Allahabad Court November 1919 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.
Ram NaraIn Vs. Harnam Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All14; (1920)ILR42All170; 54Ind.Cas.561
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. In this case the appellant is appealing to the Privy Council in respect of proceedings brought and which have up to the present resulted in a preliminary decree of this Court, which decides that the property in dispute in the action is joint property and is liable to partition, Proceedings to ascertain the respective shares are pending or in process of taking place in the court below, and the appellant has applied to this Court with a view to our staying such proceedings. He has tiled an affidavit in which he gives reasons which prima facie are good reasons for assenting to that application if in fact we have the power to grant it, But our attention has been called to the provisions of Order XXV, Rule 13, and to the case of Laliteswar Singh v. Bhabeshwar Singh (1909) 9 C.L.J. 561, from which it appears clear that as the matter now stands we have no power to stay these proceedings. Now at one stage of the matter I thought it extremely desirable that an application...
Mizaji Lal Vs. Partab Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All12; (1920)ILR42All169
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act No. IX of 1887). The question for decision is whether or not the suit was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The lower court held that it was so cognizable. It is contended here in revision that the suit was not entertainable. It seems that an award had been made out of court between the parties under which a certain sum of money had been declared payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this suit accordingly to recover the amount so named. Mr. Narain Prasad has referred me to Article 24 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act No. IX of 1887V According to that article a suit to contest an award is not triable by a Court of Small Causes. The answer to this argument is that the present suit was not a suit to contest an award. On the contrary, it was a suit to enforce an award by asking for delivery of the money which was payable under the award.2. Th...
Mizaji Lal Vs. Partab Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.546
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act No. IX of 1887). The question for decision is whether or not the suit was cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. The lower Court held that it was so cognisable. It is contended here in revision that the suit was not entertainable. It seems that an award had been made out of Court between the parties under which a certain sum of money had been declared payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this suit accordingly to recover the amount so named. Mr. Narain Prasad has referred me to Article 24 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act No. IX of 1887). According to that Article a suit to contest an award is not tribal by a Court of Small Causes. The answer to this argument is that the present suit was not a suit to contest an award. On the contrary it was a suit to enforce an award by asking for delivery of the money which was payable under the award.2. The...
L. Ramsaran Das Vs. Sagar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All17; 54Ind.Cas.370
Lindsay, J.1. This application has been argued ex parte; no one appears for the defendants opposite parties. The suit as framed was a suit for contribution, the case for the plaintiff being that he and the defendants had been co-defendants in a partition suit. In that partition suit a decree for costs Was passed against all of the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. The decree for costs was a joint decree and the result was that execution was taken out against the present plaintiff, who was obliged to pay the entire costs awarded by the decree. The suit with which I am now concerned has, therefore, been brought against the remaining defendants for the purpose of obtaining contribution. The Judge of the Court below has relied upon a ruling reported as Mulla v. Jagannath 6 Ind. Cas. 684 : 7 A.L.J. 720 32 A. 585 which does not, in my opinion, govern the facts of this case. There is a ruling reported as Nihal Singh v. Collector of Bulandthahr 33 Ind. Cas. 165 : 14 A.L.J. 275 : 38 A...
Ram Chander and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All90(1); 54Ind.Cas.772
Ryves, J.1. Eight persons, all Kurmis, were convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of rioting and causing grievous hurt, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and to pay fines. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mirzapur altered the conviction to one under Section 147 read with Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.2. On revision before me it was argued that this trial was barred by the provisions of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that there was a riot of some sort between certain Brahmins and certain Kurmis. The Police challaned the Brahmins. Thereupon one Dina Nath, a Brahmin, filed a complaint in the Court of Muhammad Mabboob Alam, a Magistrate of the third class, charging all the present applicants with rioting with the common object of causing hurt to the Brahmins. That learned Magistrate convicted four of the accused and acquitted six. He consequently held that no charge of rioting had been made out and passed his order und...
Emperor Vs. Sital Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All146
Dalal, J.1. Sital Prasad, Ram Swarath, and Ram Tawakkal, Brahmans by caste, have appealed from their conviction of an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. The charge against them was one of kidnapping a minor girl, Musammat Rajpatia, 8 years of age, from thy custody of her lawful guardian Musammat Chaudarkali, in order to compel her to marry a person against her will. The willingness or otherwise of a minor Hindu girl to marry a particular person is not a matter for consideration at the time of her marriage, so it will be difficult to make a distinction between a marriage by the agency of a kidnapper and a marriage with the help of her relations so far as her own personal desire and consent are concerned. This, however, is a point of small significance because in the event of the taking away of the girl being proved, the persons found guilty of kidnapping her would be guilty of an offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, which provides for a substantial punishment. Musamm...
Sital Prasad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All36; 54Ind.Cas.402
Dalal, J.1. Sital Prasad, Ram Sawarath and Ram Tawakkal, Brahmans by caste, have appealed from their conviction of an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. The charge against them was one of kidnapping a minor girl, Musammat Rajpatia, eight years of age, from the custody of her lawful guardian, Musammat Chanderkali, in order to compel her to marry a person against her will. The willingness or otherwise of a minor Hindu girl to marry a particular person is not a matter for consideration at the time of her marriage, so it will be difficult to make a distinction between a marriage by the agency of a kidnapper and a marriage with the help of her relations so far as her own personal desire and consent are concerned. This, however, is a point of small significance, because in the event of the taking away of the girl being proved the persons found guilty of kidnapping her would be guilty of an offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, which provides for a substantial punishment. M...
Hanuman Rasad NaraIn Singh Vs. Harakh NaraIn and Sheo Tahal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All142
Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. One Harakh Narain, a member of an agricultural tribe to whom the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act applies, made a mortgage of certain property in favour of one Sheo Tahal on the 17th of February, 1911, i.e. after the aforesaid Act had corns into operation. Shoo Tahal obtained a decree for sale on the mortgage on the 19th of June 1916 and this decree was made absolute on the 3rd of March, 1917. After the making of the decree Harakh Narain was adjudged an insolvent. The decree-holder put the decree into execution and applied for sale of the mortgaged property. Thereupon Harakh Narain preferred an objection before the court on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act the property was not liable to sale, and it should not be brought to sale by the court. This objection was over-ruled by the court of first instance, which sold the property....
Emperor Vs. Jhabbu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All137
Piggott and Dalal, JJ.1. Jhabbu, blacksmith, has been found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code of the murder of Musammat Resham, the wife of his own brother, Jhamman. In his petition of appeal to this Court Jhabbu says that he did not kill his brother's wife; that he was not in his proper senses at the time when the woman was killed, or for some time previously, and that he does not know who killed her. In the Sessions Court Jhabbu refused to answer any of the questions put to him by the Sessions Judge. In the court of the committing Magistrate he was asked whether he had struck his sister-in-law, Musammat Resham, with a hammer causing her such bodily injury as led to her death. To this he replied: 'I do not remember if I did so.'2. Only one further question was asked of him and in reply to that he said that he did not know why he was being accused of the crime. The case for Jhabbu has been very satisfactorily argued before us by counsel, and as so laid before us that ca...
Hanuman Prasad NaraIn Singh Vs. Harakh NaraIn and Sheo Tahal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All10; 58Ind.Cas.551
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. One Harakh Narain, a member of an agricultural tribe to whom the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act applies, made a mortgage of certain property in favour of one Sheo Tahal on the 17th of February 1911, i.e. after the aforesaid Act had come into operation. Sheo Tahal obtained a decree for sale on the mortgage on the 19th of June 1916 and this decree was made absolute on the 3rd of March 1917. After the making of the decree Harakh Narain was adjudged an insolvent. The decree holder put the decree into execution and applied for sale of the mortgaged property. Thereupon Harakh Narain preferred an objection before the Court, on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act the property was not liable to sale and it should not be brought to sale by the Court. This objection was overruled by the Court of first instance, which sold the property. It was purchase d by the present appellant...