Allahabad Court August 1918 Judgments
Raj Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All329(2); 51Ind.Cas.470
1. The applicants in this case were, by an order passed on the 25th of May 1918, bound over by a first class Magistrate to keep the peace in their own bond for Rs. 100 with two sureties in Rs. 50 each for one year. In default he directed that they should be rigorously imprisoned for one year. About a month later the Magistrate passed another order in which he said he had overlooked the fact that the applicant Raj Kumar Das had been called upon to produce much greater security than the other persons implicated in the case and that he, the Magistrate, had in error only ordered him to provide the same security as the other accused persons. By his subsequent order he, therefore, purported to correct the error he had made and he ordered Raj Kumar Das to execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties of Rs. 250 each. He maintained his first order in respect to the other accused persons, but he was careful enough to correct the error regarding rigorous imprisonment in default of furn...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal and ors. Vs. Roshan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All111
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The essential point for determination in this second appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The plaintiffs sued to enforce a simple mortgage of the 8th of January, 1891. They impleaded the mortgagors as defendants first party, one set of subsequent mortgagees as defendants second party and the present appellants, as purchasers of a portion of the equity of redemption, as defendants third party. The defendants of the first and second parties do not contest the suit, at any rate at this stage. The defendants third party contend that the claim is barred by limitation. Prima facie this suit, instituted on the 7th of November, 1914 would be well outside the prescribed period of limitation for a suit on a simple mortgage of the 8th of January, 1891. The plaintiffs' case is that limitation is saved under Section 20 of this Indian Limitation Act (No. IX of 1908) by three payments on account of interest as such. The last of these payments is of a sum of Rs. 800 made ...
Tag this Judgment!Srish Chandra Sircar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All385; 50Ind.Cas.347
Tudball, J.1. The applicant has been convicted of wilful mischief under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicant is the owner of a house in Benares. He himself is a resident of Calcutta but frequently comes to Benares. He wished to rebuild his house and he gave the contract to a contractor and the building was carried out beyond doubt in accordance with his instructions. The foundations were sunk to a depth of four feet. I assume for the purposes of this judgment that this was done on the applicant's own order. The next door neighbour's house, however, had a foundation only two feet deep. The contractor did not prop up the next door neighbour's wall and failed to take the ordinary precautions which a builder ought to have taken with the result that the next door neighbour's wall sank and cracked and a fair amount of damage has been done. The complainant Musammat Makhna came into Court alleging that the applicant had intentionally caused ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahadeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All164
Piggott, J.1. In this case Mahadeo Singh, Mahabir Singh, Harnarain Singh and Dipnarain Singh, Thakurs, residents of Jhingurpatti in the district of Mirzapur, have been sentenced by the District Magistrate of Mirzapur to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty months each under Rule 29 of the rules framed under Section 2 of the Defence of India Act No. IV of 1915. The rule which they are alleged to have contravened is No. 23, which runs as follows: 'No person shall dissuade, or attempt to dissuade, any person from entering the Military or Police Service of His Majesty.' The facts of the case which I find to be established beyond question are that Musai Pasi of Jhingurpatti is a sub-tenant of two of the accused persons, namely, Mahadeo Singh and Harnarain Singh, and that he has also worked as a ploughman for all the accused. On the 4th of March, 1918, Musai was recruited in the Bandel corps for service in Mesopotamia and received an advance of Rs. 25. On the 2nd of April, 1918, Mahad...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All17; 48Ind.Cas.483
Piggott, J.1. In this case Mahadeo Singh, Mahabir Singh, Harnarain Singh and Dipnarain Singh, Thakurs, residents of Jhingurpatti in the district of Mirzapur, have been sentenced by the District Magistrate of Mirzapur to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty months each under Rule 29 of the rules framed under Section 2 of the Defence of India Act, No. IV of 1915. The rule which they are alleged to have contravened is No. 23, which runs as follows: 'No person shall dissuade, or attempt to dissuade, any person from entering the Military or Police Service of His Majesty.' The facts of the case, which I find to be established beyond question, are that Musai Pasi of Jhingurpatti is a sub-tenant of two of the accused persons, namely, Mahadeo Singh and Harnarain Singh, and that be has also worked as a ploughman for all the accused. On March the 4th, 1918, Musai was recruited in the Bandel corps for service in Mesopotamia and received an advance of Rs. 25. On April the 2nd, 1918, Mahadeo ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad HusaIn Khan Vs. Hanuman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All392; 47Ind.Cas.861
Henry Richards, C.J.This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. The facts may be very shortly stated for the purpose of explaining the question which we have to decide.2. In the years 1898 and 1899 two usufructuary mortgages were made. The property mortgaged was sir plots Later on, after the year 1902, the mortgagor's proprietary rights were sold and purchased by the defendants or some of them or the predecessors of some of them. Subsequently the defendants (or some of them) purchased the mortgagee rights. It is unnecessary to discuss which of the defendants purchased which of the mortgagee rights. Then the present suit was instituted to redeem the mortgage of 1898. The Court of first instance decreed the claim. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the Court of first instance and dismissed the suit. On the case coming before a single Judge of this Court it was referred to a larger Bench.3. The argument in favour of the defendants is that the plaintiff having lost his p...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mathura and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1916All179; (1919)ILR61All116
Piggott, J.1. In this case the three applicants, Mathura, Ganga Din and Jagannath, have been convicted of an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, No. III of 1867. The one and only question raised by the application is whether the trial of the applicants was or was not vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity in connection with the constitution of the court which tried them for this offence. The court in question was a Bench of Honorary Magistrates sitting at the town of Kaimganj. I find that the Local Government, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had appointed three gentlemen, Mr. Jan Alam Khan, Mr. Nazir Ali Khan and Pandit Chaube Piari Lal, to be a Bench of Magistrates exercising jurisdiction in this particular place. It is not denied that the offence for which the applicants were tried was one within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Bench, or that the sentence passed was one within the competence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Vs. the Municipal Board of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All162
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Municipal Board, Later on we shall refer to the relief the plaintiff claimed before and after the amendment of the plaint. The dispute between the parties commenced by an application for leave to build or re-build a chabutra and a saiban. The Municipality refused and there were various negotiations between the parties to which it is unnecessary for us to refer, except to say that no final agreement was arrived at between the parties. If a map which is on the record correctly describes the premises, it would appear that the chabutra projects on to a public road. All orders made by the Municipality on these applications for leave to build and re-build are subject to appeal as mentioned in the Municipalities Act of 1916, and they cannot be challenged in a any other court. Accordingly, if the plaintiff's cause of action has anything to do with the orders which the Municipality ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All56; 48Ind.Cas.344
Piggott, J.1. In this case the three applicants, Mathura, Gangadin and Jagannath, have been convicted of an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, III of 1367. The one and only question raised by this application is, whether the trial of the applicants was or was not vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity in connection with the constitution of the Court which tried them for this offence. The Court in question was a Bench of Honorary Magistrates sitting at the town of Kaimganj. I find that the Local Government, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had appointed three gentlemen, Mr. Jan Alam Khan, Mr. Nazir Ali Khan and Pandit Chaube Peare Lal, to be a Bench of Magistrates exercising jurisdiction in this particular place. It is not denied that the offence of which the applicants were tried was one within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Bench, or that the sentence passed was one within the competence of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Board of Benares Vs. Gajadhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All16; 47Ind.Cas.848
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Municipal Board. Later on we shall refer to the relief the plaintiff claimed before and after the amendment of the plaint. The dispute between the parties commenced by an application for leave to build or re build a chabutra and saiban. The Municipality refused leave and there were various negotiations between the parties to which it is unnecessary for us to refer, except to say that no final agreement was arrived at between the parties. If a map which is on the record correctly describes the premises, it would appear that the chabutra projects on to a public road. All orders made by the Municipality on these applications for leave to build and re-build are subject to appeal as mentioned in the Municipalities Act of 1916 and they cannot be challenged in any other Court. Accordingly if the plaintiff's cause of action has anything to do with the orders which the Municipality made upon the applica...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »