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.
Hamida Bibi Vs. Ali Husen Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All172
Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba to the bearing of this appeal, on the ground that the order appealed from is an order passed under the first paragraph of Section 366 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that no appeal is provided for such order by Section 988 of the Code Our attention was drawn in the course of the argument to the case of Bhikaji Ramchandra v. Purskotam, I.L.R. 10 Bom. 220, in which it was held that soon aft order is appealable. It was held by the learned Judge who decided that appeal that such an order was virtually 'a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of Act No. XIV of 1882, as it disposes of the plaintiff's claim as completely as if a. salt had been dismissed.' The learned Judges who decided that appeal appear to have overlooked the very important provisions of Section 371, which allows Fresno claiming to be the legal representative of a deceased to apply for an order to set aside the order of abatement. It cannot th...
Ram Autar and ors. Vs. Ajudhia Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All231
Robert Stuart, C.J. 1. The application of the 7th September 1871, prayed only for the partial execution of the decree and had not therefore the effect of keeping the decree alive for the other defendants. The same may be said of the application of the 13th August 1874. The application of 1871 itself is before me, and it is difficult to understand how any contention to the contrary could have been expected to succeed. It recites previous applications by Ajudhia Singh in conjunction with other defendants, and also the judgment of the Privy Council, and it then proceeds: 'As the other persons do not join me in executing the decree, and in the decree the first Court's costs are separately entered in my name, while the costs of the Sudder Court, amounting to Rs. 969-12-0, are entered in my name and in those of the other persons collectively, who do not join in executing the decree, I apply for execution in respect of a 1-11th share, leaving out 10-11ths, the share of the said persons, and p...
NaraIn Das Vs. Gobind Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All394
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. In this case one Narain Das sued two tenants for rent which was in arrear. They pleaded that they had paid the rent to Gobind Ham, one of the shareholders of the village. Gobind Earn did allege in his deposition, before he was made a party to the suit, that he had received this rent, and alleged that he was entitled to receive the rent, not only as a shareholder, but also as the appointed agent of Narain Das. On that the Judge in the Rent Court made Gobind Earn a party to the suit, professing to act under Section 148 of the Rent Act. It appears to me that he was justified in making Gobind Ram a party to the suit under that section, because obviously the defence of the tenants and the deposition of Gobind Ram was that Gobind Earn was a shareholder in the village, and did receive the rent, of which, as a shareholder, he was entitled to enjoy some portion. As a matter of fact, the defence of the tenants and the statement of Gobind Ram must have led to the inference ...
Empress of India Vs. Mulua
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All599
Turner, J.1. The prisoner was charged with the offence of murder committed in the year 1855. On that charge he was tried by the Judge of Fatehgarh and convicted and sentenced, under the Regulation in force before the 1st January 1862, to transportation for life. The Judge has submitted the sentence for confirmation, and at the same time has called the attention of the Court to a Full Bench ruling of the High Court of Calcutta Empress v. Diljour Missel I.L.R. 2 Cal. 225, in which it has apparently been held that a person who has committed an offence prior to the 1st January 1862 could not now be legally convicted and sentenced. We say apparently it was so held, because such was the opinion expressed by the learned Judges before whom the case was originally heard, and although the judgment of the Full Bench proceeds on grounds which do not necessarily involve that conclusion, the conviction was pronounced illegal and set aside.2. Up to the 1st January 1862, the law under which persons wo...
Ashiq HusaIn Vs. Muhammad Jan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All329
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for partition made under Act No. XIX of 1873. Some objections having been raised, the Court of Revenue tried those questions under Section 113 of the Act. In doing so the Assistant Collector determined the extent of the shares of the different owners of the mahal in respect of certain buildings, and ordered that the Amin should make a partition of the buildings, including rafters, bricks, stones and other materials of each building. We are surprised that such an order of the Assistant Collector, which was manifestly ultra vires, has bean sustained by the learned District Judge. It is beyond question that in partition proceedings under the North-Western Provinces Land Revenue Act neither buildings nor the materials thereof can be partitioned. What is partitioned is the land of the mahal: where such land is covered by buildings the Court making the partition has to follow the provisions of Section 124 of the Act, but it c...
Thakur Dial and ors. Vs. Debi Parshad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All105
1. To answer the question proposed to us it is necessary to consider the condition of a Hindu family in these Provinces while it remains undivided, and to inquire whether the same rules of succession apply while the members continue joint in estate, when they have separated and effected partition, and when they have re-united. Sir Thomas Strange in the ninth chapter (On Partition, 4th ed., p. 198) of his work on Hindu Law declares that 'wherever a plurality of sons exists, the inheritance descends to thorn as coparceners making together but one heir' * * * 'the deceased may have left, not only more sons than one, but brothers, as well as a widow or widows, and daughters, together with other dependents; and such sons and brothers may have their wives and children respectively; the whole having constituted in his lifetime, not so many coparceners indeed in the proper sense of the term, but an undivided family. Or supposing him to have been a single man, with collateral relations only, th...
Bandhu Naik Vs. Lakhi Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All342
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that the appeal must be allowed, and the suit tried again. The question is, whether it has been tried. The trial was commenced by the Subordinate Judge, and the suit was then transferred by the District Judge to his own file under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code. By that section the District Judge had power to transfer and try it. But inasmuch as the evidence was not taken before the District Judge, we do not think that he has tried the case. The decree must be set aside, and the case remanded to the Court which has cognizance of suits of the nature of the present one for trial on the merits....
Bithal Das Vs. Shankar Das Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All265
Burkitt, J.1. This is one of the many cases in which execution-creditors of the late Raja Hari Har Dat Dube of Jaunpur have sought to have execution of their decrees against the present Raja Shankar Dat Dube, under Section 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the allegation that Shankar Dat had in his hands assets of his deceased brother on which the creditors were entitled to levy execution.2. In the present case the decree-holder appellant, Bithal Das obtained a decree for some Rs. 6,900 odd, a simple money-decree, against the Raja Hari Har Dat Dube in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra in February 189J. Raja Hari Har Dat Dube died on January 13th, 1892. Execution-proceedings were commenced at Agra in May 1892, against Raja Shankar Dat and the widow of Raja Hari Har Dat, who were described as heirs of the deceased and as in possession of his property. The application was clearly one within Section 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notices were issued to the two representa...
Parsotam Saran, by His Guardian Chiranji Vs. Mulu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All68
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. In this case all the material facts appear to be set forth in the order of reference. There are three questions which are raised by that order, and they are stated in its last three paragraphs.2. One of these questions is--'Whether the plaintiff has acquired any such rights as would entitle him to maintain the present suit, either in respect of the whole or part of the mortgage-charge.' Now one part of this question is really involved in the last paragraph but one of the referring order. In order to answer it properly, I must explain what appears to me to be the rights which the plaintiff has acquired. For this purpose the second paragraph of the referring order must be looked at. I find there that it is found as a fact by the Courts below that Amani Begam did not consent to the agreement with Zia Khan, either on her own behalf or on behalf of her daughters. The fact that Zia Khan professed to sell the whole interest which his father had--that is, his own interes...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Kundan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All294
Knox and Banerji, JJ.1. Upon a second appeal being called on for hearing the vakil who appeared for the appellant told the Court that he was unable to argue the case; the appeal was accordingly dismissed. An application was then presented to the learned Judge who heard and decided the case praying that the appeal might be restored to its original number and heard in the ordinary course. The order passed was: 'This case cannot be reinstated: it was not dismissed for default.' It is contended before us to-day that under the circumstances the case is one which was practically dismissed for default and should have been so treated. In support of this contention the ease of Shankar Dat Dube v. Badha Krishna I.L.R. 20 All. 196, was cited.2. The circumstances, however, of that case differ materially from the circumstances in the appeal before us. In that case the pleader who had been retained by the defendant came before the Court and stated that no one had ever come near him on the part of hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »