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.
In Re: Hardeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All139
Pearson, J.1. The question on which our opinion is asked I understand to be whether an acquittal precludes revision under Section 297, Act X of 1872; and my answer to the question is in the negative. The terms of that section empower the High Court in any case, either called for by itself or reported for orders, or coming to its knowledge, in which it appears that there has been a material error in any judicial proceeding of any Court subordinate to it, to pass such judgment, sentence or order thereon as it thinks tit.2. There is nothing in these terms restricting the High Court's action in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it to cases in which persons have been convicted of an offence. On the contrary, it seems to me that the High Court is fully warranted by these terms in ordering a new trial of a person who has been acquitted by reason of some material error in a judicial proceeding of a subordinate Court. The provisions of Section 272 of the Code are quite distinct from tho...
Musammat Bhawani Kuar and ors. Vs. Gulab Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All348
1. A preliminary objection is taken by the pleader for the respondents under Section 252 of the Procedure Code which provides 'no irregularity in the sale of moveable property under an execution shall vitiate the sale, but any person who may sustain any injury by reason of such irregularity may recover damages by a suit in court.' But this assumes that the subject of sale here is moveable property, and that the judgments of the lower Courts are right in that respect. We are, however, clearly of opinion that the right which is the subject of sale under the decree is legally of the nature of immoveable property, and that Section 252 does not therefore apply. As against the appellants the decree is for Rs. 1,593-3-0 together with Rs. 194-10-6, amount of costs, and it orders absolutely that the money shall be recoverable from 5 biswas, 11 biswansis and 2 1/2 kachwansis.2. The decree is, therefore, absolutely for money recoverable by sale of immoveable property hypothecated for its payment....
Mohibullah Vs. Imami and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All229
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This was an action brought to obtain possession of certain land which, under the terms of an agreement of compromise the defendant had agreed should be decreed to the plaintiff in a previous action. In the previous action the result of the compromise was that the plaintiff obtained a greater quantity of land by the decree than he had originally claimed--i.e., the parties had agreed, in order to put an end to the suit, that the plaintiff should obtain a greater quantity in a certain plot than he had originally claimed. It appears that the Munsif raised an objection to the drawing up of that decree, in accordance with the terms of the compromise, on the ground that the plaintiff was getting more than he claimed, and that the pleaders of the parties there and then admitted that the plaintiff was to have the decree which he was claiming. On that the decree in accordance with the compromise was properly drawn up by the Munsif. I know of no law which prevents the parti...
Dasrat Ram and ors. Vs. Amrit Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All21
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. The question which we have had to consider in this reference to the Full Bench is--when an application is made to a Court under Section 525 of Act No XIY of 1882, that an award be filed in Court, does an objection by the other party, defendant, that he had not agreed to refer any matter to arbitration oust the jurisdiction of the Court to which the application, is made to proceed farther in the matter, or has that Court jurisdiction to proceed, and should it proceed to try the issue as to whether the parties had referred to arbitration the matter as to which the award purports to have bees made2. In support of the contention that such an objection deprives the Court of jurisdiction, Bijadhur Bhugut v. Monohur Bhugut I.L.R. 10 Cal. 11, and the judgments of Prinsep, Pigot and Macpherson, JJ., in Surjan Raot v. Bhikari Raot I.L.R. 21 Cal. 213, were relied upon. In support of a contention raised before us that when such an objection is not obviously frivolous the jur...
Abdullah Vs. Jitu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All216
Blair, J.1. Three persona were sent before a Magistrate to answer a charge under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code. Two of them presented themselves, the third was absent. The case was heard against the two who were present. Upon their being convicted, the Court showed its appreciation of the magnitude of their offence by inflicting on each of them a fine of Re. 1. That amount was ordered to be given to the prosecutor, and the Magistrate says that it would more than recoup him for any damage suffered. The Magistrate also says that in his opinion the matter was so trivial that it was not desirable to waste time in pursuing the charge against the absent man. A few days after that determination of the case against the two, a fresh complaint was lodged against the third man by the prosecutor, and the Magistrate rightly held that such a complaint was not barred by any rule of law. The Magistrate entertained the complaint and issued his warrant for the arrest of the person charged. After ...
MohsIn Khan Vs. Hussaini Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All156
Spankie, J.1. The prayer of the plaintiff in this case was to he allowed to file a private award of arbitrators in Court and for the enforcement of the award. The defendant (since deceased) denied that he bad authorised his agent to refer any matter to arbitration and repudiated the whole transaction. The Munsif after going into the merits admitted the award in the following terms: 'I therefore decree the plaintiff's claim to file the arbitration award under Section 327, Civil Procedure Code, with costs and interest at 6 per cent. to be paid by the answering defendant (the widow of the original defendant deceased).' It does not appear that he made any decree enforcing the award under the provisions of ch. vi. of the Act.2. The defendant appealed. The Subordinate Judge treating the order as a judgment under Section 325 of Act VIII of 1859 held that it was final, and that there was no appeal. The Subordinate Judge cites as his authority the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case o...
Paras Ram Vs. Karam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All232
Brodhurst and Tyrrell, JJ.1. The Judge was wrong in refusing to entertain the applicant's objection under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code. If the property had been made the subject of an attachment under Chapter XIX of the Code, the right of the objector to assert his claim to be the true owner of the property would not be ousted by the mere circumstance that the judgment-debtor had been declared insolvent, and that his property had been vested in a receiver under Chapter XX. It would be the insolvent's property only, not that of the objector, that would become thus vested. The application must be entertained, and if it be found that the property in question had been attached in execution of a decree against the insolvent, the Court below will have next to determine the issue of fact raised by the objector under Section 278, and determine the case accordingly. The case is remanded under Section 562 to be disposed of as above indicated, and the costs so far will be costs in the ...
Kamlapat and anr. Vs. Baldeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All222
Burkitt, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs, now respondents, instituted a suit against the defendants, now appellants, to have it declared that certain property attached by the defendants in execution of a money decree against the father of the plaintiffs belonged to the plaintiffs, and -was not liable to be taken in execution of the decree against their father. The suit was dismissed by the Court of First Instance, bat was decreed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. From that decree the unsuccessful defendants (the decree-holders Kamlapat and Musammat Anandi) preferred a second appeal to this Court.2. That appeal came on for hearing before me sitting alone, and having heard the parties I referred an issue to the Lower Appellate Court under Section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Subordinate Judge in reply returned the issue without any finding. He reported that Kamlapat, one of the appellants, had died, and that therefore he was unable to proceed to the trial of the issue remit...
Damodar Das and anr. Vs. Budh Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All179
Mahmood, J.1. After stating the facts and the conclusions of the lower Court, continued: I am unable to accept this view of the law. The decree in the case appears to have been framed in the terms of Sections 86 and 87 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) and of Section 94 of the same enactment. It is unnecessary for me to go into the exact effect of these various sections in this case, because the decree of the 9th September 1886, which I am called upon to interpret, appears to me explicit in terms as to costs.2. It is one thing to say that by reason of the money due upon the bai-bil-wafa mortgage the mortgage has ceased to be redeemable, and it is another thing to say that the order as to costs contained in the decree forms a part and parcel of the money due upon such a mortgage. In a suit for foreclosure, the plaintiff may be claiming neither more nor less than what is really and rightly due upon the mortgage, and the defendant in resisting the suit would, in order to escape...
In Re: Gajraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All585
Robert Stuart, Kt., C.J.1. The stamp-duty chargeable on the instrument submitted to us in this reference is, in my opinion, four annas. The instrument itself, although really one and the same contract or agreement, is of a double character: it is a bond within the meaning of that word as given in Section 3, Sub-section 4 (c), because it is an 'instrument so attested whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another,' the consideration for which in the present case is that mentioned in the Board's letter, namely, Rs. 25, and the profits which the Board states to be Rs. 11-3. As to the sum which could not have been ascertained, that appears to fall within the provisions of Section 26 of the Stamp Act, and cannot therefore have the effect of adding to the stamp duty.2. The instrument is also, in respect to the hypothecation it provides, a 'mortgage-deed' within the meaning of Nos. 44 and 13 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, inasmuch as it is a mortga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »