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.
Mathura Prasad Vs. Hardeo Baksh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.174
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in Patti Raghubir Singh in the village of Ainthpur. The defendants Nos. 5 to 7 were the owners of Patti Nityanand, and defendant No. 8 was the owner of Patti Shib Lal, Defendants Nos. 5 to 8 sold the whole of these two Pattis Nityanand and Sahib Lal and a house to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who were complete strangers, for the sum of Rs. 6,600. The plaintiff claimed a right of pre-emption on the basis of custom recorded in the wajib-ularz. Admittedly, none of the incidents of the custom are sat out in the wajib-ul-arz. The plaintiff in his plaint distinctly stated that the rules of Muhammadan Law applied and that in accordance with those rules he made the two demands as laid down by the Muhammadan Law, the defendants vendees refused to return the land to him; hence the suit. There was a dispute as to the amount of consideration, but that has been settled by the decision of the Court bel...
Samher Singh Vs. Sher Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.183
1. This a plaintiff's appeal, who came into Court claiming a preferential right of pre-emption as against the vendee. The vendor is the own brother of the pre-emptor. The vendee and the two brothers are descended from the same common great-grandfather. According to the custom alleged by the plaintiff, assuming that the custom does exist, the first right of pre-emption was given to bhai bhatija thank haqiyat. The lower Court has held that the words ' bhai bhatija ' have the wide meaning commonly given to them in the villages of the district, and that this does not mean that an own brother has a preference over a cousin. The second set of pre emptors are co sharers in the patti which might include non relatives;and the third set of pre-emptors are co sharers in the village. The plaintiff earns into Court alleging a custom which give him a right of preference. He produced a wajib-nl-arz the meaning of which on this point is by no means clear. The words bhai bhatija in the vernacular have ...
Rahim Baksh and anr. Vs. Emperor Through Urquhart
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All10; 56Ind.Cas.435
P.C. Banerjee, J.1. Rahim Bakhsh and Hibib Bakhsh have been convicted under Section 504, Indian Penal Code. The former was sentenced to one week's simple imprisonment and the latter to a fine of Rs. 50. They applied in revision to the learned Sessions Judge. He has referred the owe to this Court with the recommendation that the conviction of Habib Bakhsh should be set aside and the sentence on Rahim Bakhsh be reduced to a fine of Rs. 300. Rahim Bakhsh has also filed an application for revision in this Court and it in contended on his behalf that the conviction, under Section 504, is not justified by law. It appears that Rahim Bakhsh carries on a furniture shop in Jhansi Cantonments. Captain Urquhart, the husband of the complainant, went to him for the hire of the furniture, and some articles were marked on a list which was apparently shown to the accused, Rahim Bakhsh. The following morning a cart was sent to Rahim Bakhsh for the furniture but he sent it back with the intimation, if th...
Bhaggi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All200; 56Ind.Cas.230
P.C. Banerji, J.1. Bhaggi Lal, the applicant, has been convicted under Section 3 of Act III of 1867, as amended by Act I of 1917, of the Local Council for keeping a common gaming house. The applicants in the connected case No. 50 have been convicted under Section 4 of the said Act. It has been found that in a house which was owned or kept by Bhaggi Lal a large number of persona (about 6d) were discovered by the Police gambling on a particular night. The Police had obtained a warrant under Section 5 of the Act and the validity of the warrant is not questioned. It is not disputed that gambling was going on in that house and that the persons who ware arrested and who have been convicted were gambling there. The main contention is that the house was not a common gaming house within the meaning of the Act. That depends upon the farther question whether instruments of gaming were found in the house. Under the definition of the expression instruments of gaming' as given in Section 2 of Act I ...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Hardeo Bakhsh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All133; (1920)ILR42All477
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for pre-etnption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in patti Raghubir Singh in the village of Aiathapur. The defendants Nos. 5 to 7 were the owners of patti Nityanand, and defendant No. 8 was the owner of patti Shib Lal. Defen--dants Nos. 5 to 8 sold the whole of these two pattis Nityanand and Shib Lal and a house to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who were complete strangers, for the sum of Rs. 6,600. The plaintiff claimed a right of pre-emption on the basis of custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz. Admittedly, none of the incidents of the custom are set out in the wajib-ul-arz. The plaintiff in his plaint distinctly stated that the rules of Muhammadan law applied and that in accordance with those rules he made the two demands as laid down by the Muhammadan law; the defendants vendees refused to return the land to him, hence the suit. There was a dispute as to the amount of consideration, but that has been settle...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Sri Mahadeoji Birajman Temple and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All461
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. This appeal raises two interesting and important questions of Hindu Law. It was originally opened before Mr. Justice Piggott and myself, and subsequently we, deemed it proper to have the weight and assistance of Mr. Justice Banerji's wide knowledge and long experience.2. The facts are quite simple and the points of law stand out in a form very convenient for a clear pronouncement. Lalta Prasad, the plaintiff in the court below and the appellant here, is the grandson of one Gajadhar Lal. Gajadhar Lal had a son,. who died during his life-time, and, in the year 1914, the appellant was about seventeen years of age. Gajadhar Lal and the mother of the appellant were not on good terms, and on the 18th of November, 1914, the appellant and his mother, apparently living away from the residence of the grandfather, commenced a suit for partition, the appellant, being the plaintiff in that case, suing by his mother as next friend. There is nothing to show that the grandfather...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Sri Mahadeoji Birajman Temple Through Shiam Singh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All116; 58Ind.Cas.667
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. This appeal raises two interesting and important questions of Hindu Law. It was originally opened before Mr. justice Piggott and myself and subsequently we deemeed it proper to have the weight and assistance of Mr. Justice Banerji's wide knowledge and long experience.2. The facts are quite simple, and the points of law stand out in a form very convenient for a clear pronouncement. Lalta Prasad, the plaintiff in the Court below and the appellant here, is the grandson of one Gajadhar Lal. Gajadhar Lal had a son who died during his lifetime and, in the year 1914, the appellant was about 17 years of age. Gajadhar Lal and the mother of the appellant were not on good terms, and on the 18th of November 1914, the appellant and his mother, apparently living away from the residence of the grandfather, commenced a suit for partition, the appellant being the plaintiff in that case suing by his mother as next friend. There is nothing to show that the grandfather ever knew of ...
Sheo NaraIn Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All99; 58Ind.Cas.457
George Knox, J.1. Two men were placed before the Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore charged with an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, They were Sheo Narain Singh and Abdulla. The charge against them was that they had murdered one Karim Bakhsh Pleader near the village of Andoli on or about the 14th of October 1919. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. There is no question about the fact that Karim Bakhsh was murdered. The medical evidence establishes that beyond dispute, but the question remains to be considered who was or were the murderers. Abdulla has been acquitted and Sheo Narain Singh has been convicted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted Sheo Narain Singh, according to his judgment, because he believed the evidence for the prosecution. In the same judgment he says that 'as against Sheo Narain Singh, accused, there is no eye witness but there is so strong circumstantial evidence, tantamount to eye-witness, that I have no hesitation in holding ...
Emperor Vs. Azim-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All108; 57Ind.Cas.462
1. Azim-ud-din, aged 22 years, has been convicted of an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death, the ease has been referred to us by the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut and we have before us an appeal put in by the convict. The accused has been presented in this Court by the learned Counsel and the case very fully argued before us. There is also a petition of appeal sent in from jail and we have Been this also. The alleged murder took place on the night of the 15th December 1919 and it is said to have been committed about 8 P.M. The boy who was murdered is said to be 20 years of age. It is not open to doubt that the boy Kailashi Ram died from the effect of some violent act committed upon his person. Different reasons are given for the cause of death, but we have nothing absolutely safe to act upon except the evidence of Dr. Hafizullah, Assistant Civil Surgeon, who unfortunately never saw the body until, as he considered, some six days after death a...
Firm Debi DIn Bhagwan DIn Through Binda Ram Vs. Firm Sarkar and Co. Th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All172; 56Ind.Cas.513
Rafique, J.1. This is an application in revision from the decree of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Cawnpur decreeing the claim of the opposite party for Rs. 430. It appears that the plaintiff, the opposite party, sued for the recovery of Rs. 355 for balance of price of goods supplied and Rs. 125 for damages for goods supplied but not accepted. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants-applicants had ordered 30 wagons of coal at the price agreed upon and that 30 wagons had been sent to them but only 25 had been accepted. The sum of Rs. 355 was due for the wagons accepted and R3. 125 for damages on the five wagons not accepted. Under the terms of the contract between the parties the defendants applicants had agreed to pay Rs, 50 per wagon as damages in case of their non acceptance, but the plaintiffs were claiming only at the rate of R3. 25 per wagon. The sum of Rs. 355 was the balance of the price of the 25 wagons after deducting the amounts paid from time to time ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›