Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 54Ind.Cas.117
Ryves, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows. The plaintiff sued to recover one-third of the profits of a grove plus one third of the value of certain trees which he alleged had been out down by the defendants. The plaintiff's title was based on his assertion that he had redeemed one-third of the mortgage on the property. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, holding that redemption had not been proved. On appeal the learned Additional Judge of Aligarh allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. On appeal before me the main argument is that the lower Appellate Court should not have admitted in evidence a certain receipt and that if that receipt were not admitted there would be no legal evidence on which the Court could base its findings. The objection to the receipt is to the effect that it had not been registered. Not having been registered, obviously it could not be used in itself as evidence of redemption of the mortgage. It in itself could not in any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1919All96(1); 54Ind.Cas.120
Ryves, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights and against three other defendants, praying that an injunction be issued against them not to interfere in any way with the plaintiff's wife coming to reside with him. The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Shahjahanpur. The defendants all reside in the district of Hardoi in the province of Oudh. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants other than defendant No. 1, the wife, appealed. In their grounds of appeal it was urged that the suit was not cognisable by the Court of Shahjahanpur. The same plea had been raised in the Trial Court and formed the subject of an issue. There the Court held, and rightly held, following the ruling of Lalitagar Keshargar v. Bai Suraj 18 B : 816 that the cause of action against the wife arose in absenting herself from the plaintiff's residence, which was in Shahjahanpur. It is not quite dear how the Court had jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1919All40; 54Ind.Cas.406
Piggott, J.1. I accept the reference of the learned Sessions Judge. For the reasons stated by him I set aside the convictions and sentences in this case and acquit the accused persons of the offences charged. The fines if paid will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1919All330; 53Ind.Cas.617
Ryves, J.1. In this case there is a discrepancy between the finding of the learned Sessions Judge and of the Magistrate as to the faots, I have examined the record and there is no doubt that the Magistrate has come to the right conclusion on the, facts. Manghai Ram, who was a witness for the prosecution in a case which was then being heard before the Magistrate, tried to come into the Court room from the verandah. Shanker, who appears to have been in some way related to the accused in that case, prevented him. There was a souffle between the two and some sort of an assault. Mahabir, who was a Chaprasi of the Court, intervened and told Manghai not to come inside the Court room When this happened, the Court appears to have taken action under Section 430 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on the faots found, namely, that there had been this assault in the verandah of the Court room, convicted Manghai Ram under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that this conduct amounted to 'a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 53Ind.Cas.612
Ryves, J.1. The case of Emperor v. Adhin 36 Ind. Cas. 143; 14 A. L. J. 687; 17 Cr. L. J. 463. is binding on me. I must, therefore, accept the reference and direct the Magistrate to commit the accused to Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1919All398; 53Ind.Cas.614
Ryves, J.1. I accept the reference and set aside the order for compensation....
Tag this Judgment!