Allahabad Court December 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.
Nainsukh Das and Nagar Mal Vs. Gajanand and Shyam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All273; (1921)ILR43All348
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order by the District Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 21st of February, 1920, refusing to file an award. The application on which the order was made was presented by one of the arbitrators at the request of the successful party in the arbitration, namely, the present appellant. An objection was made to the application by the present respondents on the ground that there had been no valid submission.2. A preliminary objection was raised at the hearing of the appeal, on the ground that no appeal lies. On the face of the order it is clearly one within the express provision of Section 104(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, being 'an order refusing to file an award in an arbitration without the intervention of the court.' The District Judge decided that this section does not apply to the arbitration award, as the award purports to have been under the Arbitration Act, IX of 1899. There is nothing in that Act to support this view and it is to ...
Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Sri Ram Jankiji Birajman Mandir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All374
Pramada Charan Banerji, Tudball and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The question which we have to consider in this case is whether a Hindu widow in possession of her husband's estate, who acquires property without the aid of the estate or without detriment to the estate, can make a disposition of that property by will. This question does not seem to us to involve any point of great difficulty. What happened in the present case was this. A Hindu widow, Musammat Kaunsilya, was in possession of her husband's estate as his heir. The reversioners to the estate had executed a mortgage of their own property and their mortgages obtained a decree against them for foreclosure and thus acquired the property. Thereupon Musammat Kaunsilya brought a suit against him for pre-emption and obtained a decree. She paid the amount of the pre-emption money by raising a loan by mortgaging a portion of the property pre-empted and subsequently discharged the loan by selling a portion of that property. It is said that as r...
Sri Ram Jankiji Birajman Mandir Through Ganga Dayal Vs. Jagdamba Prasa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All11; 61Ind.Cas.3
1. The question which we have to consider in this case is, whether a Hindu widow in possession of her husband's estate, who acquires property without the aid of the estate or without detriment to the estate, can make a disposition of that property by Will. This question does not seem to us to involve any point of great difficulty. What happened in the present case was this. A Hindu widow, Musammat Kaunsilya, was in possession of her husband's estate as his heir. The reversioners to the estate had executed a mortgage of their property and their mortgagee obtained a degree against them for foreclosure and thus acquired the property, Thereupon, Musmmat Kaunsilya brought a suit against him for pre-emption and obtained a decree. She paid the amount of the pre-emption money by raising a loan by mortgaging a portion of the property preempted and subsequently discharge the loan by selling a portion of that property. It is said that, as regards the remainder of the property, she made an endowme...
Firm Nainsukh Das Nagar Mal Through Nagar Mal Vs. Firm Gajanand-shyam ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.269
1. This is an appeal from an order by the District; Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 21st of February 1920, refusing; to file an award. The application on which the order was made was presented by one of the arbitrators at the request of the successful party in the arbitration, namely, the present appellant. An objection was made to the application by the present respondents on the ground that there had been no valid submission,2. A preliminary objection was raised at the hearing of the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies. On the face of the order, it is clearly one within the expressed provision of Section 104(1)(f) of the Civil Procedure Code, being 'an order refusing to file an award in an arbitration without the intervention of the Court.' The District Judge decided that this section does not apply to the arbitration award, as this award purports to have been under the Arbitration Act (IX of 1899). There is nothing in that Act to support this view, and it is to be noted that the C...
Rameshwar Dayal and ors. Vs. Lal Bahadur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All345
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit which was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore but has been decreed by the District Judge on appeal. The plaintiffs claim a declaration that they along with other 'inhabitants of village Keotra,' have a right to take their cattle to a certain grazing ground through the 'jungle of village Chapar Ghata.' The defendants are the zamindars of Chapar Ghata. The first court, besides recording the evidence, appointed a Commissioner to examine the locality and relied upon the report of the said Commissioner, to the effect that he could find no defined track used by cattle across the defendants' jungle in the direction indicated by the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court, as we understand it, has found that the plaintiffs have acquired a right of easement to drive their cattle in any fashion they please, i.e., straggling generally across the waste lands, through the jungle of Chapar Ghata fr...
Emperor Vs. Tilak Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All372
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of an appellate court directing the applicants to furnish security to keep the peace under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The applicants were convicted by a Magistrate of the second class of the offence punishable under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10. They appealed. The appellate court dismissed their appeals, but held that as there was a long-standing feud between the complainant and the accused, it was desirable to order the accused to furnish security under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that as the court of first instance, which had the powers of a second class Magistrate only, was not competent to order security to be furnished under Section 106, the appellate court was also incompetent to make such an order, and it is urged that the appellate court could not only exercise s...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All192; 61Ind.Cas.59
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The applicant has been convicted of having caused obstruction to a public road. The obstruction complained of was the playing of certain girders on the road. It appears that the applicant is in charge of a Jain temple which was being repaired. There was a contractor for the supply of materials and the extractor supplied the girders. There is nothing to show that the girders were planed on the road under the authority or the direction of the applicant. If the contractor or his servants placed the girders on the road, and if there is nothing to prove that they did be under the direction or with the satisfaction of the applicant, the applicant could not be convicted of having caused obstruction to a public road. In the present case there is no evidence to prove that the applicant authorised the obstruction. His convention therefore, was illegal, I allow the application set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine imposed on the applicant if paid, be re...
Ram Ratan Vs. Emperor Through B. Shiva Shankar Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All286(1); 60Ind.Cas.1007
1. It is clear that the Cantonment Magistrate took cognizance of this case under Sub-section (1), Clause (c) of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was, therefore, bound under the provisions of Section 191 to inform the accused before any evidence was recorded that he was entitled to have the case tried by another Court. This was not done in the present case and, therefore, the proceedings before the Cantonment Magistrate were illegal. I accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the accused be re-tried by another Magistrate to whom the Magistrate of the District may refer the case for trial....
Tilak Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All217; 60Ind.Cas.998
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of an Appellate, Court directing the applicants to furnish security to keep the peace under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants were convicted by a Magistrate of the Second Class of the offence punishable under Section 352 of the Indian Penel Code and each of them was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10, They appealed. The Appellate Court dismissed their appeals, but held that, as there was a long standing feud between the complainant and the accused, it was desirable in order the accused to furnish security under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contender on behalf of the applicants that, as the Court of first instance which had the powers of a Second Class Magistrate only was not competent to order security to be furnished tinder Section 106, the Appellate Court was also incompetent to make such an order and it is urged that the Appellate Court could only exercise such powers as...
Ratan Singh Vs. Pran Sukh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All190; (1921)ILR43All368; 61Ind.Cas.44
Muhammad Rafiq and Ryves, JJ.1. The three appeals Nos. 94, 95 and 96 of 1918 are connected and arise out of three separate suits brought by the same plaintiff under Section 95 of Act No. II of 1901, in the court of the Assistant Collector of Agra. The cases came up for hearing at first before a single Judge of this Court who has referred them to a larger Bench. The facts are given at some length and with great clearness in the judgment under appeal and we propose to reproduce them from that judgment. It appears that Ham Prasad was the occupancy tenant of the holdings which are the subject matter of dispute in these three appeals, He died prior to 1901, leaving him surviving a widow, whose name was brought on the revenue papers in place of Ram Prasad. She died in 1903, and Ratan Singh, the plaintiff appellant, is said to have obtained possession after her death. We say that he is said to have obtained possession after her death advisedly, because in the present litigation he alleges tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »