Allahabad Court August 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.
Barkatullah Vs. Sadho Kalwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.791
Rafique, J.1. The facts which have given rise to the present application in revision are as follows:2. On the 2nd of December 1911, Sadho Mewa and Bhairon, the opposite party, informed the Police that Barkatullah, the applicant and one other parson, had slaughtered a cow in their house, the blood of which had flowed out into the street. The Police inquired into the report but no further action was taken in the matter.3. On the 19th of January 1912, Barkatullah filed an application before the Magistrate at Azamgarh, asking for sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to prosecute the three informants under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate rejected the application on the 6th of March 1912, holding that the offence, if any, of the three informants fell under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant preferred a revision to the Court of the Sessions Judge from the order of the Magistrate. ...
Emperor Vs. Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All8
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. It appears that in a case pending in the court of the Munsif of Havali in the district of Bareilly a document was tampered with. The learned Munsif reported to the District Judge about the tampering with the document. The latter wrote to the District Magistrate to take action in the matter. The case was made over to the Joint Magistrate of the district for trial. The applicant, who is one of the accused in the case, has filed this petition, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for revision of the proceedings pending in the court of the Joint Magistrate. It is contended on his behalf that the Joint Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the applicant and the other accused inasmuch as no complaint according to law has ever been filed. It is argued that the letter of the District Judge to the District Magistrate, in the absence of any proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not fall within the definition of a complaint, and...
Debi Prosad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.573
Rafique, J.1. It appears that in a case pending in the Court of the Munsif of Havali in the District of Bareilly, a document was tampered with. The learned Munsif reported to the District Judge about the tampering of the document. The latter wrote to the District Magistrate to take action in the matter. The case was made over to the Joint Magistrate of the District for trial. The applicant, who is one of the accused in the case, has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for revision of the proceedings pending in the Court of the Joint Magistrate. It is contended on his behalf that the Joint Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the applicant and the other accused inasmuch as no complaint according to law has ever been filed. It is argued that the letter of the District Judge to the District Magistrate, in the absence of any proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not fall within the definition of a complaint, and that Sec...
Padarath and ors. Vs. Dulam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.879
ORDERGeorge Knox, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Dulam and others. Their allegation in the plaint is that the defendants merely through enmity without any reasonable cause made a report against them in bad faith and lodged a false complaint in the Criminal Court, charging them with theft and assault. The defendants admitted having made the report of theft and assault and further, that they prosecuted the plaintiff, but they urged that the charge brought by them was a true one. Both the Courts below have found that the report and the charge were false, that the defendants were actuated by malice in bringing them and granted the plaintiffs a decree for damages. The defendants come here is appeal and say that under the circumstances of the case, no suit for false prosecution lies. Moreover, they added that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution which they started. The learned Counsel, who appeared for the appellants, supported his contention on t...
imami Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.333
1. Imami, who has been found guilty under Section 132 of Local Act I of 1900, because he had committed a breach of a rule lawfully promulgated by the Municipality of Allahabad under Section 128(b)(c), has applied to this Court to interfere in revision, and the two grounds taken in the petition are; '(1) That the Municipal Board of Allahabad had no power to frame rules charging fees for licenses to hawk articles of food on the public street and; (2) that the words place of public entertainment and resort' in Section 128(b)(1) of the Municipalities Act cannot be construed to mean the patri of a street.'2. The particular part of Allahabad, in which Imami is said to have committed a breach of Municipal Rules, is a strip of land on the Balva Ghat Road. It appears that on May 18th, 1910, the Municipal Board of Allahabad published certain rules for the regulation of till bazari in the Allahabad Municipality. These rules profess to have been passed under Section 128(b)(1). They were duly confi...
Debi Prasad Vs. Bhagwan DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All27
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J., Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they wore zamindars and owners of one anna out of a 4 1/2 anna share in each of the plots in dispute which were detailed in the plaint and are entitled to realize the rent from the defendants 2 to 4. The facts are--that one Ram Dayal owned a patti called Patti Ram Dayal, the extent of which was 4 1/2 annas of the mahal. After his death, in some way which it is unnecessary to consider, a one anna fractional share therein went to the plaintiffs and the remaining 3 1/2 annas went to the defendants 2 to 4. The rights of the defendants 2 to 4 have been acquired by defendant No. 1, the result of which was that defendants 2 to 4 became ex-proprietary tenants of the sir which they held prior to the acquisition of their proprietary rights by defendant No. 1. The real question is whether the defendants 2 to 4 are, in the events which have happened, the ex-prop...
Debi Pershad Vs. Bhagwan DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.399
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they were zemindars and owners of a 1-anna out of a 41/2 annnas share in each of the plots in dispute in, which were detailed in the plaint, and are entitled to realize the rent from the defendants Nos. 2-4, The facts are that one Ram Dayal owned a patti, called Patti Ram Dayal, the extent of which was 41/2 annas of the mahal. After his death, in some way which it is unnecessary to consider, one anna fractioned share went to the plaintiffs and the remaining 31/2 annas went to the defendants Nos. 2-4. The rights of the defendants Nos. 2-4 have been acquired by defendant No. 1, the result of which was that defendants Nos. 2-4 became ex-proprietary tenants of the sir which they held prior to the acquisition of their proprietary rights by defendant No. 1. The real question is whether the defendants Nos. 2-4 are, in the events which have happened, the ex-proprietary tenants of the defendant No. 1 or the e...
Emperor Vs. Ram Kishan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All5
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. The applicant, Mahant Ram Kishan Das of Akhara Ram Bagh, sub-division Karwi, has filed three applications in this Court under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with regard to three criminal cases pending against him in the court of the Joint Magistrate of Karwi, praying that those cases be transferred to some other court outside the district of Banda on the allegation that the district authorities are prejudiced against him. The mahant stands charged with the offences of rash and negligent driving, enticing away of a married woman with criminal intent and committing riot in the course of the abduction of the woman. The allegations on which the transfer is sought are, to put them briefly: (1) that on the 5th of June, 1912, the Joint Magistrate at first refused to see the applicant, and when on the latter's repeated request an interview was allowed, the Joint Magistrate told him that the applicant was a badmash and ordered him to go away(2), that the Joi...
Ram Kishan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.567
Rafique, J.1. The applicant, Mahant Ram Kishen Das of Akhara Ram Bagh, sub-division Kanwi, has filed three applications in this Court under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with regard to three criminal cases pending against him in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Karwi, praying that those cases be transferred to some other Court outside the District of Banda on the allegation that the District Authorities are prejudiced against him. The Mahant stands charged with the offences of rash and negligent driving, enticing away of a married woman with criminal intent and committing riot in the course of the abduction of the woman. The allegations on which the transfer is sought are to put briefly: (1) that on the 5th of June 1912, the Joint Magistrate at first refused to see the applicant and when on the latter's repeated request an interview was allowed, the Joint Magistrate told him that the applicant was a badmash and ordered him to go away; (2) that the Joint Magistrate ...
Jamadar and ors. Vs. Imam Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.431a
Banerji, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiff respondents is barred by the res judicata. It admitted that, so far as the plaintiffs other than the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, their claim is not so barred As regards the plaintiffs Nos. land 4 Purged hat a decree was obtained against them by the Present defendants on the 5th or May 1905 in respect of this very property and that the claim is, therefore, not maintainable. The facts are briefly these: Makhdum Bakhsh, Karim, and Hasan were three brothers, who owned certain property. Makhdum Bakhsh died 30 or 40 years ago and his widow, Musammat Jeoni, was in possession not only of her share in his estate but also of the shares inherited from him by his brothers, Karim and Hasan. It has been found by the Court below, and this is a finding of fact, that as regards the share of Karim and Hasan in Makhdum Bakhsh's property, the possession of Musammat Jeoni was in lieu of dower and was not adverse...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »