bharti Vs. Raghunath Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR20All254
Blair, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. His suit has been dismissed by the Court of First Instance and also by the Lower Appellate Court. The suit was brought to set aside an auction-sale which had taken place in execution of a decree in a suit for sale. The point raised in appeal is that the Courts below were wrong in holding that Sections 244 and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure bar the suit.2. In the course of the proceedings in execution the parties agreed to refer their differences to arbitration and to abide by the award which should be made. Such an award was made, but it was not certified to the executing Court, as required by Section 258 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution was proceeded with in spite of objection taken, and the property was sold and bought in by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor in that suit is the plaintiff and appellant here.3. An argument has been addressed to us on behalf of the appellant based upon the amendment of Section 258 of ...
Queen Vs. Gur Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All193
Pearson, J.1. Section 471 of the Code does not expressly prohibit the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in this case, and unless it does so, it is not contended that be was not competent to adopt it. What that section does is only to authorize any Court, Civil or Criminal, which is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for inquiring into any charge such as one under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, after making necessary preliminary inquiry, either to commit the case itself, or to send the ease for inquiry to any Magistrate having power to try or commit for trial the accused person for the offence charged. This provision is very necessary for a Court not having power to try the offence itself, as for instance a Civil Court, but does not necessarily deprive a Magistrate of any power which he may possess to try the case himself. I therefore decline to interfere in the present case and reject this petition....
Saiyyid Altaf Ali Vs. Wazir Jan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All357
Straight, J.1. The suit to which this appeal relates was brought by the plaintiff-respondent to avoid an instrument, dated the 24th November 1884, which purported to have been executed by his brother, one Saiyyid Imdad Ali, C. S. I., in favour of the defendant, Musammat Wazir Jan, his then wife and now widow.2. By the plaint the plaintiff alleged that, with the view of depriving him of his right of inheritance under the Muhammadan law as residuary of the estate of his deceased brother, the defendant, Musammat Wazir Jan alias Mukhtar Begam, had caused this instrument 'to be illegally executed by Saiyyid Imdad Ali, deceased, without his wish and consent, when the deceased was in agony and not in his senses, and suffering from a mortal disease.'2. The question in broad terms before the Subordinate Judge was whether the instrument, in fact and in law, was a good instrument so as to bind the heirs of Imdad Ali, and such as to obstruct the right which the plaintiff otherwise would have had t...
Kalian Rai Vs. Ram Chandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All128
Burkitt and Chamier, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant Kalian Kai against the respondent Ram Chandar for possession of the immovable property of one Kai Singh, deceased.2. The following genealogical table shows the relationship of the parties to the deceased: Mukh Lal. | __________________________________________ | | Ram Sahai. Bansi Lal. |_______________ | | Kalian Rai plaintiff. | ________________________________________________ | | Hardyan Singh. Rai Singh |______________________ | Janki Das. | Ram Chandar, defendant.3. The parties are admittedly governed by the Hindu law of the Mitakshara school. The question which we have to decide is which of the parties (who are both equally near in degree to the propositus) has a preferential right to succeed--the plaintiff as the uncle's son of the deceased, or the defendant as the brother's grandson of the deceased.4. The Munsif decided in favour of the plaintiff; but on appeal his decree was reversed by the Off...
In Re: Harshankar Parshad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All178
1. Proceedings in execution of decree would not, in our opinion, ordinarily fall within the term 'miscellaneous proceedings.' They should he regarded rather as stages in the suit or proceeding in which the decree or order under execution was passed; whereas by miscellaneous proceedings we should understand ordinarily those applications commenced by petition, and not by plaint, of a less formal character than suits, and generally if not universally calling on the Court to exercise special powers conferred on it by the Legislature, such as applications for certificates to collect debts, applications for probate or letters of administration, applications for appointment of guardians, etc.; and possibly also the term miscellaneous proceedings may also be applied with propriety to those proceedings which the Court is empowered to institute of its own motion, such as proceedings for the institution of prosecutions in certain cases.2. But unless we hold that the term miscellaneous proceedings...
Lachman Das Vs. Parshotam Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All252
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. In this ease the defendant No. 1 executed three different hundis on the same date, in favour of the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who constituted a firm. They were all payable at the same time. The first hundi was for Rs. 1, 133-7, and the second and third were for Rs. 1, 054-5 respectively. These three hundis were assigned by the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the Plaintiff, and not having been paid on maturity, the Plaintiff brought this action upon them.2. The defendant No. 1, who is appealing here, has paid court-fees calculated upon the total amount of the three hundis. The question is whether the amount of the court-fees as calculated is sufficient, or whether the defendant No. 1 is not bound, under Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, to pay a court-fee based on the amount of each of the hundis separately.3. Now it is argued that these three hundis only-make one cause of action. That I cannot understand. It is admitted that the Plaintiff might bring three separa...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »