Allahabad Court February 1918 Judgments
Pirthi Singh and ors. Vs. Laiq Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.736
George Knox, J.1. The sole point raised in this second appeal is that the Subordinate Judge of Banda, not having jurisdiction to hear revenue appeals, had no power to take any action under Section 197 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The suit to which this second appeal refers was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Banda. In that Court the defendants raised the question that the suit brought before the Munsif was not cognizable by the Munsif as a Civil Court. Their contention was that the suit was one which if it lay at all, lay in the Revenue Court. The Munsif put this in the forefront of his judgment. The fresh issue struck by him was whether his Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit and he decided this issue against the plaintiffs. He held that the suit clearly came within the provisions of Sections 165 and 167 of the Agra Tenancy Act and that the proper forum for that suit was the Revenue Court, and not the Civil Court. As a consequence he held that the plaintiffs' suit failed a...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Vs. Padam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All357; 46Ind.Cas.652
George Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Padam Singh against one Gobardhan. Padam Singh sued to recover Rs. 224-14 0 on account of the arrears of rent said to be due from one Gobardhan. In the plaint he alleges that he and certain other persons held khudkasht land and that the khudkasht land in dispute has fallen to his lot under private partition and that he alone receives rent from the defendant. The defendant starts in his written statement by refusing to admit everything stated in the plaint; then goes on to say that he is the sub-tenant from all the co-sharers in whose name the khudkasht is recorded in the papers of the Patwari, that he has always paid rent to Ram Chander and did pay the rent of the years in dispute to the said Ram Chander and that nothing is due from him. There is also a question as to the amount of rent due. The Court of first instance held that Padam Singh was not entitled to claim the whole of the rent but only entitled to colle...
Tag this Judgment!Mahu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All102(1); 44Ind.Cas.965
Henry Richards, C.J.1. In this case the Magistrate has made an order under Section 107 against the applicants. It appears there is a cattle market at a certain place not very far from land which is owned by the applicants. The Magistrate had reason to think that the applicants intended to open a market upon their land for the sale of cattle. He thought, and I agree with him, that this circumstance would very likely cause a breach of the peace. What would most likely happen was that the owners of the older market would raise objection to the new market and that the applicants as owners of the land upon which the new market would be held would resist the action of the owners of the older market. The section, however, provides that where the Magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act which may occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, the Magistrate may then make the...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All95; 44Ind.Cas.967
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The applicants were charged under Section 147 of riot and convicted by a Magistrate of the Second Class on the 31st of October 1917. The accused appealed and on the matter coming up before the District Magistrate of Basti, on the 5th of November 1917, he confirmed the order of the Court below but in addition to that he ordered the accused to furnish security to be of good behaviour and that one of the sureties must be a certain lady. Apparently the District Magistrate thought that the riot had been either instigated by or had been made on behalf of the lady and that, therefore, she would be a very good person to give security. The order directed that the security should be for good behaviour. This was clearly a mistake, because the District Magistrate would have no jurisdiction in appeal from conviction to order an accused person to give security to be of good behaviour, although he might no doubt order security to keep the peace.' It is admitted on both sides th...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.969
Henry Richards, C.J.1. In this matter it appears that Gobardhan was ordered to furnish security under Section 110. The order upon him was that he should give security himself in the sum of Rs. 200 and two approved sureties of Rs. 100 each. If he complied with the terms of this order he was entitled to be released. Gobardhan has presumably given his own bond for its. 200. He has produced two sureties who are ready to give security to the extent of Rs. 100 each. The Magistrate has declined to accept the sureties on two grounds, first, that the sureties reside in another Police station. Apparently they are not very far removed from the residence of the accused but they are not in the same Police district. The second ground is that they assisted Gobardhan in his defence. It seems to me that the second ground is no legitimate ground for refusing to accept the sureties. Presumably it will always be some friends of a person against whom proceedings have been taken under Section 110, who will ...
Tag this Judgment!Sidheshwari Prasad NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Girdhar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All411
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The essential point raised by this first appeal is quite a simple one. Certain house property situated within the city of Benares belonged to one Rajendradhari Singh, who seems to have been heavily in debt. There were two auction sales of the house property in question-one on the 15th of February, 1906, resulting in a purchase by Ram Prasad Singh, and another on the 18th of March, 1907, resulting in a purchase by the present plaintiffs respondents. The latter paid their purchase money into court and that money passed under the orders of the court into the hands of a large number of creditors of Rajendradhari Singh, who had applied for rateable distribution in respect of any money which might be realized by the auction sale. Subsequently Ram Prasad Singh brought a suit, in which he impleaded the judgment-creditor on whose application the attachment resulting in the sale of the 18th of March 1907 had been made, and also the present plaintiffs, the auction purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Maha Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All168; 45Ind.Cas.519
Knox, J.1. Maha Ram, who described himself as son of Kallu, by caste a sweeper, Mangli son of Sunder, sweeper, and Bachhan son of Laiq, sweeper, have been convicted of an offence under Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872. In the case of Maha Ram Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is to be read with Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872.2. The case for the prosecution is that Maha Ram is a Christian; that on the 3rd of June 1917 he was married to the daughter of one Shib Lal a Bhangi and that Bachhan and Mangli were 'Mans' or so--called priests of the sweeper class who solemnised the marriage according to Bhangi rites. The assessors gave it as their opinion that Maha Ram was not a Christian and that therefore nc offence under Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872 had been committed. The learned Sessions Judge, however, was of a different opinion. He found the accused persons guilty and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. The appellants have been represented...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sambhari Tewari Vs. Rajman Naik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All233; 45Ind.Cas.511
Henry Richards, C.J.1. It appears that eleven persons were tried and acquitted for offences under Section 147 read with Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of acquittal is dated as far back as the 4th of December 1916. Government did not appeal against the order of acquittal and I think having regard to the long lapse of time that it would be inadvisable to open up the matter now. I accordingly direct that the record be returned....
Tag this Judgment!Girdhar Das and ors. Vs. Sidheshwari Prasad NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All296(2); 44Ind.Cas.697
1. The essential point raised by this first appeal is quite a simple one Certain house property situated within the city of Benares belonged to one Rajendradhari Singh, who seems to have been heavily in debt. There were two auction sales of the house property in question: One on the 15th of February, 1906, resulting in a purchase by Ram Prasad Singh and another on the 18th of March 1907, resulting in a purchase by the present plaintiffs-respondents. The latter paid their purchase money into Court and that money passed under the orders of the Court into the hands of a large number of creditors of Rajendradhari Singh, who had applied for rateable distribution in respect of any money which might be realised by the auction-sale. Subsequently Ram Prasad Singh brought a suit, in which he impleaded the judgment-creditor on whose application the attachment resulting in the sale of March the 18th, 1907, had been made, and also the present plaintiffs, the auction-purchasers at the said sale. The...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Maha Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All393
Knox, J.1. Maha Ram who described himself as son of Kallu by caste a sweeper, Mangli, son of Sundar, sweeper, and Bachhan, son of Laiq, sweeper, have been convicted of an offence under Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872. In the ease of Maha Ram Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is to be read with Section 88 of Act No. XV of 1872.2. The case for the prosecution is that Maha Ram is a Christian; that on the 3rd of June, 1917, he was married to the daughter of one Shib Lal bhangi, and that Bachhan and Mangli ^were mans, or so-called priests of the sweaper class, who solemnized the marriage according to bhangi rites. The assessors gave it as their opinion that Maha Ram was not a Christian and that therefore no offence under Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872 had been committed. The learned Sessions Judge, however, was of a different opinion. He found the accused persons guilty and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. The appellants have been represente...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »