Allahabad Court November 1918 Judgments
Suraj Bali Rai and ors. Vs. Bhola Nath Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All223
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment brought in the Revenue Court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was not an occupancy tenant and was therefore liable to ejectment. The court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court granted a decree. There is a long history attached to the holding. It would appear that at one time at any rate the holding was the holding of an occupancy tenant and the defendant originally got into possession by virtue of a usufructuary mortgage created before the Tenancy Act came into operation. However this may be, an agreement arrived at upon a compromise between the parties in a previous litigation was put in evidence. Under that agreement the plaintiffs' predecessor in title agreed that the defendant should be considered an occupancy tenant and that he should not be ejected, It has been properly conceded here that the present plaintiff is in no better position than ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Nathtewari and ors. Vs. Suraj Bali Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.357
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment brought in the Revenue Court. The plaintiff alleged that the. defendant was not an occupancy tenant and, therefore, liable to ejectment. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court granted a decree. There is a long history attached to the holding. It would appear that at one time at any rate the holding was the holding of an occupancy tenant and the defendant originally got into possession by virtue of an usufructuary mortgage created before the Tenancy Act came into operation. However this may be, an agreement arrived at upon a compromise between the parties in a previous litigation was put in evidence. Under that agreement the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title agreed that the defendant should be considered an occupancy tenant and that be should not be ejected. It has been properly, conceded here that the present plaintiff is in no better position than his vendor would have been who entered into the agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gopal Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All217
George Knox, J.1. The District Magistrate of Muttra having before him an appeal from the judgment of an Honorary Magistrate of the second class of Brindaban found that the case was one which had been tried by a Bench of Magistrates. The chief argument advanced before him was that the judgment was signed and delivered by a single member of the Bench and that this was illegal. He then adopted what seems to me to Be a very suitable and sensible order and in no way opposed to Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not reverse the finding and sentence, he did not alter the finding maintaining the sentence, he did not reduce the sentence, he did not alter the nature of the sentence. He found that on a previous occasion (and as I find on going through the record that on two previous occasions) Lala Phul Chand, whose judgment was before him, had, when he found that he could not proceed alone, refused to proceed with the case at all. The proper inference from this is that if he h...
Tag this Judgment!Mukat Lal Vs. Gopal Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All63; (1919)ILR61All219; 48Ind.Cas.815
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant on certain allegations which are set forth in the plaint. They are as follows:There was a decree out against the plaintiff for a small sum of Rs. 205-13-0. The defendant was the Court Amin whose duty it was to sell the plaintiff's property in execution of the decree. The plaintiff alleges that on the day of the sale he tendered the amount of the decree to the defendant, whose duty it was under Order XXI, Rule 69, to receive the money and not proceed with the sale. The plaintiff goes on to allege that the defendant, being a friend of the decree-holder, refused to accept the money and proceeded with the sale, the result being that the plaintiff had to deposit the full purchase money which the auction purchaser had bid for the property together with 5 per cent. as a condition precedent to getting the sale set aside. The defendant denied th...
Tag this Judgment!Mula Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All159; 49Ind.Cas.98
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. Mula on the 1st of August 1918 gave information to a Police Officer that certain persons had committed theft of his property. On the 3rd of August 1918 he-made a - complaint to a Magistrate to the same effect. The Police in their enquiry came to the conclusion that the information Mula had given to them was false. The Magistrate before whom the complaint was made called upon the Police for a report. The Police reported that the, complaint was false. Mula asked for an opportunity to produce his evidence. The Court allowed him to produce his witnesses without summoning the accused. After examining his witnesses the Magistrate fixed a date and issued summons to the accused to appear. On the date fixed Mula and his witnesses did not appear. The Magistrate having no evidence against the accused discharged him. Thereupon the Police Officer to whom the false information was given laid a complaint and preferred a charge under Section 182 against...
Tag this Judgment!Bhim Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All207; 49Ind.Cas.494
Tudball, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code of having, caused simple hurt to a Police Officer in execution of his duty. He is a brother of one Sham Singh, who was suspected of having committed theft of some property from his master. Inspector Mours went to search his quarters, whereupon the applicant Bhim Singh assaulted him. The plea taken is that the search attempted to be made by Inspector Mours was not authorised by law under Section 165, read with: Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in that Sham Singh was an accused person. With this contention I, cannot possibly agree. Sections 94 and 165 are perfectly plain and their language is wide enough to cover the. case. In the first piece, at the moment of the attempted search Sham Singh was not an accused-person. It is true that he was suspected but nothing more, and he is clearly a person to whom an order could have been issued under Section 94, and as in the circumstances it was h...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Das and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All308; 49Ind.Cas.774
George Knox, J.1. The District Magistrate of Muttra, having before him an appeal from the judgment of an Honorary Magistrate of the Second Class of Bindraban, found that the case was one which had been tried by a Bench of Magistrates. The chief argument advanced before him was that the judgment was signed and delivered by a single member of the Bench and that this was illegal. He then adopted what seems to me to be a very suitable and sensible order and in no way opposed to Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not reverse the finding and sentence, he did not alter the finding maintaining the sentence, he did not reduce the sentence, he did not alter the nature of the sentence. He found that on a previous occasion (and- as I find on going through the record that on two previous occasions) Lala Phool Chand, whose judgment was before him, had, when he found -that he could not proceed alone, refused to proceed with the case at all. The proper inference from this is that if...
Tag this Judgment!Mansa Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.351
Wilberforce, J.1. This is a decision by a First Class Magistrate of Moradabad. It is brought up before me directly in revision Under the circumstances. I quash the order, being dissatisfied with the way in which the Magistrate has treated the case.2. The charge arises out of some undoubted gambling, which was going on in a tent amongst people who were temporarily visiting Tigri for purposes of bathing in the Ganges. They were residents of Moradabad some 40 miles away, and it is not suggested that this is a permanent place of gaming or that the practice had been going on for a long time. Of course persons who use temporary places may be guilty just as much as persons who use permanent places. But the fact which I have mentioned influences my mind in deciding what I ought to do in consequence of the next point to which I wish to refer. The Magistrate by a piece of great carelessness has charged and convicted seven of these persons under the wrong section, that is to say, under Section 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Baij Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All126; 49Ind.Cas.353
1. The two Appeals Nos. 1548 and 1549 of 1916 are connected and arise out of one decree passed by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court on the 14th of August 1916.2. The relevant facts are as follows : Paran Singh, Mohan Singh and Jhanda Singh executed a deed of mortgage on the 17th of September 1852 in favour of Natbu Singh and others in lieu of Rs. 1,600 in respect of ten biswas of Tarapur and ten biswas of Mukam. The mortgage was by way of conditional sale and the term was up to the end of October 1862. Both the mortgagors and the mortgagees are dead and the present litigation is between their descendants and certain transferees from some of the heirs of the mortgagees. The suit out of which these two appeals have arisen was instituted by the heirs of Paran Singh, one of the mortgagors on the 3rd of August 1914, in the Court of the Subordinate. Judge of Moradatnd for redemption of the Mortgage of 1862. Among the defendants were impleaded the heirs of the original mortgagees...
Tag this Judgment!Taimur Ali Shah and anr. Vs. Shah Muhammad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All60; (1919)ILR61All211
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal by certain plaintiffs whose suit for a declaration has been dismissed by the trial court, virtually upon a finding that the cognizance of the Civil Court is barred by Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act (Local Act No. III of 1901). In a fourth paragraph of the memorandum of appeal which has been added by permission of this Court after the appeal had been filed it is suggested that in any case, not the entire suit, but only a part of it is affected by the provisions of Section 233(k) aforesaid. On examining the record we do not think that this plea is well founded in fact: the wording of paragraph 9 of the plaint is certainly involved and not as clear as it ought to be as to whether there were one or two claims for partition pending in the Revenue Court. The allegations in that paragraph, however, make it clear that the entire suit was one relating to the partition of a mahal or mahals, in respect of which partition proceedings were...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »