Allahabad Court January 1912 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.
Musai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.847
1. The appellants Bhageru, Musai and Chekuri Ahirs have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Mirzapore of having been members of an unlawful assembly whose object was to beat Raghu Ahir and in prosecution of which one or more of them struck blows at; Raghu with the intention of causing injuries which he or they knew to be likely to cause his death and did in fact cause his death.2. It appears that Raghu took a widow into his keeping and that his relations and caste-follows resented his action and put him out of caste. On the day of the Holi (March 15th, 1911) Budhai, uncle of Bhageru, had a quarrel with Raghu and threatened to beat him. Bhageru and two men, named Bhagwan and Ajudhia, were standing close by with lathis in their hands. The witnesses Jaimangal, Jarbandhan and others intervened and induced Budhai to go home. This was about 3 P.M. According to the evidence of Debi Prasad, son of Raghu, Musai and Chekuri went to Raghu's house about 4 hours later. Chekuri had some words wi...
Jugal Kishore and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All268
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit for a decree for sale upon a mortgage, dated the 8th of January, 1884, made by Adhar Singh and others, in favour of the respondents. On the 17th and 18th of January, 1898, the mortgagors by two deeds sold the mortgaged property to the respondents for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1,800, of which Rs. 500 were said to have been retained by the respondents on account of a mortgage of January 11th, 1894. There was no mortgage of that date--the intention was to refer to the mortgage of the 8th of January, 1884. The mistake in the day of the month seems to have been due to the fact that the mortgage of the 8th of January, 1884, was registered on the 11th of January, and the mistake in the year seems to have been a purely clerical error. In 1899, the appellants brought a suit for pre-emption saying that there was no Buch mortgage as the one referred to in the sale deed, and that the statement in the deed that Rs. 600 had been retained on account of a previou...
Kishori Lal Vs. Todar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.535
Chamier, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant for his share of the profits of two properties which may be called khata No. 1 and khata No. 2 in mouzah Chiti. The suit relates to the years 1314, 1315 and 1316 Faslis. The appellant was a recorded co-sharer during the years in question. Respondent was lambardar of khata No. 1 during the same period. The claim for profits in khata No. 2 is not before as in appeal and may be disregarded.2. In khata No. 1 there were five co-sharers, each owning a one-fifth share. Bach of them was in possession of separate lands on account of his share. In other words, the whole property was held by them as sir or khud kasht. The actual cultivators of the land were treated as the tenants of one or other of the co-sharers. The whole of the share of one of the co-sharers named Charan Singh excepting ten bighas was sold at execution sales to the appellant in or before 1901. The remaining ten bighas were sold to the respondent. The resul...
Jogal Kishore and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.619
1. This was a suit for a decree for sale upon a mortagage dated January 8th, 1881, made by Adbar Singh and others in favour of the respondents. On January 17th and 18th, 1898, the mortgagors by two deeds sold the mortgaged property to the' respondents for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1,800 of which Rs. 500 were said to have been retained by the respondents on account of the mortgage of January 11th, 1894. There was no mortgage of that date. The intention was to refer to the mortgage of January 8th, 1884. The mistake in the day of the month seems to have been due to the facts that the mortgage of January 8fch, 1884, was rejected on January 11th and the mistake in the year seems to have been purely clerical error. In 1899 the appellants brought a suit for pre-emption saying that there was no such mortgage as the one referred to in the sale-deed, and that the statement in the deed that Rs. 500 had been retained on account of a previous mortgage had been made for the purpose of makin...
Abdul Ghafur and anr. Vs. Raza Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All267
Karamat Husain, J.1. In this case an Assistant Collector of first class acting under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, directed the applicants to be prosecuted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants appealed to the learned District Judge of Banda, for revoking the sanction. The application was rejected by the learned District Judge and the order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed. The applicants came to this Court in revision on the criminal side. The learned vakil for the opposite party, relying on the Full Bench ruling of this Court In the matter of the petition of Bhup Kunwar (1903) I.L.R., 26 All, 249 contends that the High Court has no jurisdiction, in the exercise of its revisional powers on the criminal side under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with such orders. The Full Bench ruling in the case referred to is binding upon me. The learned vakil for the applicants prays that permission may be given to him to alter the appl...
Dhian Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.649
Karamat Husain, J.1. In this case, Kalyan Singh and Dhian Singh were convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25 each, or, in default, to undergo three weeks' further rigorous imprisonment. Nihal Singh was convicted under Section 325 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three weeks' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Its. 10, or in default, to a further period of ten days' rigorous imprisonment. The convicts appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, and one of the pleas in appeal was that the conviction of all the three accused persons under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was bad in law. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentences and dismissed the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, in the course of his judgment, says: The lower Court believes the evidence for the prosecution, and after reading it, I see no reason to take a different view. The medical evid...
Abdul Ghafoor and anr. Vs. Raza Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.829
ORDERKaramat Husain, J.1. In this case an Assistant Collector of is Class acting under Section 46, Criminal Procedure Code, directed the applicants to be prosecuted under Section (sic) the Indian Penal Code. The applicants appealed to the learnt d District Judge of Banda for revoking the sanction. The application was rejected by the learned District Judge and the order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed. The applicants came to this Court in revision on the criminal side. The learned Vakil for the opposite party, relying en the Full Bench ruling of this Court in In the matter if the petition of Bhup Kunwar 23 A. 249 : 1 Cr. L.J. 73 : A.W.N. (1904) 15, contends that the High Court has no jurisdiction in the exercise of its revisional powers on the criminal side, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to interfere with such orders. The Full Beech Ruling in the case referred to is binding upon me. The learned Vakil for the applicants prays that permission may be given t...
Abhai Charan Chakrawati Vs. Kesho Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.642
1. In our opinion, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was quite correct. It is perfectly clear that there never was a final account between the parties.2. The principal is always entitled to have a final account taken between himself and his agent at the determination of the agency. If, from time to time, accounts have been taken and settled between the parties, the agent when rendering his final account will be entitled to rely upon those casual accounts and to urge that they ought to be accepted as being prima facie correct. But, in the present case, it is perfectly clear that there never has been a final account between the parties. The decree of the learned Subordinate Judge was accordingly quite correct and we dismiss the appeal with costs, including in this Court fees on the higher scale....
Gopi NaraIn and ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.625
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 19th of June 1887. The mortgagor was one Fateh Chand, and the mortgagee was one Abdul Kafil. The mortgage was for Rs. 50,000 at 14 annas per cent, per mensem interest. It is clear now that Abdul Kafil was not the real mortgagee but was only benamidar for one Adbul Jalil, a Pleader in Cawnpore. This mortgage was subsequently attached and sold in execution of s simple money-decree which Gaya Prasad had obtained against Abdul Jalil and which was being executed against the representatives of the latter. The certificated auction-purchaser of this mortgage was Babu Kunj Behari Lal, the plaintiff in the present suit. This bond has been the subject of a good deal of litigation which, in the view we take of the case, it is not material to refer to. It was made, as already stated, by Fateh Chand in favour of his Pleader, and one of the defences taken in the present suit is the plea that there was no consideration for the bond. ...
Oudh Bihari Pande and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Sahi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.646
1. The facts connected with this application for a review of judgment were shortly as follows. An application was made by one Mahadeo on behalf of himself and certain minors for execution of a certain decree which awarded separate amounts to the different decree-holders. This Court by a judgment, dated the 1st of May 1907, decided that the decree was time-barred against Mahadeo unless he could establish certain alleged payments but that the decree was not barred against the minors. The case was accordingly remanded. The lower Courts held that the payments had been established and that the execution was not barred against Mahadeo. The matter came up before this Court and judgment was delivered on the 31st of May 1909. In that judgment the fact was overlooked that Mahadeo had applied for execution not only for himself but also for the minors. The minors were not separately represented and the Court in error dismissed the application for execution as a whole, which had the effect of dismi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »