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.
Sri Thakurji Vs. Sukhdelo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All395
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ. 1. In this case Musammat Mahesha Kuar asked for a declaration that certain property specified in a deed of the 6th of November, 1912, executed by her deceased husband, Babu Bhan Singh, was duly dedicated to, and became the property of, an idol installed in her house.2. The learned Subordinate Judge decided that the transaction' was invalid as not being prompted by religious motives. He came to the conclusion that the object of the deed was to keep the property inalienably in the line of Bhan Singh's daughter and daughter's sons and perhaps, also to exclude the operation of an alleged custom of Bhan Singh's caste whereby nephews, in default of sons, would inherit the property of the donor.3. The decision of the case must turn on the question of the intention of the donor and as a guide to that intention we must have regard be his acts and declarations and the conduct of his widow after his death.4. The deed is a lengthy documen...
Kallu Khan Vs. Abdullah Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All394
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The order complained of in this case was passed wholly without jurisdiction. What happened was this. A decree was obtained against Abdullah Khan by Bashir Khan on the 25th of February, 1919. He applied for execution of the decree on the 13th of March, 1919. The judgment-debtor, paid apportion of the decretal amount and obtained time to pay up the balance and the case was struck off in April, 1919. In execution of the decree some crops were attached and were placed in charge of the applicant, Kallu Khan. On the 27th of April, 1919, the judgment-debtor, Abdullah Khan, presented an application to the court in which he stated that, although he had paid a part of the decretal amount and the court had ordered the attached crops to be released, those crops had not been delivered back to him. An explanation was called for from the amin and on receipt of it, the court instituted certain proceedings and examined witnesses and in the end 'made an order on the 2nd of J...
Har Sahai Mal Vs. B. Birj Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All142(1); 58Ind.Cas.182
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This was a suit brought by a Mukhtar for services rendered by him to the defendant as a Mukhtar in a criminal case which was pending against the defendant. He stated that his fee for attendance in the Court was Rs. 20 a day besides travelling expenses; that he had received Rs. 40 and that a balance of Rs. 95 was due. The defendant disputed the claim mainly on the ground that it offended against the pro visions of Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The Court of first instance overruled this objection and held that the suit was one for work done and made a decree in the plaintiff's favour for Rs. 50, which it held to be reasonable remuneration for the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant. This decree has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The present application is one for revision of the decree of the lower Appellate Court, on the ground that decree is erroneous inasmuch as the learned Judge of that Court aid not give effect to the provisions ...
Kalloo Khan Vs. Abdullah Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All245(1); 58Ind.Cas.448
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The order complained of in this case was passed wholly without jurisdiction. What happened was this:-- decree was obtained against Abdullah Khan by Bashir Khan on the 25th of February 1919. He applied for execution of the decree on the 13th of March 1919. The judgment-debtor paid a portion of the decretal amount and obtained time to pay up the balance and the case was struck off in April 1919. In execution of the decree some crops were attached and were placed in charge of the applicant Kalloo Khan. On the 27th of April 1919 the judgment-debtor, Abdullah Khan, presented an application in Court in which he stated that although he had paid a part of the decretal amount and the Court had ordered, the attached crops to be released, those crops had not been delivered back to farm. An explanation was called for from the Amin and on receipt of it the Court instituted certain proceedings and examined witnesses and in the end made an order on the 2nd of June 1919 directing th...
Sri Thakurji Maharaj Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All63; 58Ind.Cas.583
1. In this case Musammat Mahesha Kuar asked for a declaration that certain property specified in a deed of November 6th, 1912, executed by her deceased husband Babu Bhan Singh was duly dedicated to and became the property of an idol installed in her house.2. The learned Subordinate Judge decided that the transaction was invalid as not being (sic) by religious motives. He came to the conclusion that the object of the deed was to keep the property inalienably in the line of Bhan Singh's daughter and daughter's sons, and perhaps also to exclude the operation of an alleged custom of Bhan Singh's caste whereby nephews in default of sons would inherit the property of the donor.3. The decision of the case must turn on the question of the intention of the donor, and as a guide to that intention we must have regard to his acts and declarations and the conduct of his widow after his death.4. The deed is a lengthy document, carefully drawn, and is in the usual form. The points of importance are t...
Ram Sahai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All217(1); 55Ind.Cas.1008
George Knox, J.1. On the 18th of December 1919, a Magistrate of First Class convicted Durra and Musammat Bhoppa under Sections 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to different periods of imprisonment. On the same day he recorded an order in which he directed the record to be made over to another Magistrate to enquire into the statements made in the case by Ram Sahai, Jodh Singh, Bhola and Nawab Singh, which ware false. He passed an order under Section 476 directing them to show because why they should not be prosecuted for perjury. The order is very inartistically framed and does not carry out the requirements of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It does not specify the Court or the place and the occasion on which the offence was committed. It is a careless order carelessly worded, and not one calculated to give the accused proper notice of the offence alleged against them. Magistrates passing an order under Section 476 should do so with extreme care an...
Mutsaddi Lal Vs. Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Company and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All157; (1920)ILR42All390
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The circumstances out of which this case has arisen are these: On the 16th of January, 1913, the plaintiff consigned to the Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway at Ramnagar Station a bundle of gunny bags to be delivered to the Salt Superintendent, Sambhar, on the, Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway line. The bundle was not delivered. The plaintiff was subsequently informed that it was lying in the lost property office of the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway and that the plaintiff might take delivery if he liked. No answer seems to have been given to the Railway. Subsequently by a letter of the 17th March, 1916, the Railway offered to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 20 in satisfaction of his claim, but this offer was refused and the present suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 50 as compensation. This sum of R3. 50 comprised the following items, namely, Rs. 40 for price of the bags; Rs. 3-13-0 railway fare and Rs. 6 for loss arising from the non-delivery ...
Mutsaddi Lal Vs. the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Company ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.547
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The circumstances out of which this case has arisen are these. On the 16th of January 1913 the plaintiff consigned to the Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway at Ramnagar Station a bundle of gunny bags to be delivered to the Salt Superintendent, Sambhar, on the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway line. The bundle was not delivered. The plaintiff was subsequently informed that it was lying in the lost property office of the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway and that the plaintiff might take delivery if he liked. No answer seems to have been given to the Railway. Subsequently by a letter of the 17th of March 1916 the Railway offered to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 20 in satisfaction of his claim, but this offer was refused and the present suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 50 as compensation. This sum of Rs. 50 was comprised of the following items, namely, Rs. 40-3 Of or price of the bags; Rs. 3130, Railway fare, and Rs. 6 for loss arising from the non-delivery o...
Lilawati Kunwar Vs. Chote Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All362
Tudball and Muhammad, Rafiq, JJ.1. The second point urged on behalf of the plaintiff is that, there is no judgment in law in the present case, inasmuch as the judgment under appeal was-written by Mr. Piari Lal after he had ceased to be a Subordinate Judge. It appears that Mr. Piari Lal was officiating Subordinate Judge at Aligarh when the case was argued before him, He reverted, it is said, immediately after conclusion of the arguments in the case, and we are referred to the History of Gazetted Officers in support of the allegation of reversion of Mr. Piari Lal. If it is contended that Mr. Piari Lal reverted on the 22nd of December, 1916, the day upon which the arguments were concluded, it does not follow that he had not made up his mind what to do in the case. If he wrote the judgment after he ceased to be a Subordinate Judge, when he had reverted to his substantive appointment) of a Munsif, that would not vitiate the judgment in any way, A similar point was raised in the case of Basa...
Mata Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All66; 55Ind.Cas.730
George Knox, J.1. Mata Prasad has been convicted of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. From this order which was passed by a Magistrate of the First Class, he appealed to the Court of Session. That Court held that the conviction was a right and proper one. He has come to this Court in revision and contends through his learned Counsel that the order of the Court below is wholly wrong inasmuch as it has put the defence to prove the negative, that the petitioner did not act dishonestly. It appears that one Debi Dayal accompanied by the petitioner went to one Hira Lal. (The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was so defective in important parts that I departed from my usual rule in revision and looked into the evidence). Upon reading the evidence of Hira Lal it would appear that in the transaction which took place between Mata Prasad and Hira Lal, Debi Dayal played a very important part. He was really the person who transacted t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »