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.
King-emperor Vs. Fyaz-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All148
Knox, J.1. This is an application by one Fyaz-ud-din, asking this Court to revise an order passed by the District Magistrate of Bijnor. That order is dated the 2nd of September, 1901. It appears that the District Magistrate of Bijnor had before him certain proceedings which had taken place in the Court of Pandit Bisheshwar Dayal, a Magistrate of the first class. Those proceedings were proceedings under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Pandit Bisheshwar Dayal, after hearing the evidence on both sides, came to the conclusion that there were not, in his opinion, sufficient grounds, for the present at least, to bind over Fyaz-ud-din to be of good behaviour; and he accordingly discharged him under Section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The District Magistrate of Bijnor, after looking through the record, instituted fresh proceedings after framing a fresh order under Section 112. He did not profess to make the order under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but in...
Chedi Lal and anr. Vs. Kirath Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All682
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. This case also came before us on the report of the office. It appears that there is no deficiency of court-fees in this Court, but that there is a deficiency to the extent of Rs. 18-6-0 on the part of the plaintiff in the Munsif's Court, and of Rs. 12-12-0 on the part of the defendant in the lower Appellate Court.2. Pandit Bishambhar Nath for the appellants objected that this Court had no jurisdiction at this stage to entertain the question relating to the deficiency of court-fees reported by the Office, but I am clearly of opinion that Section 28 of the Court Fees' Act gives us full power for that purpose.3. On the merits of the question respecting the court-fees to be charged, this case falls within the principle of the decision we have given on the same legal question in first appeal No. 15 of 1879 (See ante p. 676). According to the principle recognized in that case the report of the office in this case is clearly right, and the additional court-fees to be pai...
Parmeshar Rai and ors. Vs. Sheo NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All270
John Edge, Kt., C.J., Knox, Blair, Banerji and Burkitt, JJ.1. In the suit in which this second appeal has been brought the question between the parties is whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are the tenants at fixed rates of certain lands to which Act No. XII of 1881 applies. The plaintiffs allege that they are the tenants at fixed rates of the land in question. On the other hand, the defendants allege that they are the tenants at fixed rates of those lands and that the plaintiff's were their under-tenants. The defendants had, under Section 36 of Act No. XII of 1881, caused a written notice of ejectment to be served upon the plaintiffs in respect of those lands. The plaintiffs within thirty days of the service upon them of the notice of ejectment made an application to the Collector of the district contesting their liability to be ejected and denying that they were tenants of the defendants and alleging that they, and not the defendants, were the tenants in chief under the zaminda...
Raja Ram Vs. Bansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All207
1. The haqq-i-shuf'a or right of pre-emption known to the Muhammadan law, and of which some of the expounders of that law declare the operation limited to houses and parcels of enclosed land, had in some instances become a village custom and attached to the alienation of shares in revenue-paying mahals when the first settlement under Regulation IX of 1833 was made in these Provinces. These instances wore, we believe, not numerous, but inasmuch as it was deemed conducive to the welfare and tranquillity of village communities that some such provision should he made to prevent the incursion into the community of strangers in race or religion, the officers engaged in the preparation of the record-of-rights induced the proprietors to consent to the introduction of a stipulation binding each co-sharer when transferring his share to give the first refusal of it to one of his own family or to the other co-sharers in the patti or mahal. These stipulations vary in their terms, and while they are...
Queen-empress Vs. Sinha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All135
Duthoit, J.1. The applicant has served his term of imprisonment, and a preliminary objection is urged by the learned Junior Government Pleader to the effect that as, since the application was filed, the effect of the finding of the Magistrate has become complete, this Court cannot interfere with that finding. I am unable to admit the force of this contention. I can find nothing in the terms of the law to prevent this Court from interfering with a conviction, even though, in consequence of the expiry of the sentence, it may not be possible to interfere with the latter. And cases in which such interference should not be summarily refused may easily be supposed, as, for instance, where a man's status is altered by his conviction, (as in convictions under Chapter XII or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or under the Common Gambling Act), or where, as hero, the convict's prospect of future employment depend in a great measure upon the existence or the annulment of the conviction.2. The learned...
Ram Parshad Bhagat Vs. TajuddIn Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All217
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. 'Whether, when rent is payable in grain, it is competent to the landlord to sue in a Revenue Court for the equivalent in cash,' and the second plea in appeal to which our attention is directed is in these terms: 'The decision is had in law: the present action for the value of rain was not cognizable by the Revenue Court.' The reference, therefore, goes further than the bare question whether the money-equivalent of a grain-rent can be sued for in the Revenue Court. The reference also assumes that the rent agreed to be paid by the defendant was a grain-rent, or a rent payable in kind. But the suit is for arrears of rent, Rs. 29-1-2, being the price or money-value of the grain from 1278 to 1280 Fasli, and this suit is brought in the Revenue Court.2. If the question had simply been, as put in one portion of the referring order, whether, when rent is payable in grain, it is competent to the landlord to sue in a Revenue Court for the equivalent in cash, I would have no ...
Darbo Vs. Kesho Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All364
Oldfield, J.1. The petitioner asks the Court to amend the decree of this Court of the 13th August 1879, so as to bring it into conformity with the Judgment of this Court. There is no doubt, and it is admitted by the opposite party, that the decree requires amendment in the manner asked for ; but it is contended that the application is governed by art. 178 of the Limitation Act, as it is one of those applications for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule or by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 230.2. If this article be applicable, there is no doubt that the application is barred, and, in support of the respondent's contention, I have been referred to a decision of a Bench of this Court--Gaya Prasad v. Sikri Prasad, I.L.R., 4 All., 23. It is possible, however, that this case may be considered as overruled by Kishan Singh's case, Weekly Notes, 1883, p. 262, as opposed to the principle therein laid down. I entertain some doubts whether the article does appl...
Amjad Ali and ors. Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All311
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Knox, J.1. In our opinion bur brother Burkitt rightly hold that the son of a Muhammadan co-sharer in the village was not, merely in virtue of his birth, a co-sharer, within the meaning of the pre-emptive clause of the wajib-ul-arz. A Muhammadan son does not take a vested interest in ancestral property on his birth, as a Hindu son does. Consequently the order of remand was right. But the Court below should apply the principles expounded by the Full Bench of this Court in Bam Nath v. Badri Narain I.L.R. 19 All. 148. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Amir Singh and ors. Vs. Naimati Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All388
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. It appears that on the partition of common land in which the owners of six pattis were interested, the question arose as to how the common land should be allotted. The present plaintiffs said that it should be allotted in proportion to the size of the pattis: the owners of the other paths said that it should be partitioned in proportion to the number of the pattis, i. e., into six equal shares. That objection was raised by the present plaintiffs before the Assistant Collector, who heard the evidence, examined the wajib-ul-arz, and decided that the plaintiffs were not entitled to have more than a one-sixth share in respect of their patti. From that decision an appeal was made to the Collector, and again to the Commissioner, and the Assistant Collector's decision was upheld. In the result this action was brought in the Civil Court in order to ascertain what the rights of the plaintiffs were in the common land. An objection is raised on behalf of the defendants on t...
Muhammad Askari Vs. Radhe Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All307
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. This appeal raises an important question, never yet decided, whether the doctrine of King v. Hoare (1844) 13 M. and W. 494, and Kendall v. Hamilton (1879) L.R. 4 A.C. 504, as to the effect of a judgment on a joint contract upon a subsequent suit against co-contractors who were not parties to the former suit, should be applied in these Provinces, notwithstanding Section 43 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.2. The suit was a suit for sale on four mortgages executed in 1886,1888, 1889 and 1890, and was brought against seventeen persons who are admittedly members of a joint Hindufamily. In the plaint the plaintiff alleges that the defendants Nos. 16 and 17, Budh Ram Singh and Mahabir Singh, who are pro forma defendants only, were the managers of the joint family carrying on its business, and that as such managers and for the purpose of meeting necessary family expenses, these defendants borrowed money from the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff himself on the secur...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »