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.
Madho Vs. Sital and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All394
Spankie, J.1. The plaintiff and defendant, Sadho, in this suit are the sons of one Sital, also a defendant.2. The property in dispute is a dwelling-house purchased by Sital in 1861 and transferred by gift on the 13th September 1875, by him to Sadho.3. The plaintiff sues to avoid the deed of gift in favour of Sadho, and claims a declaratory decree for a moiety of the house, on the ground that his father was not permitted by the Hindu law to make a gift of immoveable property to one son to the injury of the other.4. The defendant Sadho contends that the plaint discloses no ground of action, and the property in suit having been acquired by Sital, he was at liberty to dispose of it as he pleased.5. The Munsif held that, if the Hindu law did not allow the gift, the plaintiff had good cause of action. On the point of law it was not necessary to express an opinion, as the High Court determined it, laying down that the exclusive gift of self-acquired property to one son, when there were other ...
Sarfraz Ali and ors. Vs. Daia Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All425
Pearson, J.1. The provisions of Clause 15, Section 1, Act XIV of 1859, relating to suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of immoveable property mortgaged, were modified by Article 148, Schedule ii, Act IX of 1871, principally in this respect, that the acknowledgment in writing in the mortgagor's title or right of redemption, from the date of which a new period of limitation is allowed to commence, is required to be made within the period of limitation originally prescribed and reckoned from the date of the mortgage; the reason of the modification is, I conceive, discoverable by reference to Section 29 of the last-mentioned Act, which declares that at the determination of the period limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any land, his title to such land shall be extinguished. The intention of the Legislature was to allow a further period of limitation to run from the date of an acknowledgment, not of rights already extinct, but only of rights still subsistin...
Nagar Mal and ors. Vs. Ali Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All396
Straight, and Tyrrell, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiffs claim to have paid to them a sum of Rs. 301-8-3 for three years' arrears due to them from the zamindars, defendants, by a declaration of their right thereto, as the representatives of the original assignee from Government, of the revenue payable in respect of certain land, The amount of this revenue was determined at the settlement, and by paragraph 12 of the wajib-ul-arz the zamindars promised to pay it. The Munsif decreed the claim, and the learned Judge, in appeal by the defendants, decided all the pleas against them, but being of opinion that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 4 of the Pensions Act (XXIII of 1871), the plaintiffs not having obtained the sanction required by that section, decreed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The propriety of this decision is the sole point raised in second appeal.2. Now it is the well-understood rule that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature...
Queen-empresa Vs. Munna Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All414
Tyrrell, J.1. This is an application arising out of a Sessions trial held at Cawnpore, in which Munna Lal and Badri were tried on a charge of murder, in a prosecution instituted on the complaint of one Misri Lal, the son of Sahib Din, deceased. The case for the prosecution appears to have been closed, the trial being held with the aid of assessors; the examination of the accused had been put in evidence, and the accused had expressed their intention of calling witnesses, when the presiding Judge closed the trial, holding that there was no evidence that the accused had committed the offence of murder, and the Judge proceeded to record a finding of acquittal. This application is made for revision of this order, on the ground that the Judge was not competent, under the circumstances of this ease, to make such an order. The order was made under the third paragraph of Section 289 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If there had been no evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the order was rig...
idu Mian Vs. Rahmat Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All146
Aikman, J.1. The following are the facts out of which this suit has arisen. The respondent, Sheikh Rahmat-ullah, held a decree against one Ghurbin, in execution of which, on the 18th of February, 1898, he attached upwards of twenty maunds of native soap as the property of his judgment-debtor. Idu Mian, the plaintiff in this case, intervened and claimed the soap as his own. His objection was sustained, and the soap was ordered to be released from attachment. Sheikh Rahmat-ullah immediately instituted a suit under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have it declared that the soap was the property of his judgment-debtor, Ghurbin. This suit was instituted on the 10th of August, 1898. On the same day Sheikh Rahmat-ullah put in an application to the Court, asking that the order for the release of the soap in Idu Mian's favour should not be carried out, and that the soap should be retained in the possession of the person to whom it had been made over until the decision of the suit ...
Sohan Lal Vs. Aziz-un-nissa Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All136
Mahmood, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order of the Lower Appellate Court, remanding the case to the Court of First Instance under Section 562 of the Civil Procedure Code for trial de novo.2. Having considered the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, we have no doubt that the order contravenes the express provisions of Section 562 and Section 564 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under the former of these sections, the only ground for setting aside the decree of the Court of First Instance can be that the Court against whose decree the appeal is made has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point, so as to exclude any evidence of fact which appears to the Appellate Court essential to the determination of the rights of the parties, and the decree upon such preliminary point is reversed in appeal.' Section 564 expressly prohibits the remand of a case for a second decision except as provided in Section 562.3. In the present case, the judgment of the Court of First Instance did not p...
Queen-empress Vs. Bala Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All311a
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Knox, J.1. In this particular case there is evidence that gambling was actually being carried on in the house. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Queen-Empress v. Bhawani, Weekly Notes, 1895, p. 139, in which it was held, on the authority of some previous cases, that 'cowries are not instruments of gaming.' Ordinarily speaking, it would be incorrect to describe cowries as instruments of gaming, but if cowries are used in a particular case as a means of gaming, they are in that particular case instruments of gaming, at least in our opinion, within the meaning of that term as it appears in Act No. III of 1867. To explain ourselves a little further, the mere finding of cowries in a house would not raise the presumption that the house was used as a common gaming house, but evidence that cowries were used in a particular house as a means whereby to carry on gaming would bring the house within Section 6 of the Act. It entirely depends upon the use to which t...
Wilkinson Vs. Shields
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All398
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This was an application to this Court to exercise its powers of revision under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of a judgment and decree passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Allahabad on the 16th December last. The action in the Small Cause Court was one in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages against the defendant for an alleged breach of a contract of bailment. The facts shortly were these. On the 6th November last the plaintiff let a horse on hire to the defendant for the purpose of being ridden by the defendant on the afternoon of that day. That horse was not returned to the plaintiff, and it was ascertained that the horse, while in the custody of the defendant and while being ridden by him, had died from rupture of the diaphragm. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in the Small Cause Court was that the horse was a quiet horse, which he had had for several years, during which time it had not bolted with him, and that ...
Harjas Vs. Kanhya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1885)ILR7All118
Straight, Offg. C.J.1. On the 22nd June 1882, Musammat Sujano sold a moiety of her zamindari share in a village, consisting of 17 bighas, 15 biswas, 10 biswansis of land, with all the rights pertaining thereto, to five persons, namely, Umrao, Bam Prasad, Sarjit, Kanhya, and Dalpet, in equal shares, for a consideration, so the sale-deed recites, of Rs. 1,300. The vendees Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 are co-sharers, but No. 4 is admittedly a stranger. The plaintiff-appellant's suit, which was instituted on the 15th June 1883, was brought to establish his right of pre-emption as against Kanhya, in respect of the one-fifth share purchased by him, and to obtain possession thereof upon payment of what might be deemed to be the proportionate price of such fifth. Both the lower Courts dismissed the claim, following, as they considered, a ruling of this Court, in Manna Singh v. Ramadliin Singh I.L.R. 4 All. 252. The plaintiff has preferred the special appeal before us, and the grounds taken by him subst...
Baldeo Vs. Bismillah Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All118
Oldfield, J.1. We must give effect to the preliminary objection of the defendants-respondents, and hold that the application for substituting the names of the respondents was barred by Article 171 B of the Limitation Act. That article refers to applications under Section 368 of the Civil Procedure Code, to have the representative of a deceased defendant made a defendant, and the time runs from the date of death. In the case before us the respondent who died is the defendant, and I think the article referred to applies in his capacity at defendant. On this ground I would dismiss this appeal with costs under Section 368 of the Civil Procedure Code.Tyrrell, J.2. I concur....
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »