Allahabad Court March 1902 Judgments
Mathura Prasad Vs. Dudhnath Kandu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All317
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh, by which he allowed damages to the extent of Rs. 2,576 to the plaintiff for alleged malicious prosecution. It appears from the evidence in the case that on the 12th of September 1898, the defendant was severely beaten by several persons and had an arm fractured. He made a report at the police station that four persons whom he named had assaulted him. Subsequently he presented a petition of complaint to the Criminal Court, in which to the four persons whom he had charged with the assault upon him, he added the name of a fifth, namely, one Jugal Kishore. In the ordinary course the defendant was required to make a statement upon oath of the occurrence previous to the issue of process; and in the course of his examination, in detailing the circumstances of the assault, he said that Mathura Prasad, the plaintiff, in the course of the assault, came from behind and called out 'beat.' The...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nathu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All315
John Stanley, C.J.1. A rule in this case was issued, calling upon the Magistrate to show cause why his order of the 21st of January, 1902, passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should not be set aside, on the ground that the same was passed without hearing the evidence of any of the witnesses who were produced on behalf of the second party, Lala Nathu Mal, and such other order passed as the Court might think fit. The rule was issued by me under a misapprehension as to the facts. I understood from a statement of the learned vakil who made the application that none of the witnesses who were called on behalf of the second party had been examined. It, however, now transpires that no less than ten witnesses were examined on his behalf. It appears that in addition to these ten witnesses summonses had been issued for the attendance of 21 other witnesses, and that none of these last-mentioned witnesses were examined by the Magistrate, inasmuch as he believed that the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Kunwar Vs. Nasib Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All312
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. The decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in this case cannot be upheld. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and taking of the partnership accounts. Thereupon an agreement was entered into between the parties to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration, and an order was made by the Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, referring the suit to arbitration on the 27th of June 1898. The arbitrators appointed were one Debi Prasad and one Maulvi Ahsan-ullah, who were respective pleaders for the parties in the suit. A number of proceedings were recorded by these arbitrators, and amongst others a proceeding of the 7th of August, 1898, in which it was stated that 'the parties would accept and admit the decision of the case as made jointly by Pandit Mangli Prasad, the plaintiff and Shaikh Nasib Ali, the defendant.' Nothing appears to have been done by these parties so named; but on the 8th of August...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sheikh Amin-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All346
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this reference. It is contended that the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 439 apply. We are not prepared to accede to this contention, or to say that we shall in no case entertain a reference simply because of what is laid down in that paragraph. At the same time the fact remains that it was open to the Local Government to present an appeal from this acquittal. Where the Local Government do not adopt this procedure, or where the Magistrate does not move the Local Government to adopt this procedure in cases where it could be adopted, and sends to us direct, we think it expedient, as a general rule, not to exercise our powers of revision. We refuse to entertain the reference. Let the record be returned....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Wazir Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All309
Blair, J.1. The order for payment of so much fine per day so long us the building continues to stand is illegal. The addition of such an order is premature. There must be proof of a continuing offence before the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to make such an order arises. That portion, therefore, of the order will be set aside. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ram Krishna Biswas v. Mohendra Nath Mozamdar (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 565....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference Under Section 57 of Act No. Ii of 1899
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All372
Knox, Blair and Banerji, JJ.1. The question referred to us is whether a certain document which is upon the record is a release or a conveyance, or whether it is any other kind of document liable to stamp duty, such as a transfer under Schedule i, Article 62, Clause (e) of the Act.2. The document is one in which, one Babu Reoti Saran, a certified purchaser of property sold in execution of a decree, recites that the real owner of the decree, and the real purchaser of the property from first to last and throughout, has been his brother, Babu Rnghubir Saran. The executant adds that the document, which he calls an agreement, is given by way of release that it may be of use.3. The term 'conveyance' has been defined in Act No. II of 1899. Looking to the document as it stands, it cannot be said that it is an instrument by which property is transferred inter vivos. The writer says that he has nothing to transfer, and he does not pretend to transfer anything. On the other hand, we find upon turn...
Tag this Judgment!Sakina Vs. Gauri Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All302
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad refusing an application made by the defendant, the present appellant, to have an ex parte decree obtained against her set aside under the provisions of Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that she was not duly served with the summons. It appears from the evidence of the process-server that he attended at the house of the defendant, and learnt on inquiry that she was not present in the house, but had gone to Seana, in the district of Bulandshahr. Without further attempt to serve the summons on the defendant personally, he affixed the summons to the outer door of the house in which she had resided. This was clearly not proper service within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Where the serving officer finds a defendant to be away temporarily from home and knows where he is, it is not good service if he thereupon does no more than fix the summons to t...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Das Vs. Amir Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All304
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an application under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that an order of the District Judge of Allahabad transferring a suit from his file to the Court of the Subordinate Judge may be set aside, on the ground that the learned Judge had no power to retransfer the suit from his Court to the Court of the Subordinate Judge.2. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, and upon an application made by both parties to the District Judge, it was transferred by him to his own file. Several applications appear to have been made in the suit, one of which, namely, an application for amendment of the plaint, had been disposed of by the Subordinate Judge. On the 16th of November the District Judge suo motu retransferred the case to the files of the Subordinate Judge for trial.3. It is now contended on the part of the appellants that this order of retransfer was made ultra vires, there being no power under Section 25 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Birch
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All306
Knox, J.1. The accused has been convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Of the serious nature of the offence there can be no doubt.2. The learned Magistrate who convicted the accused said not one word too strong in his judgment about the nature of the offence. He adds, however, that in consideration of the youth of the accused (for he is only twenty years of age), and that he is apparently of a respectable family, and from his appearance seems rather weak than deliberately criminal, lie proceeds to pass a sentence which would have been a light sentence for an offence under the section under which the accused was convicted.3. Taking all the learned Magistrate had said into consideration, it appeared to me that this was a case to which the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were intended to apply. It was necessary, however, to be satisfied that matters, which had not been pr...
Tag this Judgment!Lalu Vs. Chhedi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All300
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree for pre-emption passed, on the 20th of December, 1897. The decree; provides that the purchase money should be paid within two months from its date, and, that on such payment the plaintiff should obtain possession of the property. The purchase money was paid on the 17th of February, 1898, and the present application for: execution was presented on the 16th of February, 1901. It was thus made after the lapse of three years from the date of the decree, but within three years from the date on which the money was paid. The Court of first instance on the objection of the judgment-debtor held the application to be barred by limitation, applying to it Article 179 of Schedule ii of the Indian Limitation Act. On the decree-holder's appeal the lower appellate Court set aside the order of the Court of first instance and remanded the case to that Court under Section 562, Code of Civil Procedure. From th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›