Allahabad Court May 1918 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.
Bisheshar Das and anr. Vs. Jhunku Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All612
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This is an application in revision and arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in the court of the munsif. After the evidence had concluded, and either during or after the arguments, the plaintiffs applied for leave to withdraw, with liberty to bring a fresh suit. They based their application upon the fact that they had failed to give formal proof of a certain plaint which was apparently considered by the parties to be essential to the plaintiffs' success. The court granted leave to bring a fresh suit. The present application is made under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That Section provides that H the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or(e) to h...
Jaint Singh and ors. Vs. Gosain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All369(2); 46Ind.Cas.85
1. This is a reference under the Kumaun Rules. The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration relating to a certain deed of gift. It appears that Puran Singh died leaving him surviving a widow and a daughter and a daughter's son. The widow made a deed of gift in favour of her daughter and her daughter's son. The suit was for a declaration that this deed of gift was not binding upon the plaintiff (who alleged himself to be the nearest reversioner) and that he was the heir after the death of the widow. The defence was that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit, that after the death of the widow her daughter (who was a defendant to the suit) would be entitled to the property for her life and after the death of the daughter her son would be entitled, The plaintiff replied to this that there was a custom prevailing in Kumaun under which the daughter and daughter's son were excluded from inheritance. The Court of first instance decided that the custom set up by the plaintiff ex...
Jhunku Lal Vs. Bisheshar Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All418; 46Ind.Cas.71
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This is an application in revision and arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif. After the evidence had concluded and either during or after the arguments, the plaintiff applied for leave to withdraw with liberty to bring a fresh suit. He based his application upon the fact that he had failed to give formal proof of a certain plaint which was apparently considered by the parties to be essential to the plaintiff's success. The Court granted leave to bring a fresh suit. The present application is made under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that 'the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears.(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or(c) to have acted ...
Bhagwan DIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All365; 46Ind.Cas.160
1. This is an application for revision of an order by which the applicants have been convicted under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to fine. The facts are these: The Zemindar brought a suit for ejectment in a Revenue Court against Bhagwan Din accused and others on the allegation that they were tenants without rights of occupancy. They pleaded that they were occupancy tenants. The Court of first instance decided against them and made a decree for ejectment on the 26th of June, 1917. On the 23rd of August 1917 possession was delivered to the decree-holder. Of course the possession which was so delivered, was only formal possession, the lands not having any crops on them at the time and the decree-holder after delivery of possession not having ploughed the lands or sown any crops. The defendants to that suit preferred an appeal from the decree of the Court of first instance and during the pendency of the appeal they, on the 11th of October 1917, entered on the land and...
In Re: Babu Har Prasad Singh, Vakil of Banda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All136; 46Ind.Cas.819
Henry Richards, C.J.1. In this case we are called upon to investigate two charges of alleged misconduct on the part of Babu Har Prasad Singh, who is stated to be the leading Pleader at Banda. The first charge relates to matters which are alleged to have taken place as far back as the year 1915. It would seem that in that year (and even now) there are two rival factions in the Municipality of Banda. Har Prasad was certainly associated with one of these parties, although he had ceased to be a member of the Municipal Board, before the happening of the matters to which I shall refer presently. Unfortunately there are strong indications that these factions were not wholly influenced by a wholesome rivalry to do what was best for the residents of Banda City. On the contrary Har Prasad contends that the present charges against him are altogether false and have been engineered by the opposing faction. In the year 1915 a charge was made against one Sheo Prosad of having defrauded the Municipali...
Raja Ram Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All125; 45Ind.Cas.1005
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Raja Ram Singh, who has been convicted on a charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50, the case against him being that he used language of an obscene and insulting nature in speaking of a respectable Mukhtar of the name of Muhammad Ali Khan. I do not propose to go into the unedifying details of the quarrel between these two gentlemen. The trying Magistrate has gone into the evidence very thoroughly and has written a carefully considered judgment. I accept his finding as to the words used by Raja Ram Singh and the circumstances under which they were spoken. The point taken on behalf of the applicant is that the words used were obviously not intended to be understood literally and amounted to no more than an open expression of the fact that the accused was very angry with the complainant. There is some authority for the proposition that words prima facie defamatory used in a street quarrel ...
Muhammad Ali Khan Vs. Raja Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.1006
Piggott, J.1. Raja Ram Singh was tried at one trial by a Magistrate of the First Class on two charges framed under Section 506 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted on the former and convicted on the latter charge. The complainant Muhammad Ali Khan has been ordered to pay a compensaion of Rs. 25 to Raja Ram Singh, on the ground that the charge of criminal intimidation was frivolous or vexatious. The question I have to determine is whether this order is legal in view of the fact that Raja Ram Singh was convicted on one of the two charges against him. I must take it that the complainant's case was that the two offences in question were committed in the course of one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, otherwise they would have been separately charged and tried separately. The provisions of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply to such a state of facts, unless the Magistrate who tried the case discharges or acqu...
Mohammad Ali Khan Vs. Raja Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All109(1); (1918)ILR40All610
Piggott, J.1. Raja Ram Singh was tried at one trial by a magistrate of the first class on two charges framed under Section 503 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted on the former and convicted on the latter charge. The complainant, Muhammad Ah Khan, has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 25 to Raja Ram Singh on the ground that the charge of criminal intimidation was frivolous or vexatious. The question I have to determine is whether this order is legal in view of the fact that Raja Ram Singh was convicted on one of the two charges against him. I must take it that the complainant's case was that the two offences in question were committed in the course of one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, otherwise they would have been separately charged and triad separately. The provisions of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply to such a state of facts unless the Magistrate who tried the case discharges or acqu...
Man Mohan Lal Vs. Gopi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All325; 46Ind.Cas.103
1. This and the connected Appeal No. 936 of 1916 arise out of the same suit. The facts are simple. Ganesh Prasad and others obtained a decree against Asharfi Lal and others. They had prior to the suit obtained attachment of certain property. One Badri Prasad came forward and claimed the property as his own and his objection was disallowed. He thereupon brought a suit for a declaration that the property was his and was not attachable and saleable in execution of the decree. His suit was dismissed by the first Court on the 1st of March 1909. The property was then put to sale and was purchased by Sita Ram on the 1st of October 1909. Badri Prasad, however, appealed and on appeal he succeeded and the Court held that the property was his and that the judgment-debtors had no interest therein. This decree was passed on the 3rd of June 1910. In the meantime Sita Ram had transferred the property to Shiam Sundar Lal and the latter was in possession. Badri Prasad sued him for possession and obtain...
Nanhe Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All182; 46Ind.Cas.295
1. The Sessions Judge of Budaun has referred the following matter. One Nanhe was ordered under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code to furnish a bond for Rs. 200 and to provide one respectable and reliable surety in Rs. 100. A surety came forward and offered security. The security was house property, about which the Tahsildar reported that the house owned by the surety was worth Rs. 500 and that he was a respectable person. Still the Magistrate refused to accept it, on the ground that under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code only moveable property can be attached and sold for the recovery of any penalty ordered under that section. No proceedings could be taken against a house and the District Magistrate considered the security insufficient. While it is true that so long as a surety is alive only moveable property can, for default under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code, be attached and sold for recovery of penalty, yet I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »