Allahabad Court July 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.
Emperor Vs. Muli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All185
Piggott, J.1. Muli has been couvioted, on a charge under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, of having escaped from a jail in which he was confined under a warrant under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Prosedure, by reason of his having failed to find security to be of good behaviour. The old ruling of this Court in Queen Empress v. Kandhaia (1884) I.L.R. 7 All. 67 seems to hold good to this extent that the applicant Value was not being detained for any offence, and consequently the conviction against him should not have been recorded under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, The decision above referred to, along with one or two similar decisions of the Calcutta High Court, were regarded as pointing to an error of omission on the part of the Legislature, and led, amongst other changes in the law, to the enactment of Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction in this case should undoubtedly have been recorded under that section and the sentence cannot exceed the maxim...
Emperor Vs. Rahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All186
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision in connection with a proceeding under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is which tea persons were originally involved. All of them have been ordered to furnish security to be of good behaviour. Eight of these appealed to the District Magistrate, but without success. The application before me is on behalf of four of these persons. The record shows that the tea men concerned were first arrested on suspiciou in connection with a particular case of daeoity. They were arrested, therefore, under Section 54 and not under Section 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Action was then taken under Section 167, of the same Code and these men were legal in the local jail under the warrant of a Magistrate. The investigation into the case continued for some time longer, and before it was completed, and before any final report had been sent in under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigating police officer came to the c...
Mooli Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.831
1. Mooli has been convicted on a charge under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, of having escaped from a jail in which he was confined under a warrant under Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by reason of his having failed to find security to be of good behaviour. The old ruling of this Court in Queen-Empress v. Kandhaia 7 A. 67 : A.W.N. (1884) 267 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 297 seems to hold good to, this extent that the applicant Mooli was not being detained for any offence, and, consequently, the conviction against him should not have been recorded under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. The decision above referred to, along with one or two similar decisions of the Calcutta High Court, were regarded as pointing to an error of omission on the part of the Legislature and, led, amongst other changes in the law, to the enactment of Section 225(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction in this ease should undoubtedly have been recorded under that section and the sentence can...
Rahu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All278; 59Ind.Cas.547
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision in connection with a proceeding under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which ten persons were originally involved. All of them have been ordered to furnish security to be of good behaviour. Eight of these appealed to the District Magistrate, but without success. The application before me is on behalf of four of these persons. The record shows that the ten men concerned were first arrested on suspicion in connection with a particular case of dacoity. They were arrested, therefore, under Section 54 and not under Section 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Action was then taken under Section 167 of the same Code and these men were lodged in the local jail under the warrant of a Magistrate. The investigation into the case continued for some time longer and before it was completed, and before any final report had been sent in under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the investigating Police Officer same to the conclusi...
Raj Kunwar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All365; 60Ind.Cas.428
Piggott, J.1. I have before me two applications which have been preferred as miscellaneous applications iu First Appeal No. 198 of 1920. The unusual nature of the applications is apparent as much from the headings as from the actual contents of these papers. The names of the parties to the first appeal are of course given, but the miscellaneous application, as it describes itself, is made in terms as against the King-Emparor, opposite party, and notice has, under the orders of this Court, gone to the Government Advocate and to no one else, An appearance has been entered on behalf of the plaintiff respondent to the first appeal, but I do not think I should be justified in taking any action upcn this fact, seeing that notice was not ordered to go to him. The two applications are connected in this way. Raj Kunwar Singh is the defendant appellant in First Appeal No. 198 of 1920; which has been admitted and is pending yi this Court; the other applicant, Sundar Lal, is described in the affid...
Bhatiby Chunni Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All279(1); 58Ind.Cas.944
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Magistrate of Etawah, affirming a conviction and sentence of fine of Rs. 5 imposed upon the applicant, Chunni Lal, for having created a scaffolding in a street in contravention of the provisions of Section 265 of the local Municipalities Act (Act No. II of 1916).2. The first ground taken is that it is not proved affirmatively that the scaffolding erected by the applicant caused any observation. A comparison of the wording of Sub-clauses (d) and (e) of Section 265, Clause 1, of the Act with the Sub-clause which precedes and the Sub clause which follows, seems to me to show that it did not lie on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the scaffolding caused actual obstruction, except in so far as that fast could be inferred from its existence. The other two pleas taken in the petition to this Court have not been argued. I have, however, been pressed with one point, not taken in 'the petition, namely, t...
Mangru and anr. Vs. Parsotam Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All213; 58Ind.Cas.777
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of a house situated in the City of Benares. It appears that one Lachhman Parsad originally owned a house which stood on the site on which the present house stands. On his death he was either succeeded by his two daughters or two daughters' sons, Chandraman Prasad and Bishunath Prasad, who were then minors. Sital Prasad, father of Chandraman, appears to have acted as their guardian. On the 8th of January 1901 Sital Prasad executed a usufructuary mortgage-deed of the house left by Lachhman Prasad in favour of the defendants for a sum of Rs. 125. The mortgage deed provided that the mortgagee would be entitled to demolish the house which then stood and re-build it and that the mortgagor would not be allowed to redeem the house without the payment of the costs of the new construction. Ever since 1901 the defendants had been in possession of this house and spent nearly Rs. 4,000 in building a new house on the old site. On ...
Lachman Prasad Vs. Shitabo Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All177
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. Appeals Nos. 1617 and 1618 of 1917 arise out of a suit for profits brought by the plaintiff appellant, Lachman Prasad, who has since died and is now represented by Raja Babu. The original plaintiff sued to recover the profits of a 5 anna 4 pie share in the mahal for the years 1912, 1913 and 1914 against Musammat Shitabo Kunwar. The defendant, among others, raised the plea that the plaintiff was not the owner of the share recorded against his name, The court of first instance found that the 'plaintiff was the recorded co-sharer of a 4 anna share, and it gave the plaintiff a decree for a proportionate share in the profits applying Section 201 of the Tenancy Act and the presumption made therein Both parties appealed to the District Judge. While the case was pending in the court of first instance the defendant applied co the Revenue Court for the removal of the plaintiff's name from the khewat Apparently, the court of first instance, in that case, disallowed the...
Lachman Prasad and ors. Vs. Musammat Shitaba Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All396; 59Ind.Cas.639
1. Appeals Nos. 1617 and 1618 of 1917 arise out of a suit for profits brought by the plaintiff-appellant, Lachhman Prasad, who has since died and is now represented by Raja Babu. The original plaintiff sued to recover the, profits of a 5 anna, 4 pie share in the mahal for the years 1912,1913 and 1914 against Musammat Shitabo Kunwar. The defendant, among other pleas, raised the plea that the plaintiff was not the owner of the share recorded against his name. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiff was the recorded co-sharer of a 4 anna share and it gave the plaintiff a decree for a proportionate share in the profits, applying, Section 201 of the Tenancy Act and the presumption noted therein. Both parties appealed to the District Judge. While the case was pending in the Court of first in stance, the defendant applied to the Revenue Court for the removal of the plaintiff's name from the khewat. Apparently, the Court of first instance in that case disallowed the application an...
Ram Charan Sahu and anr. Vs. Goga Alias Mata Pershad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All291; 60Ind.Cas.120
1. The present litigation has beep before this Court once before in First Appeal No. 205 of 1913. The fasts which have given rise to the present litigation are to be found set out in Mata Prasad v. Earn Charan Sahu 25 Ind.Cas. 381 : 36 A. 446 : 12 A.L.J. 701, We will restate the facts. Two brothers, Baij Nath and Jagarath, were members of a joint Hindu family. Baij Nath obtained a simple money decree against one Ram Jas on the 17th of June 1878. In 1881 under a deed of partition between the brothers Jaganath also got a half share in the said decree. Both the brothers applied for execution of the said decree and in execution attached 16 annas of Mauza Karma on the 20th of September 1884. On the 29th of July 1887 Ram Jas executed a deed of simple mortgage in respect of an eight-anna share in Mauza Karma to the defendants first party. In the meantime, both Jagarnath and Baij Nath died. On the 10th of January 1898 Ram Jas executed a Sale deed in respect of a nine annas six pies share in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »