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.
Mojiz Fatima and ors. Vs. Saiyad Ali Akbar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.112
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 com-promised with the defendant Lambardar. In the compromise it is stated that Musumwaf 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 findings' from the Court be...
Emperor Vs. Bhagelu Dom
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All53; 56Ind.Cas.226
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the Local Government asking that Bhagelu Dom's conviction under Section 22, Sub-section 1, Clause (c), of the Criminal Tribes Act be set aside or a new trial on a fresh charge be directed. 2. Bhagelu Dom is a member of a criminal tribe which has been notified under Section 10 of the Act. Under Clause (6) of that section it was necessary for him to notify his place of residence and any charge or intended change of residence and any absence or intended absence from his residence, to the Police. The rules have been issued under Section 20 of the Act for the purposes and objects of the Act itself, and in respect to the present convict the rules which apply to him are those which were issued under Section 20, sub Section 2, Clause (d). Rule 8 (a) is the rule applicable. Under it 'every registered member of a criminal tribe in respect of which a notification has been issued under Section 10 (b) shall notify in person to the office...
Ghulam Mohi-ud-dIn Khan and anr. Vs. Hardeo Sahai and Sheobaran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All402
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This and the connected appeal No. 27 of 1917 arise out of two suits for preemption brought by two pre-emptors Hardeo Sahai and Sheobaran Singh, on the basis of a sale, dated the 8th of December, 1914. The facts of the case are as follows:One Rai Bahadur Sri Kishan Das was the owner of the property in dispute which is a 15 biswa share in the village of Gokalpur Piplot. This man became insolvent. One of his creditors applied to the Bombay High Court and on the 26th of September, 1913, he was adjudged an insolvent. His entire property including the property in dispute was vested in the official assignee of Bombay. That officer decided to sell the property, now in dispute, by public auction through Messrs, Crawford and Company, auctioneers of Bombay. The sale was originally fixed by the auctioneers for the 25th of October, 1914, at Aligarh. The village in question is a village lying in the Aligarh district. It was not, however, carried out on that date and...
Sultanat Jahan Begam Vs. Sundar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All197(2); (1920)ILR42All409
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This application for revision has arisen under the following circumstances. The plaintiff applicant brought a suit, against the first two defendants for their ejectment from a house. These defendants contested the suit on the ground that they had already vacated the house and that there were other persons who had an interest in the disputed house. Subsequently they presented an application to the court praying that these other parsons, whose names are Ishaq Ahmad and Ismail Ahmad, should be made defendants to the suit. This application was granted and the aforesaid parsons were added as defendants. After issues were framed and a certain amount of evidence was recorded, the two persons aforesaid made an application to the court to stay proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as there had been a suit between them and the plaintiff and others in regard to the title of those defendants in respect of this and other property; that th...
Ghulam MohiuddIn Khan and anr. Vs. Hardeo Sahai and Sheobaran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All219; 58Ind.Cas.93
1. This and the connected appeal No. 27 of 1917 arise out of two suits for preemption brought by two pre emptor a Hardeo Sahai and Sheobaran Singh, on the basis of a sale, dated the 8th December 1914. The facts of the ease are as follows:One Rai Bahadur Sri Kishen Das was the owner of the property in dispute which is a 15-biswas share in the village of Gokalpur Piplot. This man became insolvent. One of his creditors applied to the Bombay High Court and, on the 26th September 1913, he was adjudged an insolvent. His entire property, including the property in dispute, was vested in the Official Assignee of Bombay. That officer decided to sell the property now in dispute by public auction through Messrs. Crawford and Company, Auctioneers of Bombay. The sale was originally fixed by the auctioneers for the 25th October 1914 at Aligarh. The village in question is a village lying in the Aligarh District. It was not, however, carried out on that date and the 8th November 1914 was fixed for it. ...
Sultanat Jhan Begam Vs. Sundar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.90
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This application for. revision has arisen under the following circumstances. The plaintiff applicant brought a suit against the first two defendants for their ejectment from a house. These defendants contested the suit on the ground that they had already vacated the house and that there were other persons who had an interest in the disputed house. Subsequently, they presented an application to the Court praying that these other persons, whose names are Ishaq Ahmad and Ismail. Ahmad, should be made defendants to the suit. This application was granted and the aforesaid persons were added as defendants, After issues were framed and a certain amount of evidence was recorded, the two persons aforesaid made an application to the Court to stay proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as there had been a suit between them and the plaintiff and others in regard to the title of those defendants in respect of this and other property; that that suit ...
Mahant Ram Saran Das Vs. Hari Kishen Koeri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All188; 58Ind.Cas.511
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This application for revision is untenable.2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who is the landlord, granted him a lease of certain land; that he was in possession under the lease; that he had grown crops on the land, and that the defendant wrong-fully out down and misappropriated the crops. He claimed the value of the crops as damages. The suit was clearly cognizable by the Civil Court. The plaintiff did not allege wrongful dispossession and the suit was not a suit for compensation for wrongful dispossession. The plaintiff is in possession and all that he claims is the value of the crops which the defendant forcibly ant down. The suit, not being one for compensation for wrongful dispossession, could not be brought in the Revenue Court under Section 79 of the Tenancy Act. I dismiss the application with costs....
Emperor Vs. Buddhu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All401
Knox, J.1. Buddhu and Juggan, who have .been convicted of an offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, have put in an application praying for revision of their sentences. In their application they have called particular attention to the fact that the conviction under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained inasmuch as it has not been strictly proved that marriage and all necessary rites were duly celebrated between the complainant and the woman in question. They have also pointed out that the mere statement of the husband that he is married to the woman is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. This Court, in Queen-Empress v. Dal Singh (1897) I.L.R. 20 All. 166, has laid down that a court trying a case under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code should require some better evidence of the marriage than the mere statement of the complainant and the Woman. There appears to be no evidence of a better kind in this case. I set aside, the conviction and sentence and...
Emperor Vs. Mangat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All135; 57Ind.Cas.82
George Knox, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, after examining the record of the case of King Emperor v. Mangat and others tried by S. Ahmed Ali, a Magistrate of the first class, has found, that two opposing parties of a riot had been tried in one and the same trial. The learned Sessions Judge considers this is illegal as the two parties could have no common object and the trial, therefore, was bad. 'One party has appealed,' continues the learned Sessions Judge, 'and Under Section 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I have ordered them to be retried. The opposite party, Mangat, Sangat, Phemdi Pirbhu, and Sullar, have not appealed. In view of the ruling reported as Empress v. Jaimal A.W.N. (1883) 163. I report their case to the Hon'ble High Court for orders.' It is to be feared that the learned Sessions Judge has taken a too perfunctory view of the case. It is a mistake which often is made. Under Section 239, Criminal Procedure Code, when more persons than one are accused of the same off...
Buddhu and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.736
George Knox, J.1. Baddhu and Jaggan, who have been convicted of an offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, have put in an application praying for revision of their sentences. In their application they have called particular attention to the fact that the conviction under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained, inasmuch as it has not been strictly proved that marriage and all necessary rites were duly celebrated between the complainant and the woman in question. They have also pointed out that the mere statement of the husband that he is married to the woman is not sufficient to sustain conviction. This Court in Queen-Empress v. Dal Singh 20 A. 166 : A.W.N. (1898) 7 has laid down that Courts trying a case under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code should require some better evidence of the marriage than the mere statement of the complainant and the woman. There appears to be no evidence of a better kind in this case. I set aside the conviction and sentence ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »