Allahabad Court May 1914 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.
Bal Kishan Vs. Sipahi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All202(1); (1914)ILR36All468
Knox, J.1. The case was one in which the offence charged was an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It was transferred from one court to another until it had come under the cognizance of no less than four different courts and even now it does not appear clear under what orders the case passed from one to another of these several courts. There appears to be a custom in Pilibhit under which all cases entrusted to a beach of magistrates are put before the senior honorary magistrate in order that ho may make a proper distribution of the work and the authority fort this practice is based upon Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 17 empowers a District Magistrate to make rules or give special orders consistent with the Code as to the distribution of work among such magistrates and benches. Now distribution of work is one thing, calling up a case from the court to which it is transferred for trial is quite different, and I cannot find that the Code anywhere em...
Mata Prasad Vs. Baran Barhai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All469
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. These are three connected first appeals which raise substantially one single point. An application under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of sanction to institute certain prosecutions for the offence of giving false evidence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code was made in the court of the Munsif of Gorakhpur city and was dismissed by him. The party applying for sanction carried the matter to the court of the District Judge, as he was entitled to do, under Clause (6), Section 195, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the result that the District Judge passed an order granting the sanction. The parties against whom the sanction was granted have filed these three connected appeals in this Court. A preliminary objection is taken that under the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aforesaid it was not intended that the question of granting or withholding a sanction should be carried to a third cour...
Mohammad HusaIn Vs. Inayat HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All77; (1914)ILR36All482
Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a second appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The decree-holder Mahmud Husain, on the 5th of April, 1909, obtained a preliminary decree for sale against five persons. These five persons were Ewaz Husain, Inayat Husain, Farzand Husain, Hadi Husain and Mahmud Husain. The mortgage deed, the basis of his claim, had been executed by Ewaz Husain alone. The suit originally was instituted against him alone, but apparently, as his whereabouts could not be traced, and as the other four persons were actually holding possession of the property and moreover were his heirs, the decree-holder made them parties to the suit, and his claim was decreed ex parte as against Ewaz Husain and on contest as against the other four defendants. On the 18th of December, 1909, the final decree for sale was passed. On the 14th of January, 1910, i.e., within one year of the final decree, the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree, and in the necessary column he en...
Mahomed HussaIn Vs. Enayat HussaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.473
1. This is a second appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The decree-holder, Mahmood Hussain, on April 5, 1909, obtained a preliminary decree for sale against five persons. These five persons were Ewaz Hussain, Inayet Hussian, Farzand Hussain, Hadi Hussain and Muhammad Hussian. The mortgage-deed, the basis of his claim, had been executed by Ewaz Hussain alone. The suit originally was instituted against him alone, but apparently as his whereabouts could not be traced and as the other four persons were actually holding possession of the property and moreover were his heirs the decree-holder made them parties to the suit, and his claim was decreed ex parte as against Ewaz Hussain and on contest as against the other four defendants. On December 18th, 1909 final decree for sale was passed. On January 14th, 1910, i.e., within one year of the final decree, the decree-holder applied for execution of his decree and in the necessary column he entered all the names of the judgment-debtors ...
Emperor Vs. Narian
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All481
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares under Section 307, Clause (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It seems that one Narain was tried in the court of the learned Sessions Judge with the help of jury on a charge of theft. The charge was denied by Narain. The prosecution examined throe witnesses in support of the charge and the accused gave evidence to show that he bore a good character. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge, being of opinion that the verdict of the jury was flagrantly in opposition to the evidence in the case and was perverse, did not accept it and has submitted the case to this Court under Section 307, Clause (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We find on a perusal of the record that, after the first two witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, it was discovered that one of the jurors was deaf and had not followed the trial at all. He was discharged and a...
Bhagwati Saran Man Tiwari Vs. Parmeshar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All271; (1914)ILR36All476
Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. It appears that Janki Saran, the father of the plaintiff, purchased a certain share in the village from one Musammat Moti Rani, a Hindu widow. A further share was acquired by Janki Saran by auction purchase in a sale in execution of a decree against the same Musammat Moti Rani. After the death of Moti Rani a person claiming to be the reversioner (Dwarka Das) sold the property to one Parmeshar ignoring the sale by the widow and the auction sale in execution of the decree. Then the plaintiff instituted the present suit, claiming, first, a declaration that he was entitled to possession by virtue of the sale by Moti Rani and the auction purchase and, secondly, to pre-empt the property by virtue of a custom of pre-emption. Janki Saran is the father of the plaintiff and they apparently are members of a joint Hindu family. Another suit for pre-emption was brought by Sheobaran alleging himself to be co-sharer ha...
Sita Ram, Drig Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Babbu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All478
Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 23rd of September, 1898. There were a number of defendants besides the mortgagors. The present appellants Babbu and Sukhnandan Lal were defendants as purchasers of a portion of the mortgaged property. The court of first instance, according to the judgment of the lower appellate court, threw the onus of proving the payment of consideration upon the plaintiff, and held that he had not discharged this onus and accordingly dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court itself also dismissed the suit, stating that, while the court of first instance was wrong in throwing the onus upon the plaintiff, still, the witnesses having been examined and not believed, the suit was rightly dismissed.2. A learned Judge of this Court finding that there was an acknowledgment of the money in the deed itself, (and apparently, believing that there was no other evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants), held ...
Bhagwati Saran Man Tewari Vs. Parmeshar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.283
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. It appears that Janki Saran, the father of the plaintiff, purchased a certain share in the village from one Musamniat Moti Rani, a Hindu widow. 'A further share was acquired by Janki Saran by auction-purchase in a sale in execution of a decree against the same Musammat Moti Rani. After the death of Moti Rani a person claiming to be the reversioner (Dwarka Das) sold the property to one Parmeshar, ignoring the sale by the widow and the auction-sale in execution of the decree. Then the plaintiff instituted the present suit, claiming, first, a declaration that he was entitled to possession by virtue of the sale by Moti Rani and the auction-purchase and, secondly, to pre-empt the property by virtue of a custom of pre-emption.2. Janki Saran is the father of the plaintiff and they apparently are members of a joint Hindu family. Another suit for pre-emption was brought by Sheobaran alleging himself to be a co-sharer having a right of preempt...
Babbu and anr. Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All319; 25Ind.Cas.426
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 23rd of September 1898. There were a number of defendants besides the mortgagors. The present appellants, Babu and Sukhnandan Lal, were defendants as purchasers of a portion of the mortgaged property. The Court of first instance, according to the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, threw the onus of proving the payment of consideration upon the plaintiffs, and held that they had not discharged this onus and accordingly dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court itself also dismissed the suit stating that while the Court of first instance was wrong in throwing the onus upon the plaintiffs, still the witnesses having been examined and not believed the suit was rightly dismissed.2. A learned Judge of this Court finding that there was an acknowledgment of the money in the deed itself (and apparently believing that there was no other evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants), held that both the Courts below were ...
Ashiq HusaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All379; 24Ind.Cas.848
Piggott, J.1. The applicant, Ashiq Husain, is on his trial before the Court of a Special Magistrate of the Moradabad district on a charge of an offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code. He has applied for the transfer of the case, on the allegation that he entertains a reasonable apprehension that he will not have a fair and impartial trial in the Court before which the case is now pending. The affidavit upon which this application is based contains a number of allegations as to matters antecedent to institution of the case now pending, and also certain allegations regarding the Special Magistrate's conduct of the case itself. Now all the facts falling under the former head were known to the applicant the very day that process was issued to him from the Special Magistrate's Court. It is clear that they had not by themselves created any apprehension in his mind that he was not likely to receive a fair and impartial trial in the Court of this particular Magistrate. It might perhaps b...