Allahabad Court January 1920 Judgments
Azmat Ali Vs. Qorban Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All208; (1920)ILR42All305
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out a suit for damages for malicious and false prosecution. The facts as found by the court below may be briefly stated as follows;--The defendant respondent, Qurban Ahmad, preferred a complaint of offences under sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the plaintiff appellant. The complaint was filed in the court of the Joint Magistrate, who transferred it to the court of a Benoh of Honorary Magistrates for trial of the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. A date was fixed and summons was issued to the present appellant, who was one of several accused. On the date fixed Qurban Ahmad and his witnesses appeared, but the latter apparently were unwilling to give evidence on his behalf and he wanted a further adjournment. The court ordered him to pay the expenses of the whiteness who had appeared within an hour. He failed to do so, and so the complaint was di...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharose and ors. Vs. Rampal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All246; (1920)ILR42All319
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of the following facts: The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, came into Court alleging that they and the defendants first party were joint owners of a certain fixed rate tenure; that the defendants first party alone were recorded in Government papers as the owners thereof; that on the 30th of June, 1906, the defendants first party transferred their half share in the property to the defendants third party; that on the 15th of March, 1909, the plaintiff brought a, suit for a declaration of their right to a half share in the holding, impleading the defendants first party. Two days after the institution of that suit, that is, on the 17th of March, 1909, the defendants first party transferred the remaining half of the holding to the predecessor in title of the defendants second party, . That suit was decided ex parte on the 27th of May, 1909. The plaintiffs then attempted, in the Revenue Court, to have their, names recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharose and ors. Vs. Ram Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.484
1. This appeal arises out of the following facts. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, came into Court alleging that they and the defendants first party were joint owners of a certain fixed rate tenure; that the defendants second party alone were recorded in Government papers as the owners thereof; that on the 30th of June 1905 the defendants 1st party transferred their half share in the property to the defendants 3rd party; that on the 15th of March 1909 the plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration of their right to a half share in the holding impleading the defendants first party. Two days after the institution of that suit, that is, on the 17th of March 1909, the defendants first party transferred the remaining half of the holding to the predecessor in title of the defendants Second party. That suit was decided ex parte on the 27th of May 1909. The plaintiffs then attempted, in the Revenue Court, to have their names recorded, but failed. They thereupon brought the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Azmat Ali Vs. Qurban Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.542
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious and false prosecution. The fasts as found by the Court below may be briefly stated as follows:-- The defendant-respondent Qurban Ahmad preferred a complaint of offenses under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, against the plaintiff appellant. The complaint was filed in the Court of the Joint Magistrate who transferred it to the Court of a Bench of Honorary Magistrates for trial of the offense under Section 504, Indian Penal Code. A date was fixed and summons was issued to the present appellant who was one of several accused. On the date fixed Qurban Ahmad and his witnesses appeared but the latter apparently were unwilling to give evidence on his behalf and he wanted a further adjournment. The Court ordered him to pay the expenses of the witnesses who had appeared within an hour. He failed to do so, and so the complaint was dismissed. There Qurban Ahmad allowed the crimina...
Tag this Judgment!L. Kishen Lal Vs. Rupram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All165(2); 55Ind.Cas.354
1. This is an appeal by the defendant Kishen Lal. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: The defendant Kishen Lal had a simple money decree against one Salig Ram, On the 20th of January 1910, he purchased the- property in dispute in execution of his decree and acquired possession on the 26th of June 1911. While this decree was under execution, the execution Court prepared a proclamation of sale and made the ordinary enquiries which are made under Order XXI, Rule 66. One Lakhmi Chand came forward, declaring himself to be a mortgagee of the property and asking that his mortgage might be notified. Kishen Lal objected and an enquiry was made, and the Court finally came to the conclusion that the mortgage was to be notified and accordingly directed that it should be so notified in the proclamation of sale. It was notified. The property was sold but as the certificate of sale shows, it was not sold subject to the mortgage. The mortgage was merely notified. Lakhmi Chand then ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rama Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All302
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The facts established by the evidence in this ease are as follows: The appellant, Rama Singh, had a dispute with his neighbour and caste-fellow, Ghura Singh, about the boundaries of their fields. The dispute led. to a scuffle and finally Rama Singh, having armed himself with a lathi, assaulted Ghura Singh. It would seem that he struck him three blows, one of which fractured the bones of the left forearm, another fractured a bone in the right hand while the third fractured both bones of the left leg. This last must have been the third blow struck, because the evidence is that Ghura Singh fell down after receiving the blows struck by the appellant and was not again hit after he had fallen to the ground. Ghura Singh was carried to 'hospital. He made a report at the police station and his dying declaration was recorded twice, once by a Magistrate at Bansdih while he was under treatment in the local dispensary, and afterwards by a Magistrate at Ballia. The first of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Singh Alias Raman Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All110; 58Ind.Cas.463
1. The facts established by the evidence in this case are as follows. The appellant Rama Singh had a dispute with his neighbour and caste fellow, Ghura Singh, about the boundaries of their fields. The dispute led to a souffle and finally Rama Singh, having armed himself with a lathi, assaulted Ghura Singh. It would seem that he struck him three blows, one of which fractured the bones of the left forearm, another fractured a bone in the right hand while the third fractured both bones of the left leg. This last must have been the third blow struck, because the evidence is that Ghnra Singh fell down after receiving the blows struck by the appellant and was not again hit after he had fallen to the ground. Ghnra Singh was carried to hospital. He made a report at the Police Station and his dying declaration was recorded twice, once by a Magistrate at Bansdih while he was under treatment in the local dispensary and afterwards by a Magistrate at Ballia. The first of these declarations has righ...
Tag this Judgment!Nazar HusaIn Vs. Emperor Through Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All55; 55Ind.Cas.341
George Knox, J.1. One Babu Ram Mahajan, on the 7th of July 1919, charged Nazar Husain, Zamindar of Mauza Thendera, with having cheated him. In his complaint he said that the accused on the 8th of May 1918 mortgaged to him 3 biswas out of 10 biswas in Mauza Thendera on consideration of Rs. 1,500. He stated that he would not have executed this mortgage, if he had known that the accused bad on the 15th April 1918 transferred to his wife 6 1/4 biswas in this village. The complaint was made in the Court of the District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar. The Magistrate proceeded to hear the complaint but on the 13th of August 1919 discharged the accused under Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Cede. The Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut on going through the record of the Magistrate's Court passed an order to this effect:In my opinion the case is a fit one for further enquiry. I set aside the order of discharge and direct that Nazar Husain be tried afresh according to law for the offense of ch...
Tag this Judgment!Shohrat Singh Vs. Ghulam Ezid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All82; 55Ind.Cas.366
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit which he brought for a declaration that he was the owner and in possession of certain lands. In the alternative he prayed for possession and any other relief to which he might be found entitled.2. He is the owner of a -/13/3 share and the mortgagee in possession of a -/2/9 share in Mauza Dhanaura. The defendants are the owners of Mauza Bhad, the adjoining village to the east of Dhanaura. At the time of the last Settlement (1887-1888) the river Ban Ganga formed the boundary between the two villages, its course being a deep curve.3. The plaintiff's case was that in the rainy seasons of 1307 and 1308 Fasli (1900 A.D.) owing to excessive floods a nullah was partly scoured out which tended to straighten the river. The nullah was entirely in the Dhanaura lands. The river, however, retained its old bed until the year 1312 F., when another flood occurred. As a result the river suddenly changed its course and flowed through the nullah, leavi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mannu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All294
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Mannu, who is the occupier of a certain plot of ground situated on or near the banks of the Ganges, within the limits of the Municipality of Cawnpore. In the year 1914 a dispute arose between the said Manna and the Municipal Board of Cawnpore, the Board claiming that the land in question belonged to them as 'nazrul and that Mannu was occupying it without their consent.' The attempt then made to eject Mannu from the site by means of proceedings in a Criminal Court came to nothing, because the Court was satisfied that there was a bond fide dispute between the parties on the question of title. After the United Provinces Municipalities Act No. II of 1916) had come into force, certain byelaws were duly promulgated by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore under Part G. (a) (x) of section. 298 of the said Act, and since then Mannu has been twice prosecuted for the offence of using the plot of ground in question for storing wood without a licen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »