Allahabad Court August 1911 Judgments
Bhola Nath Vs. Musammat Kishori and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All25
H.G. Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. The property consisted of a house, and it has been found that the mortgagors to whom the house belonged were agriculturists. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit on the strength of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. It is to be borne in mind that it is not found that the house in question was an appurtenance of a tenancy which the tenant was incapable of mortgaging or transferring. This is a very important matter, because the question might be very different if the mortgage had bean a mortgage of the house of an occupancy tenant which was found to be appurtenant to the holding. The sole question for us to decide is whether or not having regard to 'the provisions 'of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure the courts below were correct in dismissing the plaintiff's suit. Section 60(1) is as follows:--'The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Naushe Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All89
Chamier, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Moradabad, confirming an order of a Magistrate of the first class whereby the applicant was convicted of an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine.2. The facts found are that the applicant snatched some books from a boy as he was coming out of school and told the boy that he would return the books if he came to his house. Both the Judge and the Magistrate have found that the object of the applicant was to get the boy into his house and commit an unnatural offence upon him.3. The question for decision is whether the applicant committed theft. There seems no doubt that on the facts stated the applicant could not be convicted of larceny under the common law. I mention this because my attention has been called to an old English case, in which, on facts not unlike those of the present case, the accused was acquitted. In that case the prisoner took from a house...
Tag this Judgment!Harpal Singh Vs. Indar Sen Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All79
H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen relates to fifteen villages appertaining to the Singraman estate situated in the district of Jaunpur, which is admittedly an impartible estate held by a single person, who succeeds to it according to the rule of primogeniture. Before the estate came to the plaintiff to this suit it was held by Rai Randhir Singh, who died in 1895, leaving his widow, Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, in whose favour he had made a will before his death. His nephew, Sheopal Singh, who was his nearest male relative at the time of his death, brought a suit against Sonao Kunwar for possession of the estate. The suit was compromised, and a decree was passed in accordance with the compromise. Sheopal Singh died on the 27th of July, 1899, and Thakurain Sonao Kunwar, who survived him, died on the 20th of June, 1904. Thereupon Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar, the widow of Sheopal Singh, brought a suit against the present plaintiff, Thakur Harpal Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Masit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All78
George Knox and Piggott, JJ.1. Masit has been convicted of an offence under Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He appealed to the Sessions Judge of Bareilly, and his appeal was dismissed. He comes here in revision and raises the point whether the facts found constitute an offence under Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code; the question of sentence is also put forward as being excessive.2. The facts found are that Masit joined with others in attacking a procession of Lodhas who were carrying flags to a temple with the sanction of the public authorities.3. The learned Counsel who appeared for him in this Court raised the question whether the carrying of flags to a temple before they had been, so to speak, consecrated, could be considered the performance of a religious worship or religious ceremony.4. He argued that this Section of the Indian Penal Code may fairly be supposed to have been framed upon the kindred English la...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›