Allahabad Court January 1915 Judgments
NaraIn Sarup and ors. Vs. Nanda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All115; 28Ind.Cas.568
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment. The defendant's reply was that the land had been leased to him, that he was drilling on after the expiry of the lease and was doing so with the consent of the plaintiffs themselves, who had realized rent from him. He further expressly pleaded that, as the relationship of landlord and tenant is subsisting between the parties, the suit is not cognizable by a Civil Court. On this the Court of first instance took net ion under Section 202 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901). The defendant failed to institute any suit within the prescribed period of three months, for the determination of the question whether he was holding the land as tenant of the plaintiffs. On this the Court of first instance rejected the defendant's plea of tenancy, as it was bound to do, and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. In appeal an extraordinary plea was taken by the defendant, that he ought to have been given the benefit of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Naurang and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.651
Piggott, J.1. The point of law taken by this application is whether a person who entices away a married woman from her husband's house, with intent that he may dispose of her in marriage to some one else, has committed an offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. I hold in the affirmative, on the ground that sexual intercourse between the woman and any other person to whom she has thus been given in marriage, during the life-time of her husband, would be illicit intercourse within the meaning of the section in question. An examination of the record in this case suggests some doubt as to whether a more serious offence, falling under the abduction sections of the Indian Penal Code, was not committed; that under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the applicants Naurang and Tota were re-tried after having been once discharged and that the sentence passed upon them is a fairly substantial one, I am not disposed to direct further action to be taken against them. I dism...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Paras Ram Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All184; (1915)ILR37All187
Piggott, J.1. I called for the record of this case on examination of the Sessions statement from the District of Basti for the month of November, 1914. One Paras Ram, a boy described as being between 12 and 14 years of age, was charged with having committed the offence of rape on the person of a little girl about 7 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted in the alternative under Section 376 or Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, not because he was in any doubt as to the facts, but because he considered that there was a difficulty as to whether a boy of the age of the accused could legally be convicted of the major offence charged. The presumption of English Law against the possibility of the commission of the offence of rape by a boy under the age of 14 years has no application in this country. The law on the subject of infancy in connection with criminal liability is laid down in sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code and nowhere else. It was a simple question of...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Raja Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All230
Piggott, J.1. I must take it from the learned Sessions Judge, who had better opportunity of satisfying himself on the point than this Court can have, that the trying Magistrate, Mr. A.G. Ausan, was a Sub-divisional Magistrate in the district of Azamgarh at the time when this order was passed. The question raised by this application, therefore, is whether a Magistrate of the second class, who is also a Sub-divisional Magistrate, can pass an order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure binding over a person to keep the peace for a period exceeding six months. The suggestion is that, as such order carries with it an alternative sentence of imprisonment in case security is not filed, the powers of a Magistrate of the second class, even though he may be a Sub-divisional Magistrate, are limited as regards the period of imprisonment by the provisions of Section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am clearly of opinion that the provisions of Section 106 of the Code of Criminal...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All15(2); 28Ind.Cas.734
Piggott, J.1. I must take it from the learned Sessions Judge, who had a better opportunity of satisfying himself on the point than this Court can have, that the trying Magistrate, Mr. A.G. Ausan, was a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the District of Azamgarh at the time when this order was passed. The question raised by this application, therefore, is whether a Magistrate of the second Class, who is also a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, can pass an order under Section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure binding over a person to keep the peace for a period exceeding six months. The suggestion is that, as such order carries with it an alternative sentence of imprisonment in case security is not filed, the powers of a Magistrate of the second Class, even though he may be a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, are limited as regards the period of imprisonment by the provisions of Section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am clearly of opinion that the provisions of Section 106 of the Code of Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Moulvi Wazir Ahmad Vs. Daya Kishun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All226; 28Ind.Cas.352
Rafique, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a zemindar for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from cutting down trees of a grave or otherwise interfering with his (zemindar's) possession over it. It was alleged in the plaint that Moulvi Wazir Ahmad, the plaintiff, was the zemindar of the village of Shitabnagar, and that Bhopal and others were his tenants in respect of plots, among others, numbered 74, 81 and 89. There was a mango grove on the said plots which was in the possession of Bhopal and others merely as his tenants, whose sole right the grove was that of taking fruits. They had no right of transfer in respect of the trees of the grove nor could the said trees be sold in execution of a decree against thorn. One Daya Krishna in execution of Ids decree against them had some of the trees of the said grove put up to auction and purchased them himself on the 28th of June 1911. The said sale was void at law and put an end to the rights of the tenants in the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Ahmad Said Khan Vs. Masih-ul-lah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All229; 28Ind.Cas.387
1. Those are two connected second appeals arising out of the same series of transactions. They may be disposed of by a single judgment, the facts in both cases being substantally the same. The respondent, Mohammad Masih-ul-lah Khan, who is the plaintiff in both suits, is the lambardar of a certain mahal. In that mahal there was a share of six annas belonging to one Rafaat Khan and a share of two annas belonging to Musammat Zohra Begam. At one time Zohra Begam was also in possession as sub-mortgagee of the six-annns shave belonging to Rafaat Khan. While thus in possession she leased out to the defendant-appellant, Ahmad Said Khan, the right to receive the profits of the entire share of eight annas, that is to say, of her own share of two annas plus Rafaat Khan's share of six annas. Subsequently Rafaat Khan executed a simple mortgage of his own six annas share to Ahmad Said Khan aforesaid, making it part of the covenant, that the existing usufructuary mortgage should be redeemed out of t...
Tag this Judgment!Richha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.737
Tudball, J.1. The four appellants Richha, Daya Ram, Bhagwan and Shera have been convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The first three were sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 and the fourth to three years rigorous imprisonment. They have all appealed to this Court. Though the appellant, Shera, has been sentenced to a term of less than four years and the Court which tried and decided the case was the Court of an Assistant Sessions Judge, it is clear that the case is one in which the appeal would lie to this Court in view of the language of Section 408, Clause (b), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is clearly a case in which an Assistant Sessions Judge has passed a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding four years. As to the actual facts of the case there is clearly no doubt whatsoever. The deceased Bansi had a dispute with the appellants Richha, Bhagwana and Shera in respect of his house. It had fallen down and he was re-buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dip Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All224; (1915)ILR37All247
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of one Dip Narain, who was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of an offence punishable under Sections 211/109 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh on appeal. As a matter of fact nine persons were put on their trial before the Magistrate, all of whom were convicted and all of whom appealed. The Sessions Judge dismissed seven of the appeals, but acquitted Dip Narain and one Musammat Talia. There has been no appeal against the acquittal of the latter.2. The task before us is a simpler one than was before the courts below, as many matters which were in controversy there have been accepted in argument in this Court as fully established by the evidence. We find that Gaya, Sunar, resident of Shahzadpur in the Fyzabad district, was on bad terms with his relatives, Sarju and Lachhman. He somehow or other came to believe that a false charge brought aga...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Sahu Vs. Bhirgu Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All54; 28Ind.Cas.270
Appeal from Order No. 91 of 1914.1. This is an appeal by a purchaser of property at an execution sale. According to the finding of the lower Appellate Court the decree-holder, Ram Jas Shan, purchased the property in the name of his son, the present appellant. The judgment-debtors applied to have the sale set aside on various grounds, amongst others on the ground that the decree-holder had purchased the property in the name of his son without obtaining the permission of the Court. The Munsif rejected the application. On appeal the District Judge held that the purchase was really made by the decree holder himself and finding that the property fetched a very low price, he set aside the sale. As the order was clearly one passed under Order XXI, Rule 72, Clause (3), an appeal lay to the District Judge under Order XLIII, Rule 1(j), but a further appeal to this Court is clearly barred by Section 104, Sub-section 2, of the Code. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.Civil R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »