Allahabad Court March 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.
Emperor Vs. Sundar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All60; 56Ind.Cas.771
Rafique, J.1. The Appeal No. 176 of 1920 and Revision Application No. 129 of 1920 are consisted inasmuch as they arise out of one trial. Both the appeal and the revision application are on behalf of the Government. It appears that a dacoity was committed at the house of one Khiali Ram, a Brahman, at the village of Amarpur, on the night of the 4th of February 1919. More than 20 persons, armed with guns, pistols, swrods, spears and lathis, raided the house of Khiali Ram and that of his nephew Din Dayal and maltreated the in-mates of the two houses in order to find out from them where they had buried their treasure. The dacoits burnt Din Dayal's hands with a torch and get fire to his wife's skirt which resulted in her leg and hand being slightly burnt. They brutally ill treated the daughters of Khiali. All the women of the two houses were stripped of their ornaments and the two houses were ransacked entirely. The dacoits kept off the villagers by firing off guns from time to time. They re...
Mahboob Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All85; 56Ind.Cas.856
Walsh, J.1. This is a revision application from an order passed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Moradabad, upholding a conviction by a First Class Magistrate. The charge was originally against two men, named Munir and Mahbub, for dishonestly receiving or being in possession of stolen property which they must have known to be stolen, The theft is clearly established and although it is not quite true to say that Munir was convicted of the theft, he was convicted of being in wrongful possession of the cattle so shortly after their loss as to raise a strong presumption that in fact he was a thief; though this has not been proved, yet for the purposes of this case it must be taken that be was either the thief or wrongfully came intopossession of the animals well knowing that they had just been stolen. He has not appealed, and that fact and his conviction must necessarily form part of the case against his associate Mahbub. That is a risk every man runs who deals with other persons in the ...
Nanu and ors. Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All15; 58Ind.Cas.97
1. The facts of the case have been fully set forth in the judgments of the Courts below and need not be repeated here at length. The plaintiff-respondent is a mortgagee who had obtained a decree for sale and later on became the purchaser of the property in dispute in execution of his own decree. After this decree had been passed, certain partition proceedings, which had been pending from before, resulted in a partition under which, according to the plaintiff, lands of very inferior quality were allotted to the mortgagor-judgment- debtor, and lands of superior quality were placed in the shares of his other go sharers. The plaintiff obtained formal possession over the undivided share of his judgment-debtor which had been mortgaged to him. This was on the 19th of June 1914 and the partition proceedings were completed on the 24th of June 1914, It appears, however, that when the plaintiff wanted to reap the advantages which accrued to him from the purchase of the undivided half-share belong...
Atar Singh and anr. Vs. Raghu Nath Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All198; 55Ind.Cas.974
1. This is an appeal by the sons of the mortgagor in a suit brought by the mortgagee to enforce a mortgage executed in his favour on the 21st of April 1913. The mortgagor is one Bholar alias Pahalwan. The claim was disputed by the sons on the ground that there was no family necessity for the mortgage. They also urged that the mortgage - debt was incurred for immoral purposes. As regards the first point, what we have to consider is whether the mortgage debt now in dispute was incurred in lieu of an antecedent debt. Assuming that the observations contained in the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 280 : 39 A. 437 : 21 C.W.N. 698 : 1 P.L.W. 557 : 15 A.L.J. 437 : 19 Bom. L.R. 498 : 26 C.L.J. 1 : 33 M.L.J. 14 : (1917) M.W.N. 439 : 22 M.L.T. 22 : 6 L.W. 213 : 44 L.A. 126 (P.C.) apply to this case, it has, in our opinion, been established that the mortgage in suit was given for an antecedent debt. This mortgage was execu...
Jagdeo Parshad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All72; 56Ind.Cas.58
George Knox, J.1. Jagdeo Prasad was committed by Mr. Sathe for having, on the 1st day of December 1918 at Rajapur, forged a money order (Exhibit B) for Rs. 375 and tried to obtain payment of the amount relating to the same--an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charged by the same Magistrate for having, on the 6th day of December 1918 at Rajapur, forged a money order (Exhibit M) and obtained payment of Rs. 299 12 on the basis of that money order, an offence punishable under Section 467, Indian Penal Code. He was also charged by the same Magistrate for having, on the 2nd day of December 1918 at Rajapur, forged a money order (Exhibit N) and obtained payment of Rs. 575, an offence punishable under Section 467, Indian Penal Code. He was committed to the Court of Session on these charges. I refer to these charges in order to show that in the course of his trial the attention of the accused was called to these charges which were made against him. On th...
Muhammad Mushtaq Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Banke Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All204; (1920)ILR42All420
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants in the court below for redemption of a mortgage, dated the 31st of March, 1880. The mortgage was executed by one Musammat Intizam-un-nissa Begam in lieu of Rs. 17,000. The mortgage was usufructuary and was given to one Santu Prasad. Both the mortgagor and the mortgagee are dead. The plaintiffs appellants represent the mortgagor and the defendants respondents represent the mortgagee. On the 24th of June, 1916, the plaintiffs sent a notice to the defendants offering to pay Rs. 17,000 to them and asking for redemption. The defendants sent no reply. On the 30th of June, 1916, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs for the redemption of the mortgage of 1880. Several objections were taken to the suit, one of which was that the suit was premature, inasmuch as no legal tender had been made. The learned Subordinate Judge yielded to this plea ...
Abdul Karim and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All184; 58Ind.Cas.158
George Knox, J.1. Abdul Karim and Abdul Aziz have been convicted of an offense under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. The facts are not denied. It appears that on the 5th of October 1919 when Jamal-ud-din, the person assaulted, returned home in the evening between 6 and 7, his sons complained that they had been scolded by Abdul Aziz, one of the accused. Upon this Jamal-ud-Din went to Abdul Aziz with the intention and object of reproving him. He asked Abdul Aziz why he scolded his sons in his absence. Abdul Aziz admitted having scolded his sons and added: I will now beat yon:' Abdul Aziz then ought hold of Jamal-ud-Din while, as the deposition goes, Abdul Karim stroke him with a knife in the belly. The two accused have been defended by a learned Counsel in this Court. The contention is that because the evidence does not prove that Abdul Aziz had any common intention with Abdul Karim to stab Jamal-ud Din, Abdul Aziz ought to hav...
Muhammad Mushtaq Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.991
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants in the Court below for redemption of a mortgage, dated the 31st of March 1880. The mortgage was executed by one Musammat. Intizam-un-nissa Begam in lieu of Rs. 17,000. The mortgage was usufructuary and was given to one Santu Prasad, Both the mortgagor and the mortgagee is dead. The plaintiffs-appellants represent the mortgagor and the defendants-respondents represent the mortgagee. On the 30th of June 1916 the plaintiffs sent a notice to the defendants offering to pay Rs. 17,000 to them and asking for redemption. The defendants sent no reply. On the 30th of June 1916 the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs for the redemption of the mortgage of 1880. Several objections were taken to the suit, one of which was that the suit was premature, inasmuch as no legal tender had been made. The learned Subordinate Judge yielded to this plea and dismissed the suit. He also held that the of...
Gobind Rai Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All163; (1920)ILR42All412; 58Ind.Cas.594
Pigoott and Walsh, JJ.1. The plaintiff came into Court alleging himself to be the rent-free grantee of certain land. He stated that the defendants zamindars had forcibly and unlawfully ejected him from possession and enjoyment of this land on the strength of certain proceedings which they had taken behind his back in the Revenue Court, to which proceedings he had never been made a party. The suit was brought in the court of a Munsif, who tried out all the issues on the merits and gave the plaintiff a decree. The decree was one restoring the plaintiff to the possession which he had previously enjoyed, that is to say, to the possession of a rent-free grantee, enjoying all the rights, but subject to all the liabilities imposed on such grantees by chapter 10 of the Agra Tenancy Act (No. II of 1901). There was an appeal which was heard by the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. It appears that various pleas were taken on behalf of the defendants,' but that they were all abandoned except one plea...
Mojiz Fatima Begam and ors. Vs. Ali Akbar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All120; (1920)ILR42All414
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This was a suit by three co-sharers against a lambardar for profits. One minor complication we may dispose of at once. While the second appeal was pending in this Court one of the three plaintiffs, by name Musammat Amir Begam, has compromised with the defendant lambardar. In the compromise it is stated that Musammat Amir Begam's, claim on account of the profits of her share has been completely settled out of court and she is content that the appeal, in so far as it relates to her share, be dismissed without any order as to costs. This order will be noted when we come to pass the final decree of this Court. The remaining two plaintiffs, who are entitled each to a one-tenth share in the divisible profits of this mahal, have elected to proceed with their appeal and it will have to be decided in respect of the shares of these two plaintiffs. We have come with reluctance to the conclusion that it is impossible for us to decide the appeal without more specific findin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »