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.
Queen-empress Vs. Rahim Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1898)ILR20All206
John Edge, C.J.1. This is an application in revision. An order was made that a certain person proceeded against by a Magistrate under Section 110 and the following sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure should give security himself and should obtain two sureties for his good behaviour for one year. It is obvious that the man Rahim Bakhsh was a man against whom such an order should have been made. His own witness, who is a respectable man, gave him an exceedingly bad character. It was proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that he was an associate of professional burglars and a receiver of stolen property. He lived and carried on an ostensible business of a milk seller (which in itself is an innocent occupation for a gentleman of his character), in the city of Saharanpur. The sureties whom he tendered lived in the Roorkee tahsil. One had been rejected when first offered. On his own examination he showed that he knew practically nothing of the man for whop he was coming from Ro...
Ablakh Rai and ors. Vs. Udit NaraIn Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All353
Robert Stuart, C.J.1. My opinion on the question submitted by this reference is an answer in the affirmative, and that the right of occupancy held by occupancy tenants can be sold by public auction in execution of a decree of the Civil Court. Section 9, of Act XVIII of 1873, after declaring that the rights of tenants at fixed rates shall be heritable and transferable, goes on to provide as follows: 'No other right of occupancy shall be transferable by grant, will, or otherwise, except as between persons who have become by inheritance co-sharers in such right.' I consider that the words 'or otherwise' must be understood to be a general expression controlling the particular words which go before grant will 'and to mean' or otherwise by the voluntary act or deed ejusdem generis of the parties,' and that they do not mean to exclude a transference of the right by sale in execution of a decree.2. Our attention at the hearing was directed to Section 171 of the Act. By that section it is provi...
Raghubar Dayal Vs. Banke Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All182
Arthur Strachey, C.J.1. This appeal is connected with first appeals Nos. 115 and 116 of 1898, and second appeal No. 405 of 1897, in which we have just given judgment. The plaintiffs-respondents here are the persons who were plaintiffs in those cases. They claim by virtue of the same execution sale of the 20th November 1885, of mauza Saidpur that we have discussed in our previous judgments. The defendant-appellant purchased certain property included in Saidpur in execution of a Revenue Court's decree obtained by himself against the same judgment-debtors for a share of the profits village Saidpur, under Section 93(h) of the N.-W.P. Rent Act, 1881. His purchase took place on the 3rd November 1885. It has been suggested during the hearing of this appeal that that purchase was set aside and remained set aside at the date of the plaintiff's subsequent purchase of the 20th November 1885. No such suggestion appears to have been made in either of the Courts below, where the whole case proceeded...
Abdul Rahman and anr. Vs. Behari Puri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All194
Brodhurst and Tyrrell, JJ.1. A few facts may be stated in this matter. Two persons, Ram Din and Gulab Kuar, mortgaged certain carriages to one Mata Ghulam, who, on the 12th May 1886, brought a suit to recover his money and obtained a decree which declared that the carriages in question were charged with the debt and were liable to sale in satisfaction of it. The respondent here is the assignee of that decree from Mata Ghulam. The respondent was himself a decree-holder against the same Ram Din mentioned above for another debt, and in execution of that decree he got one of the carriages sold, and it was bought by persons who transferred it to the present appellants. The respondent in execution of that decree of Mata Ghulam attempted to enforce his charge against one of the carriages, but was defeated by an order of the Court executing the decree made on the 31st July 1886, and that order has given rise to the present suit which has been brought under the provisions of Section 283 of the ...
Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Madho Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All44
Knox, Acting C.J.1. The plaintiffs, who are now appellants, are the assignees of the equity of redemption over certain land situate in mauza Kopa, pargana Saidabad. They instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, and asked for a decree for enforcing the equity of redemption. Their suit has been dismissed, and the lower appellate Court has been guided to this decision by a precedent of this Court, David Hay v. Razi-ud-din (1897) I.L.R. 19 All. 202. The Bench of this Court before which this second appeal first came for hearing, having doubts as to the soundness of the view held in David May v. Razi-ud-din and it having been pointed out to them that there was a conflict of authority in the decisions of this Court regarding the point in issue, asked that the case might be referred to a Full Bench. What we now have to consider and determine is whether a mortgagor who has obtained a decree for redemption, which does not contain a provision that if payment is not made on the date f...
Juala Prasad Vs. Khuman Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All617
Straight, J.1. The question as to the amount of interest to be allowed to the plaintiff, subsequent to the expiration of the four years for which the bond was given, has been properly treated by the lower Appellate Court as one of damages. Upon consideration we think that, having regard to the length of time, that has elapsed since the bond ran out, to the date on which this suit was instituted, the sum decreed by the Subordinate Judge is equitable and his decision must stand. But for the plaintiff's laches we should have thought the amount agreed by the defendant to be paid under the bond was a reasonable basis on which to estimate the subsequent damages (see also Baldeo Panday v. Gokal Rai I.L.R. I All. 603. The appeal is dismissed, but each party must pay his own costs....
Kanahi Ram Vs. Biddya Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All549
Pearson, J.1. This case has been argued before us at great length, and the conclusion at which I have arrived, after consideration of all that has been said on both sides, is that the suit as brought is not maintainable. The appellant has, in my opinion, failed to show that, because the defendant has been put out of caste by the members of his brotherhood on account of his intending to give his infant daughter, aged eleven years, in marriage to a man by name Phunda Ram, said to be more than seventy years old and impotent, in consideration of receiving from him about Rs. 400, he (the defendant) has, according to Hindu Law, lost his right as guardian to the custody of the said girl; and such a contention, even were it supported by Hindu Law, must be disallowed in reference to the provisions of Act XXI of 1850. The claim on the appellant's part on the basis of that contention to have the custody of the girl himself as her guardian in lieu of her father, and as such to be declared empowere...
Raja Ram Singhji Vs. Chunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All205
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blair, J.1. The Maharaja of Bhurtpur brought a suit for sale under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The mortgage included several villages, and we infer from the judgment and decree in the case that various amounts were charged upon the various villages as the liabilities of the particular villages The Maharaja obtained a decree for sale under Section 88. The decree specified the amount for which each village was liable. After that decree had been obtained, one Chunni Lal obtained from the representative of the mortgagor a mortgage with possession of three of the villages. The Maharaja of Bhurtpur put his decree in execution, and obtained an order for the sale of the three villages in question. That order was made under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is true that the order did not say that it was an order absolute, but the order under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act is an order for sale in execution, as was held by th...
Shams-ud-dIn and ors. Vs. Badi-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All103
John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The respondents here obtained a decree for pre-emption of certain shares in four villages, which we shall call respectively No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 villages. The appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, appealed that decree to the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge on the 19th of December 1889, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the Court of First Instance. From that decree of the District Judge, the defendant appealed to this Court, in respect only of villages 1 and 3. By his appeal he did not question the decree so far as villages 2 and 4 were concerned. On the 10th of November 1892, this Court varied the decree of the Court below by dismissing the plaintiff's suit so far as village No. 1 was concerned, and dismissed the defendant's appeal as to No. 3. On the 29th March 1893, the plaintiffs applied for execution of their decree in respect of villages Nos. 2, 3 and 4. To that application the defendant objecte...
Abdul Aziz and anr. Vs. Walikhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All338
Pearson, Turner and Oldfield, JJ.1. The appellants took a lease of several villages from the respondents, and they allege that, after the lease had been acted upon the respondent in breach of the conditions of the lease collected the rents and profits which in virtue of the lease appertained to the appellants, and they have instituted the present suit to recover the sums actually collected. The respondent pleaded that the claim was virtually one for damages for wrongful dispossession, and therefore could not form the subject of an application in the Revenue Court. To this the appellants have replied that the Rent Act does not apply to persons who in these Provinces are known as thikadars or katkinadars, and in the old Regulations and Acts are denominated under-tenants, persons who take from the zamindars lease of their zamindari rights in lands.2. Although no express mention of this class under any of the particular designations by which they are ordinarily known may be found in the Be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »