Allahabad Court May 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.
GosaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.175
1. The facts of this case are not disputed. The appellant Goshain has been convicted of the offence of murder Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to death. The record is also before us for confirmation of the capital sentence. The appellant has told from the very beginning one story consistently and the statement that he has made has been accepted by the Sessions Judge as correct. The deceased was one Lachhmi for a certain length of time the accused Goshain Lohar had strongly suspected an intrigue between his wife and Lachhmi. He consulted with one Parma, who has also been convicted in this case but who has not appealed, and Parma agreed to watch and let him know whenever he saw his wife and the deceased together. On the day in question Parma saw Lachhmi, the deceased, coming up from the river Ram Ganga and saw him also in company with Musammat Paduli, the appellant's wife. He whistled to give the accused information of what was happening. The accused left...
Lala Sukhnath Rai and anr. Vs. Lala Nehal Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.801
1. This is an application in revision by two persons, Sukhnath Rai and Chandu Lal, who may hereafter be conveniently spoken of as the applicants. They were parties to a properly drawn up submission to arbitration, dated the 3rd of November 1915, under which certain matters in dispute between them and the opposite party were referred for decision to two named arbitrators and a named umpire. It seems that violent disputes broke out between the parties shortly afterwards and that a considerable period of time elapsed during which no action was taken by the arbitrators. The Question who is to blame, or who is most to blame, for this state of things is not really before us. The applicants finally addressed a letter to the arbitrator and received from him a reply which they have sought to interpret as a withdrawal on his part from the arbitration, or to put it more strictly, a refusal to act any longer as umpire under the submission. Following upon this, the applicants instituted a suit in t...
Chhoti Vs. Khacheru
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All649
George Knox, J.1. Khacheru presented an application to the court of Mr. Nathu Ram, a Magistrate of the First Class of Meerut, asking for sanction to prosecute Musammat Chhoti for an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, on the 28th of October, 1919. The exact section is not given in this application, but it appears in the cognate application filed on the same day. On the 21st of November, 1919, the court of the First Class Magistrate, Meerut, accorded sanction as applied for. It was brought to his notice that the sanction, so it was contended, should have been applied for from another Magistrate. In connection with this, in his order granting sanction he writes: 'It was just yesterday, 20th of November, I was relieved of the charge of the sub division of Sardhana and placed in charge of the subdivision of Hapur.' The learned Magistrate referred counsel to the ruling of Dalip Singh v. Nawal (1917) I.L.R. 39 All, 297, which he appears to have found in what he describes as C...
Musammat Choti Vs. Khecheru
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All177(2); 58Ind.Cas.250
1. Khecheru presented an application to the Court of Mr. Nathu Ram, a Magistrate of the First Class of Meerut, asking for sanction to prosecute Mummmat Choti for an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, on the 28th October 1919. The exact section is not given in this application but it appears in the cognate application filed on the same day. On the 21st November 1915 the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Meerut accorded sanction as applied for. It was brought to his notice that the sanction, so it was contended, should have been applied for from another Magistrate. In connection with this in his order granting sanction he writes: it was just yesterday, 30th of November, I was relieved of the charge of the Sub Division of Sardhana and placed in charge of the Sub-Division of Hapur.'' The learned Magistrate referred Counsel to the ruling of Dalip Singh v. Nawal 38 Ind. Cas. 335 : 18 Cr. L.J. 303 : 16 A.L.J 161 : 39 A. 297, which he appears to have found in what he describes ...
Seoti Bibi Vs. Jagannath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.593
1. In our opinion the decision of the learned Judge of this Court is quite correct and we, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs....
Buddhu and ors. Vs. Banwari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All201; 57Ind.Cas.655
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court. The suit was a simple one. The facts as found by the Courts below are as follows: The plaintiff respondent is a Zamindar of the village and Lambardar. The defendants ' are tenants of the village who have a residential house. At the back of this house there is a Kothri and a Chabutra belonging to them and between the Kothri and the Chabutra the defendants had an old cattle-shed. That cattle shed fell down and on its site the defendants have built a new erection which they call a Chaupal, i.e., instead of using it for the purpose of sheltering their cattle they are using the building for the purpose of sheltering human beings. Toe Zamindar brought a suit and asked for the demolition of the Chabutra and the Chaupal on the ground that they were new constructions built without his sanction upon his land. The defendants pleaded that the Chabutra was old and that the Chaupal was built upon the land on which had stood the...
Thakur Ishri Singh and anr. Vs. Kalua
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All152; 57Ind.Cas.683
1. This is an appeal under the letters patent from a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court. As the facts have not been quite correctly sat forth in the judgment of this Court, we propose to set them forth clearly and correctly.2. There was one Kallua, an agricultural tenant, who held five plots of land the rent of which was Rs. 65 odd. The Zamindar brought a suit to eject him from all five on the allegation that he was a non-occupancy tenant. He resisted the suit, and in the result the Court found that he was occupancy tenant of three plots and non occupancy tenant of two. He accordingly was ejected from the two non occupancy plots. The present suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the Zemindar to recover rent for 2 1/2 years from Kallua on the allegation that Kallua had agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 60 per annum for these three plots. Kallua pleaded that his rent was Rs. 40 and that the point was one that bad been decided in a previous suit between the parties. It ...
Banwari Lal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All203; 57Ind.Cas.825
Walsh, J.1. I accept this reference. I agree with the view of the Collector that the plea of guilty did not cover the whole ground of the alleged offense. The accused were charged with entering a railway carriage without tickets with intent to defraud the railway under Section 112 of the Railways Act. The accused pleaded guilty to entering a railway carriage, but said that the train was about to start and they had no time to purchase the tickets. That is a denial of having intended to defraud. The convictions must be set aside and the fines, if paid, refunded....
Ram Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All223(2); 59Ind.Cas.34
Walsh, J.1. I agree with the views of the sessions Judge and direct the conviction for the breach of this order to be set aside and the fine, if paid, to be returned. I agree also with the District Magistrate that the order, being a perfectly well-known one, which has been respected for fifty years, it is peculiarly unfortunate that it should be obstructed now on technical grounds, but we, sitting in the judicial Courts, cannot be influenced by these considerations. The, obvious remedy is to obtain a fresh order and confirmation of such order by the Local Government, or a Municipal Bye-law to be adopted by the Municipality about which, as it is a religions question there might be more difficulty. However, I direct a copy of this opinion to be sent to the District Magistrate....
Rajbansi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All268; 60Ind.Cas.420
Walsh, J.1. These proceedings must be set aside on the ground of Irregularity. The charge was the usual one against several people, including the two applicants, Rajbansi and Siar, under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the allegal ground being that they were habitual thieves and house breakers. There has been an appeal to the District Magistrate, who points out that these two men in particular are of comparatively recent appearance in this capacity and are entitled to more lenient treatment, but the point taken before me is a good one. The two applicants were arrested on the 9th of September under Section 55. That arrest was lawful as the ground on which they were arrested was that they were 'reputed habitual thieves and house-breakers.' They were then taken before the Sub Divisional Officer who, on the 9th of September, the same data as the report made of their arrest and of the grounds on which they had been arrested, fixed the 19th of September, for the production of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »