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.
Badr-un-nisa Vs. Muhammad Jan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All671
Straight, J.1. This is a reference under Section 617 of Act X of 1877 by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Allahabad, in respect of certain questions of law that have arisen in a case before him, in which one Badr-un-nisa is the plaintiff and Muhammad Jan and Abdul Ghani are the defendants. It appears that the plaintiff was the obligor of a bond for Rs. 200 of which defendant No. 1 was the obligee. On the 1st April 1877, at the request of defendant No. 1, she paid to defendant No. 2 the sum of Rs. 9, on the understanding that it was to be credited to her in the amount due from her on the bond. On the 20th June 1878, the plaintiff, upon his demand, paid to defendant No. 1, Rs. 299 in satisfaction of her debt to him. It now appears that she has paid, over and above what was actually due from her Rs. 15-7-0 and it is this amount she seeks to recover.2. The questions properly arising on the Judge's reference appear to be,--(i) Does the plaintiff's claim fall within the terms of Section 7...
Queen-empress Vs. Samuel Luke
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All323
Burkitt, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction and sentence passed on the applicant by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the Philibhit district under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act, No. XI of 1878. The Magistrate found that the petitioner had fire-arms in his possession in contravention of the prohibition contained in Section 14 of the Act.2. The learned Government Pleader very properly admits that the conviction and sentence cannot be supported. The plea raised by the learned Counsel who appeared for the applicant is that 'as a volunteer petitioner is exempted from the operation of the Section under which he has been convicted.' That plea, in my opinion, is a good plea, and must be allowed.3. The Magistrate who convicted the petitioner admits that the petitioner is a volunteer. It would therefore, prima facie, appear that under the provisions of the Government Notification No. 458, dated the 18th March 1898, the petitioner did not commit any offence in havi...
In Re: Lalji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All302
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer a case from the Court of one Magistrate to the Court of some other Magistrate. It is said in the application that, after examining some of the witnesses for the prosecution, the Deputy Magistrate, before whom the case was, personally inspected the ground and made inquiries relative to the subject of the complaint from persons present at the time of the inspection: also that he expressed a wish that some of the accused should compromise the case. In support of the application the decision in Queen-Empress v. Manikam I.L.R. 19 Mad. 263, and Hari Kishore Mitra v. Abdul Baki Miah I.L.R. 21 Cal. 920, have been relied on. The Magistrate has stated that he did inspect the place. He has denied that he made any inquiry from any persons except the witnesses in their examination. He has stated that he directed the patwari to prepare a plan.2. It appears, to me that it never could have bee...
Janki Rai Vs. Ramghulam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All124
Duthoit, J.1. The only plea now urged before us is the second, viz., that because the respondent has failed to enter up satisfaction of the two decrees, they are still in force, and the respondent, being in breach, is not competent to sue on his bond. The plea is ingenious, but has no real force. The respondent did not covenant with the appellants to enter up satisfaction of the decrees in Court, nor was it, in fact, necessary for him to do so. Were the respondent to seek execution of the decrees upon the plea that, although satisfied, they are still in force under the provisions of Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code, he would surely be made to suffer in pocket, and probably in person also. Moreover, if the appellants considered the entering up of the adjustment of the decrees to be imperative, they had their remedy by application to the Court in the terms of Section 258 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I would dismiss the appeal with costs.Mahniood, J.2. I am of the same opinion. ...
Ram Chandar Vs. Chandi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All307
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blair, J.1. This case is covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in Mackenzie v. Tiruvangadathan I.L.R. 9 Mad. 271. We agree with the decision of the Madras Court, and we dismiss this application with costs....
Aziman Bibi and anr. Vs. Amir Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All343
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The sole question in this case is, whether this deed of conditional sale included a transfer of an interest hi the property, and reference need only be made to Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines every mortgage as including a tranfer of an interest in the property hypothecated for the purpose of a security. A deed of conditional sale of this kind is a mortgage, and some interest in the property is transferred. This is sufficient to let in the right of pre-emption, and it is not necessary that there should be a transfer of possession. On this point we hold that the recent decision of the Full Bench in Sheoratan Kuar v. Mahipal Knar ante p. 258 is binding upon us, and the result is that this appeal must be allowed with costs....
The Collector of Bareilly Vs. Gulzari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All596
Pearson, J.1. The principle of the ruling of the Bombay Court I.L.R. 1 Bom. 7, on which the lower Appellate Court has relied, appears to us to be reasonable and we decline to interfere....
Debi Singh Vs. Muhammad Ismail Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All296
John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This was a suit for compensation for the use and occupation of agricultural land. Judging from the record, the plaintiff had purchased the zamindari rights of the defendant's father. Whether the land in respect of the occupation of which compensation is claimed was sir land of the ex-zamindar we do not know. One thing is clear. The plaintiff had, by proceeding under Section 36 of Act No. XII of 1881, obtained the ejectment of the defendant from the lands to which this claim relates. He could not have obtained ejectment under such a proceeding unless the defendant had been a tenant of this agricultural land. The plaintiff, if he wanted to get a decree for rent and did not agree with the defendant as to the rent to be paid whilst the defendant was his tenant, ought to have got the rent determined whilst the tenancy subsisted by an application under Act No. XII of 1881. Mr. Jivan Chandar argues that, the rent not having been determined during the tenancy ...
Saiyid Muzhar HosseIn Vs. Mussamat Bodha Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All112
Hobhouse, J.1. In this case the value of the property affected by the decree made in two cognate suits appears to be such as would have allowed the High Court to grant leave to appeal in the ordinary course, if they had thought it in other respects right to grant that leave. They have refused it on the ground that the order objected to is not a final order. To see whether it is so or not, it is-necessary to ascertain the nature of the proceedings.2. The present petitioner is the principal defendant in the suit. The plaintiff's case is that one Ibn Ali by his will gave the property in suit to certain persona, also defendants, who conveyed it to the plaintiff. Several defences were raised. One was of a preliminary nature, viz., that there was a misjoinder, and this was overruled. The next went to the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, being a denial that Ibn Ali made any valid gift to the grantors of the plaintiff. The others were all of a subordinate character. The Subordinate Judge t...
Bhagwan DIn and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All97
Edge, C. J. and Tyrrell, J.1. This is an appeal by Bhagwan Sahai, one of the defendants in the Court below, from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 2nd August 1885, by which he decreed the claim of the plaintiffs, the now respondents, for possession of the property in suit on their paying to the defendant, the now appellant, Rs. 4,000, principal mortgage-consideration. The Subordinate Judge ordered that the parties should bear their respective costs. From this judgment the plaintiffs have not, nor have the defendants, other than Bhagwan Sahai, appealed. The plaintiff's claim in the action was for the redemption of an alleged mortgage and for mesne profits; and their case was, that Alam Singh, Chandi Singh, Bhawani Din, Manna Singh, Durjan Singh, Ghasi Singh, Siva Din, Ishri Singh, Pranu, Dina, and Gulam, sold the entire 16 annas zamindari interest in mauza Haribaspur, pargana Ghatampur, zila Cawnpore, to one Ganga Din, for the sum of Rs. 4,000, by executing a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »