Allahabad Court October 1920 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.
Ballu Mal and anr. Vs. Ram Kishun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.14
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house in the City of Cawnpore, which belonged at one time to one Janki Prasad. The plaintiffs claim as reversionary heirs to Janki Prasad and in this suit they have impleaded the heirs of one Mathu, sister's son of Janki Prasad, who entered into possession of the house on the death of Janki Prasad in 1909 and who made a mortgage in favour of Ram Kishun, respondent, Certain persons, who laid claim to this house as heirs of Mathu, have also been made parties. The contesting defendant, who is the only person who has appeared in this appeal, is Ram Kishun, the mortgagee. A large number of questions were raised in defense, but for the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to discuss them in detail. All of them have been found against the defendant-respondent except a plea raised by him under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, namely, that he is a bona fide transferee for value and his mortgage cannot, therefore, be overr...
Ganga Saran and ors. Vs. Emperor, Through Pt. Bhagwati Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All95; 59Ind.Cas.850
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of conviction under Sections 426, 447 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed is that of a fine of Rs. 51 against each of the applicants, and the applicants have been farther bound in the sum of Rs. 500 each for a term of one year. It appears that Ganga Saran, accused, is the President of a Goshala Committee. Adjoining the Goshala premises there is a compound of Pandit Bhagwati Prasad the land of which is let out to certain tenants for building purposes. Pandit Bhagwati Prasad intends to build a grain market on that plot of land. In August 1919 Pandit Bhagwati Prasad wanted to build a compound wall. The building was opposed by the accused as the wall would interfere with their abchak. Because of this opposition, the wall was not built. On the 27th of October 1919 it seems that Bhagwati Prasad made a fresh attempt to build a compound wall. It is alleged that the masons came, built a part of the wall and then the...
Syed Sakhawat Haidar Vs. Emperor, Through Dhommi Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All242(1); 59Ind.Cas.198
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The facts of this case briefly are these:That Dhommi Singh brought a suit for sale on a mortgage against the accused. Part of the consideration of the mortgage consisted of two promissory notes. The defense by the accused was that those promissory notes were without consideration. This defence was repelled by the Trial Court which passed a decree for the full amount claimed. Dhommi Singh then put in an application for sanction to prosecute the accused. The sanction was ultimately granted and the accused was tried under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and has been convicted. The conviction has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut. The chief point taken before me is that the lower Appellate Court has erred in throwing upon the accused the burden of proving that he had not received the consideration for the promissory notes and had, therefore, committed perjury punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no doubt that the learn...
Behari Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All304; 59Ind.Cas.335
Gokal Prasad, J.1. The facts of this case are out of the common. It appears that on the 13th of October 1919 one Mianji Ali Khan presented an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Najibabad complaining that one Behari Lai had constructed a temple in connection with a Dharmsala and that this temple was objected to by the Muhammadans owing to its proximity to a certain mosque and a cemetry. This application did not mention any section under the two Criminal Codes but suggested that the construction was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, instead of proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was the obvious course, sent the papers to the Tahsildar of Najibabad directing him to make inquiries from Behari Lal and his agent Makhan Lal; to record their statements and send them to him for orders. This order, too, curiously enough does not mention any section of the Penal or Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of this orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›