Allahabad Court June 1919 Judgments
Abdul Aziz Vs. Shekhar Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All76; (1920)ILR42All18; 52Ind.Cas.263
1. This was a suit on a promissory note. We find that three issues were framed, as to which we should not have been prepared to say that there was not one issue at least on which the burden of proof would, in the ordinary course of things, lie on the plaintiff. However that may be, the learned Munsif who framed the issues recorded at the time a note to the effect that the burden of proof was placed on the defendant. He then fixed the 13th of June 1918 for the hearing. On that date the plaintiff was present in person and the defendant was represented by Pleader. The plaintiff in effect asked for an adjournment of the hearing on the ground that his witnesses were not present. The defendant's Pleader made a statement to the effect that his witnesses also were not preterit. The Court refused to grant an adjournment. On this state of facts it is beyond question that the learned Munsif's duty was to take into consideration the plaint and the written statement and the frame of the issues. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Alla-ud-dIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.49
1. This is an appeal by nine appellants against a conviction for dacoity by the Sessions Judge of Kumaun. Three of the appellants Allauddin, Tondi and Bhikbari have been sentenced to 15 years' transportation. During the hearing of the case it was pointed out to me, before whom originally the case came, that the legality of this sentence was open to question. At my request the learned Chief Justice appointed two Judges to hear and determine the appeal in' order to dispose of the question of the legality of the sentence by an authoritative decision. Since then, however, our attention has been drawn to the case of the Queen v. Naiada 1 A. 43 (F.B.) : 1 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 29, in which a Full Bench decided that 'when an offence is punishable either with transportation for life or imprisonment for a term of 10 years, if a sentence of transportation for a term less than life is awarded, such term cannot exceed the term of imprisonment, namely, ten years.' That authority which dates from 1875 is...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.418
Piggott, J.1. This application in revision arises out of the following facts. On the 6th of April 1918 the applicant Babu Ram instituted two civil suits in two different Courts against two different persons. In one case he claimed a sum of Rs. 33 10 0 from one Badri Prasad. This suit was instituted in the Court of the City Munsif of Bareilly, was tried on the Small Cause Court side, and was dismissed on the 23rd of April 1918. In the other suit Babu Ram claimed a sum of Rs. 140 from one Musammat Ganga Dei in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly. This suit also was tried on the Small Cause Court side and was also dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge then took proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code against Babu Ram and against certain persons who had appeared as witnesses before his Court in support of Babu Ram's claim against Musammat Ganga Dei. In the course of those proceedings he sent for and examined the file of the suit against Badri Prasad in th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All12
Piggott, J.1. This application in revision arises out of the following facts. On the 6th of April, 1918, the applicant Babu Ram instituted two civil suits in two different courts against two different persons. In one case he claimed a sum of Rs. 33-10-0 from one Badri Prasad. This suit was instituted in the Court of the City Munsif of Bareilly, was tried on the Small Cause Court side, and was dismissed on the 23rd day of April, 1918. In the other suit Babu Ram claimed a sum of Rs. 140 from one Musammat Ganga Dei in the Court Of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly. This suit also was tried on the Small Cause Court side, and was also dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge then took proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Babu Ram and against certain persons who had appeared as witnesses before his court in support of Babu Ram's claim against Musammat Ganga Dei. In the course of those proceedings he sent for and examined the file of the suit against Badri P...
Tag this Judgment!Mannua and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All155; 52Ind.Cas.785
Piggott, J.1. The applicants in this case are Musammat Batasu, also called Musammat Diptian, and her son Mannua, Ganga Putras by caste, residents of Cawnpur. They were prosecuted under the provisions of the United Provinces Municipal Act for keeping a certain plot of ground as a place for the storing of wood, without having obtained a, license for so doing from the Municipal Board. Now it is not denied that the Municipal Board of Cawnpur has made bye-laws under Section 298 of the aforesaid Act, which bye-laws contain amongst other prohibitions a prohibition against any land within Municipal limits being used for the storage of wood, except under a license granted by the Board and subject to the provisions of such license. The record before me shows that Mannua on behalf of himself and his mother admitted that they held no license for storing wood at the spot in question. He even admitted that they had not, up to the date on which he made his statement in Court, presented to the Municip...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Pershad Vs. Ram Dulare Lal and Kamta Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All377; 52Ind.Cas.187
Ryves, J.1. In this appeal one technical point of some difficulty has been pressed. Ram Dulare Lal filed a suit in 1914 against Kamta Prasad and his minor son Jamna Prasad to recover a sum of money in the Court of the Munsif. During the pendency of the suit Ram Dulare Lal had petitioned that Jamna Prasad, the minor, should be exempted from the array of defendants. This was done. The suit was decreed against Kamta Prasad alone but it was staled in the decree that Jamna Prasad was exempted, the actual words being 'bari kiya gaya', and he was to bear his own costs. In execution of that decree an objection was raised on behalf of Jamna Prasad to the effect that the property which had been attached as belonging to Kamta Prasad in fact belonged to him, and the execution Court upheld his objection because it appeared that the property stood recorded in the name of Jamna Prasad. Hence this suit for a declaration that the property was in fact the property of Kamta Prasad. It has been decreed in...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Dihal Rai Vs. Mahabir Prasad Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All7
Muhammad Rafiq and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an exceptional and troublesome case. It hag been extremely well argued on both sides and we have come to the decision at which we have arrived after considerable hesitation. Upon the reasoning of the respective Judges in the inferior courts we agree with the first court rather than with the lower appellate court, but on the other hand, we have come to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed and the plaintiff's suit decreed upon a ground which has not been satisfactorily dealt with in the lower appellate court.2. The facts are simple. The property of the defendant judgment-debtor had been attached and an auction sale had taken place and confirmation thereof was pending. Whereupon the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to purchase the property for a stipulated sum in the event of the sale not being confirmed, and the intention probably was, and certainly ought to have been, and the practice should be in such cases, that the defendant or j...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad Pande and ors. Vs. Ganga Dehal Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All72(2); 52Ind.Cas.331
1. This is an exceptional and troublesome case. It has been extremely well argued on both sides and we have come to the decision at which we have arrived after considerable hesitation. Upon the reasoning of the respective Judges in the inferior Courts we agree with the first Court rather than the lower Appellate Court, but on the other hand we have come to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed and the plaintiff's suit decreed upon a ground which has not been satisfactorily dealt with in the lower Appellate Court.2. The facts are simple. The property of the defendant judgment-debtor had been attached and an auction sale had taken place and confirmation thereof was pending, whereupon the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to purchase the property for a stipulated sum in the event of the Bale not being confirmed, and the intention probably was and certainly ought to have been and the practice should be in such oases that the defendant or judgment-debtor in depositing the money...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhukhan Singh Vs. Sujan Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All52; (1920)ILR42All1
Ryves, J.1. This is an application in Civil Revision to quash the order of the District Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 28th of March, 1919, on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction. It raises a question of difficulty and importance and appears not to be covered by authority. The order purports to have been made under Section 41(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, Act No. VIII of 1890.2. The facts are as follows: In 1907, the present applicant, Kunwar Chandra Bhukhan Singh, was appointed under the Act, guardian of the property of the minor, his nephew, who had inherited a very valuable zamindari estate which, it is admitted, is impartible. On the 23rd of November, 1918, the minor died. Up to that time there had been no suggestion that the guardian had failed in any way to do his duty.3. No sooner had the minor died than litigation was started to determine who should succeed him. The two claimants were:(1) The widow of the minor, the opposite party here; and(1) the applicant.4....
Tag this Judgment!Kuar Chandra Bhukhan Singh Vs. Musammat Rani Sujan Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.167
Ryves, J.1. This is an application in civil revision to quash the order of the District Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 28th of March 1919, on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction. It raises a question of difficulty and importance and appears not to be covered by authority. The order purports to have been made under Section 41 (3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, Act VIII of 1890.2. The facts are as follows : In 1907 the present applicant, Kuar Chandra Bhukhan Singh, was appointed under the Act guardian of the property of the minor, his nephew, who had inherited a very valuable Zemindari estate which it is admitted is impartible. On the 23rd of November 1918 the minor died. Up to that time there had been no suggestion that the guardian had failed in any way to do his duty. No sooner had the minor died, than litigation was started to determine who should succeed him. The two claimants were:(1) The widow of the minor, the opposite party here;(2) and the applicant.3. Both are cl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »