Allahabad Court April 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.
Muhammad Anwar Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Dara Shah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.208
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Bareilly, refusing to remove a guardian from her post. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies. We think there is considerable force in this argument. Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act gives a right of appeal against an order made by the District Court under Section 39 for removing a guardian, but it nowhere gives ft right of appeal from an order refusing to remove a guardian. Section 48 distinctly says: 'Save as provided by the last foregoing section and by Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order made under this Act shall be final and shall not be liable to be contested by suit or otherwise.' It is, therefore, clear that no appeal lies from the order of the Court below and we, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs....
Bhagwati Prasad Alias Bhagwat Sahai and ors. Vs. M. Mukand Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All206(2); 56Ind.Cas.523
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an auction sale. The appellant's case is that there was a material irregularity in proclaiming the sale as a result of which he suffered considerable loss, the properly being undersold, The two irregularities of which complaint is made are: one, that the drum was not beaten at the time of the sale, and, second, that there was a mistake entered in the sale proclamation to the effect that there was an encumbrance of Rs. 14,000 on the property whereas there was no such encumbrance As to the beating of the drum, there is no force whatsoever in I his plea. There is nothing in the Code that says that at the time of gale the drum shall be beaten. The drum has merely to be beaten at the time of proclamation under Order XXI, rule 54. The complaint is also made that the drum had not been beaten even at the time of the proclamation of sale but evidence was directed to prove that the drum was not beaten at the time of auction sale. So far...
Emperor Vs. Ram Baran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All474
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision. The applicants were convicted of an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each. They went in revision to the Sessions Judge and there they sought for permission to compromise the case with the opposite party. The Judge held that he had no power to allow a compromise in view of the terms of Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants thereupon came to this Court. Two points are taken, first of all that the Court of the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to allow a compromise to be filed although he had no power to acquit, and secondly that the sentence was unduly severe. In so far as the Sessions Judge's jurisdiction to allow a compromise to be filed is concerned, I think there is no force in this application. Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Clause 7 distinctly says: 'No: offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.' The first four claus...
Bindo Vs. Radhe Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All512
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. On the death of one Matra Mal, his widow Musammat Bindo applied for a succession certificate for the collection of certain debts. She named two persons, Radhe Lal and Bhikari Das, as brothers of the deceased; but we note that Radhe Lal is described as son of Hulas. Rai and Bhikari Das as son of Durga Das. She also named one Thakur Das, as paternal uncle of the deceased. Notices issued to Radhe Lal and Bhikari Das went to Bombay for service and eventually the court recorded an order expressing its opinion that the service effected was sufficient and proceeded to deal with the case ex parte. The application was not opposed and a certificate was granted as prayed. Radhe Lal now comes to this Court in appeal, He says he has a defence on the merits, the fact being that Matra Mal was his brother and died as a member of a joint undivided. Hindu family with himself. He says moreover that, while his residence is at Hathras in the Aligarh district, he carries on business...
Muhammad Ismail Khan and ors. Vs. Hamida Khatun and Bibi Haji Begam an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All311; (1920)ILR42All509
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. In this case the contest is concerned with an alleged will of one Haji Yakub Khan and with his suggested legal and mental disabilities. He was a man born in 1852, or thereabouts, ana had married one wife Haji Begam. They had as issue a son and a daughter. Both the son and daughter died, one about 1897, and the other about 1907, and there is now left surviving a grand-daughter, aged about fourteen years.2. On the 1st of June, 1917, Haji Yakub Khan is said to have made a will giving to his granddaughter the l/3rd share of his property which he as a Muhammadan had prima facie the right to bequeath. He died on the 2nd of June, 1918, that is, just one day more than a year after he is said to have executed the will referred to above.3. The points which arise in this appeal are:Whether in the circumstances of Haji Yakub Khan's position, he was competent to make a will; (2) whether on the 1st of June, 1917, he executed the document which is...
Sri Newas Vs. Ram Deo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All585
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: Sri Newas of Cawnpore, who alleges that he keeps a shop for the sale of cloth in Kahu Kothi, Cawnpore, instituted a suit against Ram Deo Agarwala, whom he alleges to be another cloth dealer in Dal Mandi, Cawnpore, on the following allegations. He stated that on the 1st of July, 1917, the parties had agreed that Sri Newas should pay Ram Deo at Rs. 250 which Ram Deo was to retain in any circumstances, that on the lath of February, 1918, Sri Newas should be at liberty to purchase 250 thans of markin of specified quality from Ram Deo at Rs. 12-12 a piece or to sell to Ram Deo 250 pieces at the same price. The contract was a contract which appears to be not unusual in certain towns in India and is known as a nazrana sauda. Under it, one party pays to the other party so much money out and out, the receiver of the money is safeguarded if the market fluctuates within certain limits, but if ...
Mewa Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All125(1); 56Ind.Cas.64
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. A Police Officer searched the house of Mewa Lal. The latter made a complaint that this Police Officer had searched his house without reason and that in the course of the search he used threatening and abusive language towards him and his wife. The Magistrate sent the complaint for enquiry to another Police Officer, who reported it to be groundless. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the 22nd of November and on the same date called upon Mewa Lal to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Code. Mewa Lal did show cause, and one ground that he put forward was that it was improper to direct, his prosecution without the Court hearing his evidence. In spite of this the Court directed his prosecution under Section 211 of the Code. I am far from saying that in every case the Magistrate is bound to take the evidence and cannot act upon the report of the Investigating Officer, but in the present case the accused p...
Radhe Lal Vs. Musammat Bindo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All195(1); 56Ind.Cas.181
1. On the death of one Matra Mal his widow Musammat Bindo applied for a succsession certificate for the collection of certain debts. She named two persons, Radhe Lal and Bhikari Das, as brothers of the deceased; bat we note that Radhe Lal is described as son of Hulas Rai and Bhikari Das as son of Durga Das. She also named one Thakur Das as paternal uncle of the deceased. Notices issued to Radhe Lal and Bhikari Das went to Bombay for service, and eventually the Court recorded an order expressing its opinion that the service effected was sufficient and proceeded to deal with the case ex parte. The application was not opposed and a certificate was granted as prayed. Radhe Lal now comes to this Court in appeal. He says he has a defence on the merits, the fast being that Matra Mal was his brother and died as a member of a joint undivided Hindu family with himself. He says moreover that, while his residence is at Hathras in the Aligarh District, he carries on business in Bombay and was, at t...
Ram Baran Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All169; 56Ind.Cas.239
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision. The applicants were convicted of an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each. They went in Revision to the Sessions Judge and there they sought for permission to compromise the case with the opposite party. The Judge held that he had no power to allow a compromise in view of the terms of Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants, therefore, came to this Court. Two points are taken: first of all that the Court of the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to allow a compromise to be filed although he had no power to acquit, and secondly, that the sentence was unduly severe. In so far as the Sessions Judge's jurisdiction to allow a compromise to be filed is concerned, I think there is no force in this application. Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code in clause 7 distinctly says: 'No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.' The first four clauses o...
Nawab Haji Mohammad Ismail Khan and ors. Vs. Musammat Hamidah Khatoon ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.910
1. In this case the contest is concerned with an alleged Will of one Haji Yakub Khan and with his suggested legal and mental disabilities. He was a man born in 1852, or thereabouts, and had married one wife, Haji Begam. They had, as issue, a son and a daughter, Both the son and daughter died, one about 1897 and the other about 1807, and there is now left surviving a granddaughter, aged about 14 years.2. On the 1st of June 1917 Haji Takub Khan is said to have made a Will, giving to his grand-daughter the one-third share of his property which he, as a Muhammadan, had prima facie the right to bequeath. He died on the 2nd of June 1918, that is, just one day more than a year after he is said to have executed the Will referred to above.3. The points which arise in this appeal are:(1) Whether, in the circumstances of Haji Yakub Khan's position, he was competent to make a Will, (2) whether on the 1st of June 1917 he executed the document which is put forward and relied upon by the plaintiffs a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »