Allahabad Court October 1909 Judgments
In Re: Nandkishore in Nandkishore Vs. Anwar Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.809
1. This is an application for review of judgment passed in a second appeal by a Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member on the 12th of December, 1907. The grounds on which a review of judgment is sought are that since the disposal of the appeal documentary evidence has been discovered which, if sufficiently proved, would have satisfied the Court below that a receipt for money relied on by it was a spurious receipt. It is needless to say that in second appeal the Court is bound to accept the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court, and that Court in this instance found that the receipt relied on was genuine. If on the hearing of the appeal this new evidence had been discovered, it might have been open to this Court to allow the appellant to withdraw the appeal with a view to apply to the lower appellate Court for a review of judgment on the ground of the discovery of fresh evidence. But unfortunately for the appellant the evidence was not discovered until sometime had ...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Haji Bhambhu Khan and anr. Vs. Musammat Latifunnissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.73
1. The main question in this appeal is whether or not Sikandar Khan is a legitimate son of Ghulam Hussain Khan who died at the age of 80 in the year 1867. This Ghulam Hussain Khan served as a sawar in a regiment in the Deccan. He brought with him from the Deccan as did other sawars, a girl of the name of Piria. In these proceedings she is described as a slave girl. But she was really not a slave. Most likely with other Pathan girls she was carried off as the subine women of old by the victorious Rajputs. Be this as it may, she was not a slave girl in the ordinary sense of the word. She died many years ago, and it is clear upon the evidence that Sikandar Khan is her son by Ghulam Hussain Khan. The real question is whether Musammat Piria was acknowledged by Ghulam Hussain to be his lawful wife and Sikandar Khan as his lawful son. Ghulam Hussain had a Rajput wife named Musammat Bhana, and by her a son named Khadim Hussain Khan and a daughter named Fahimunnissa. It is proved beyond questio...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Karan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.709
Tudball, J.1. Five persons Raj Karan, Baldeo, Golai, Ram Nandan and Bansdeo, have been bound over by the District Magistrate of Mirzapur, to be of good behaviour. The record of the case has been submitted to this Court by the Sessions Judge, with a recommendation that the Magistrate's order be set aside. It appears that these persons together with three others ware sent up for trial on a charge of dacoity. The District Magistrate found that the evidence was insufficient. An attempt was made to obtain evidence sufficient for a conviction under Section 400, Indian Penal Code, but that evidence was not forth coming. Thereupon as the Police information gave the District Magistrate reason to believe that it was necessary to bind over some of the persons to be of good behaviour, he took proceedings against these five persons out of the eight. An order under Section 112 was duly passed and duly communicated to them. The evidence for the prosecution was taken in their presence and they were al...
Tag this Judgment!Sallimullah Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.808
Richards, J.1. The appellant was charged and convicted under Section 477 A, Indian Penal Code. The charge is in the following terms: 'That you between 1907 and 1909 being a clerk of the Canal Department wilfully altered and mutilated the accounts, which were in your possession etc.' Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there should be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. In the present case the accused according to the evidence is charged with making five series of alterations. Under tired 234, the accused might have been section at one trial for three offences but they must have been committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last. It cannot be contended that Section 235 applies, nor the provisions of Section 236 or Section 239. In the case of Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor 25 M. 61 (P....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Baran Man and ors. Vs. Janki Man and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.60
1. This was a suit in ejectment instituted under the provisions of Section 58 of Act II of 1901. The parties were co-sharers. A partition took place in the year 1905. The plots now in suit are numbered 1008 and 1009. The defence was that upon objection raised by the defendant in the partition proceedings, the Assistant Collector had decided that he was the khudkasht holder of these 2 plots. This order of the Assistant Collector who made the partition is upon the record. In the final order of the Collector confirming the partition proceedings these 2 plots were assigned to the plaintiff's share. There is no explanation as to why the Collector ignored the order of the Assistant Collector and both the Courts below appear to be of opinion that the Collector's order was a mistake. The plaintiff instituted this suit, upon the strength of the entries in the village papers and the final order of Collector, to eject the defendant from these two plots. The first Court dismissed the suit holding ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalta Parshad and ors. Vs. Babu Parshad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.708
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for the dissolution of a partnership alleged to have existed between the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. It was subsequently held that a number of other persons were also partners and they were made parties accordingly. The plaintiffs suggested in their plaint that they were entitled not only to a dissolution of partnership but also to the repayment of the sum of Rs. 8,000, on the ground that they had been misled by the defendants or some one or more of them. This sum of Rs. 8,000 is not to be confounded with the item of Rs. 7,509-14-6 which we shall deal with later on. It represented the capital of the plaintiffs in the firm. The Court made a decree for the dissolution of the partnership but it gave no relief to the plaintiffs in respect of the sum of Rs. 8,000 to which we have already referred. After the primary decree for dissolution had been made the plaintiffs on the 22nd Jane, 1906, put forward a claim to the Receiver that th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.449
1. Gulab Singh, Bishnath Singh, Chatar Singh and Baldeo Singh are accused of an offence under Section 225B, Indian Penal Code. On the 19th of March these four men were arrested and locked up in the tahsil lock-up. A warrant against them had been issued by the Tahsildar on the ground that they were defaulters and had not paid the Government revenue due from them. On the 20th, these four men escaped whilst still in custody. There is no dispute about the facts. All the necessary ingredients constituting the offence have been admitted by the accused or on their behalf. The learned gentleman, who appeared on their behalf in the Court below, contended that even on the face of the admitted facts the accused were not liable to any punishment. He based his argument upon Rule 9, Clause (2) of the rules of Board of Revenue relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue under the N.W.P. and Oudh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The learned Magistrate admitted the force of his argument and acquitted the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Mangat Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.695
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows: The applicant was the mortgagee of half a house He brought a suit for sale of that share against one Jhugra and his son Jethu. A decree was passed, in his favour, for a certain sum recoverable by sale of the half share. He made two or three applications for execution of his decree. The first application asked for the recovery of the money by sale of the half share. The application fell through. He then made a second application for the sale of the whole house. That application also fell through. His third application, the one with which we are now concerned, was for recovery of the money by the sale of the whole house. Notice was issued; no objection was taken and the whole house was sold and purchased by the applicant. Then Jethu came into Court and objected in respect to the sale of more than a half share. His objections prevailed. The Munsif, thereupon, placed the applicant upon his trial for an offence under Section 193, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›