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.
Queen-empress Vs. Chotu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All52
Straight, J.1. This is an application by one Chotu for revision of an order of the Judge of Saharanpur of the 27th July last, summarily dismissing an appeal by the applicant from his conviction by the Joint Magistrate of the same place, dated the 7th July, under Section 414 of the Penal Code. The following are the facts material to the question of law raised on behalf of the applicant: On the 16th February last he was brought; before Pandit Hargian Singh, Deputy Magistrate, charged, under Section 411 of the Penal Code, with being in dishonest possession of certain stolen jewellery. Some eleven witnesses, including one Samnai, were examined in support of the case, but in the result the Deputy Magistrate discharged the accused under Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for reasons which were fully recorded by him in his decision. He, however, put the witness Samai upon his trial for an' offence in regard to the same property, and, after taking evidence for the prosecution and defe...
Bijai Bahadur Singh Vs. Bhup Indar Bahadurr Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All296
Knox, and Burkitt, JJ.1. In this case the appellant decree-holder obtained by order of Her Majesty in Council a decree for possession of certain immovable property, possession of which he has obtained.2. The order of Her Majesty in Council reversed a decree of this Court and affirmed a decree, dated November 12th, 1887, of the District Judge of Mirzapur. That decree, with respect to mesne profits, was in these words: 'The plaintiff is also entitled to future mesne profits.' So, whatever be the meaning of those words, they were wholly affirmed by the order of her Majesty in Council, which, referring to the decree of the District Judge, contains these words;--'That the same be and is hereby affirmed.'3. On proceedings taken under Section 610 of the Code of Civil Procedure the District Judge, referring be Sections 244 and 211 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has held that the decree-holder is entitled under the decree of Her Majesty in Council to recover mesne profits for a period of three...
Bir Gir and ors. Vs. Baldeo Bharthi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All269
Burkitt and Aikman, JJ.1. In this appeal it is frankly admitted for the appellant that he has no case whatever on the merits. The learned advocate who appears for him raises a technical plea founded on the following facts. The plaintiffs aremahants of a religious body who style themselves Niranjani Akhara comprising hundreds of followers and worshippers. The persons originally claiming in the plaint were the mahants or heads of this body. An objection was taken by the defendants in their written statement that the plaintiffs alone could not sue and that it was necessary that all the other members of the akhara should join as plaintiffs. Upon this an application was made by the plaintiffs, purporting to be under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking that, as provided in that section, notices should issue to the various parties who, the defendants alleged, ought to be joined an plaintiffs in the suit, and that permission should be given to the plaintiffs to sue on their behal...
Ram Singh Vs. Kifayat Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All359
Oldfield, J.1. It appears to us that the application of the 20th July 1880 can have no effect as an application made in accordance with law for execution within the meaning of Article 179. It cannot be said to have been made at all, having been put in and afterwards taken back,--in fact, what was done in the matter by the decree-holder had been undone by him, and the proceeding became, to all intents and purposes, the same as though no application had been put in.2. We are unable to concur in the view taken by the learned Judges of the Madras High Court in Ramanadan Chetti v. Periatambi Shervai I.L.R. 6 Mad. 250. A similar case has been brought to notice, decided by the Bombay High Court--Pirjade v. Pirjade I.L.R. 6 Bom. 681. It was there held that the rule in Section 374 of the Civil Procedure Code is made applicable by Section 647 to applications, and that Clause 4, Article 179 of Act XV of 1877 must be read subject to the rules contained in Sections 374 and 647 of the Civil Procedur...
Bholai Khan Vs. Abu Jafar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All267
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The appellant, who is a tenant at fixed rates, erected a building on land held by him for agricultural purposes. Thereupon the plaintiff, one of the zamindars of the village, brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for the demolition of the building, and for the restoration of the land to its former condition. The Court of First Instance was of opinion that the suit was one which came within the purview of Clause (cc) of Section 93 of Act No. XII of 1881, and held that it was not cognizable by the Civil Court. In this view the Munsif ought to have returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court, but instead of doing so he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge and the learned District Judge was asked to apply Section 208 of Act No. XII of 1881 to the case, and to remand it for trial to the Court of First Instance. The learned Judge was of opinion that as the suit had not been tried by the Court of First Instanc...
Sundar Bibi Vs. Bisheshar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All93
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. I am of opinion that this application must be reacted. It is an application for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, and although four grounds were originally put forward in support of it, the first of them only is now before us. This is thus stated: 'Because the requirements of Section 574 of the Civil Procedure Code have not been complied with.' Now Section 574 provides that 'the judgment of the Appellate Court shall state--(a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereupon; (c) the reasons for the decision and (d) when the decree appealed against is reversed or varied the relief to which the appellant is entitled.' In the first place, I cannot conceive that was intended that this section should apply to cases where the High Court having heard the judgment of the Court below and argument upon that judgment, cornel to the conclusion that it is right, and agrees with the reasons which gives It can never have been intended that where both the judgm...
Gaya and ors. Vs. Ram Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All107
Mahmood, J.1. We have no hesitation in holding that the first part of the argument addressed to us on behalf of the appellant is unsound. Beading Section 5 with Article 156, Schedule ii, of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877), there can be no doubt that the period of limitation for preferring an appeal from the decree of the 30th June 1883, did not expire till the 19th November 1883, when this Court re-opened, and the decree cannot before be regarded as having become final before that date. The point before us is governed by the principle laid down by this Court in Shaikh Ewaz v. Mokuna Bibi I.L.R. 1 All. 132 and following that ruling, we disallow the two first grounds of appeal.2. The second question, however, which forms the subject of the remaining grounds of appeal, is a point of some nicety. In the case of Rajjo v. Lalman I.L.R. 5 All. 180 this Court laid down the principle that when a pre-emptor, in anticipation of the success of his pre-emptive claim, transfers the pre-emptional pro...
GhazidIn Vs. Fakir Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All73
Mahmood, J.1. We have not yet entered upon a consideration of the pleas, as a preliminary objection to our entertaining the appeal has been taken by the learned pleader for the respondent. His contention in substance is that the orders of the 4th and 18th March having been passed in advertence to the second paragraph of Section 545 of the Code, and not being orders in execution, but in stay of execution of the decree, were not within Section 244, and not being specially appealable under Section 588 are not appealable at all. And it is further urged by him that an application to stay execution is in terms a prohibition to the applicability of Section 244, and, it is said, how can such an application involve any question 'relating to the execution' of the decree within the meaning of Clause (c) of that section, when its very object is to suspend execution2. We have taken time to consider the contention, which at first sight seemed somewhat plausible, but, on consideration, we think its f...
Muhammad Niamat Ali Khan Vs. Ghaffar Muhammad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All272
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The plaintiff-appellant brought the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, for sale upon a mortgage, dated the 1st of November 1890, made in his favour by the first defendant Ghaffar Muhammad Khan. The second defendant Maulvi Nazir Hasan purchased a part of the mortgaged property, which he sold to the third defendant, his wife. The other defendants are purchasers of different other portions of the mortgaged property. The third defendant opposed the claim, among other grounds, upon the plea that she had discharged some mortgages which were prior in date to the mortgage of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for the sale of the property purchased by her without paying to her the amount which she had paid in discharge of the prior mortgages, or a proportionate share thereof. The Court below has totally dismissed the suit on the single ground that the plaintiff had not offered in his plaint to redeem the prior mortgages which the...
In Re: Reference Under Section 46 of Act No. 1 of 1879
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All293
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. One Subhan presented a petition to the Muncipal Board of Allahabad, asking permission to erect a tiled shed and to keep a house for storing wood on certain land within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board. On that petition action was taken by the Municipal Board, and certain orders were passed by the department of the Board to which such questions were delegated. Later on Subhan applied to the Secretary of the Board for, and obtained, a copy of his petition and the order passed by the Board thereon. That copy was certified as correct by the Secretary of the Board. That copy was produced by Subhan and put in evidence in a Magistrate's Court. The Board of Revenue for these Provinces has referred to us the question whether the copy, which was given upon plain paper and bore no stamp, came within article 22 of the first schedule to the Indian Stamp Act. It was not a copy chargeable with duty under the law relating to Court fees. The question turns in our opinion o...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »