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. Jhamman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All276; 58Ind.Cas.942
1. In this case notice was issued to the accused persons to show cause why their conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code should not be altered to one under Section 304 of the same Code and the sentences enhanced. Notices have been duly served but no one appears on their behalf. The case for the prosecution was that one Ekram had purchase d a field in village Dandpur adjoining the plots owned by the accused, that on the 21st of October 1919 the accused armed with lathis went to Ekram's plot to upset the crops, that Ekram remonstrated, on which there was a fight in which Ekram and his nephew Ram Chandra were badly beater, Ekram dying on the spot, The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the evidence did not show who amongst the accused had such a blunt weapon of border dimensions. It is also not clear at all as to who gave this deadly blow and, under the circumstances, the conviction can only be under Section 325, Indian Penal Code.' He placed reliance on Emperor v. B...
Baldeo Prasad and anr. Vs. Jagat Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All137
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. The sole point in this appeal which has been argued before us is the question of consideration. The vendor owned property, the market value of which was Rs. 1,250. He had borrowed from the vendee appellant a Bum of Rs. 800 many years ago and had hypothecated this property as security. At the time that, this sale was transacted the debt due on the mortgage was. Rs. 2,468. The personal remedy against the mortgagor bid vanished by lapse of time. Therefore, this sum of Rs. 2,468 could only have been paid by the sale of the property. The vendor was unable to pay the debt and, as far as we can judge from the record, was not the owner of any other property. The vendee gave him Rs. 100 in cash and took a sale deed of the property ostensibly for a sum of Rs. 3,000 and cancelled the mortgage deed. A pre-emptor at once arose, and the court below has given him a decree for pre-emption on condition that he should pay Rs. 1,250, the market value of the property.2. It is u...
Jagat Singh and anr. Vs. Baldeo Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All290(1); 59Ind.Cas.679
1. The sole point in this appeal which has been argued before us is the question of consideration. The vendor owned property, the market-value of which was Rs. 1,250. He had borrowed from the vendee appellant a sum of Rs. 800 many years ago and had hypothecated this property as security. At the time that this sale was transacted, the debt due on the mortgage was Rs. 2,468, The personal remedy against the mortgagor had vanished by lapse of time. Therefore this sum of Rs. 2,468 could only have been paid by the sale of the property. The vendor was unable to pay the debt and, as far as we can judge from the record, was not the owner of any other property. The vendee gave him Rs. 100 in cash and took a sale-deed of the property ostensibly for a sum of Rs. 3,000 and cancelled the mortgage-deed. A pre-emptor at once arose and the Court below has given him a decree for pre-emption on condition that he should pay Rs. 1,250, the market-value of the property.2. It is urged before us that the vend...
Muhammad Insha Allah Khan Vs. Muhammad Ubed-ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All132
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this revision are as follows: It seems that Syed Zahur-ul-Hasan was a candidate for service in the Postal department and had to furnish two sureties for good conduct during his term of service. On the 25th of March, 1902, he executed a personal, security bond, with two sureties in the form prescribed by the Postal department. The two sureties were Hafiz Abdul Rahim and Insha Allah Khan. Hafiz Abdul Rahim died in 1910, and in 1916 Zahur-ul-Hasan embezzled a sum of Rs. 482-2-0. The postal authorities recovered the amount from the surviving surety, Insha Allah Khan. The present suit is by him to recover half of this amount from the heirs of his deceased co-surety Hafiz Abdul Rahim. The suit was brought in the Court of Small Causes at Meerut and was decreed. The defendants come here in revision and contend that the court below has erred in decreeing the suit, as the security bond ceased to be operative as against the deceased surety aft...
Abdulla Vs. Shams-ul-haq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All262; (1921)ILR43All127
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly as follows: One Sheikh Bakshu, who owned a 13 bigha 8 biswa and 10 dhur share, died after the mutiny leaving his two sons, Kadir and Amir, as his heirs, Amir left a widow, Musammat Azima, defendant No. 5, and a minor son Abdullah, plaintiff, as his heirs. Musammat Azima took possession of the whole of the estate of Amir deceased, that is of J in her own right as an heiress and of 7/8 in lieu of her dower. Later on Musammat Azima married her deceased husband's brother Kadir. So that as far as actual possession of the estate of Sheikh Bakshu was concerned, it was with Azima and Kadir. On the 7th of February, 1872, these two persons transferred half of the property which originally belonged to Sheikh Bakshu to Sheikh Rasai. One of the points for decision in this appeal would be as to what was sold under this deed and what effect the deed would have on the rights of the respective parties to this appea...
Sheikh Abdullah Vs. Sheikh Shamsul Haq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.833
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are, briefly, as follows. One Sheikh Bakhshuy who owned a 13-bigha, 8-biswa and 10 dhur share, died after the Mutiny, leaving his two sons, Kadir and Amir as his heirs. Amir left a widow, Musammat Azima, defendant No. 5, and a minor son Abdullah, plaintiff, as his heirs. Musammat Azima took possession of the whole of the estate of Amir, deceased, that is, of 1-8th in her own right as an heiress and of 7-8th in lieu of her dower. Later on, Musammat Azima married her deceased husband's brother Kadir. So that, as far as actual possession of the estate of Sheikh Bakhshu was concerned, it was with Azima and Kadir. On the 7th of February 1872 these two persons transferred half of the property which originally belonged to Sheikh Bakshu to Sheikh Rosai. One of the points for decision in this appeal would be, as to what was sold under this deed and what effect the deed would have on the rights of the respective parties to this appeal.2. The plai...
Sham Lal Vs. Emperor, Through Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All195(2); 58Ind.Cas.923
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. This is an application for transfer of a case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the Court of an Honorary Magistrate. Transfers ought, in principle, to be very difficult to obtain because nothing so undermines the feeling of the responsibility of Magistrates and their own self-respect in the adjudication of cases as ordering transfers from them when they are once in possession of a case. Bat, on the other hand, when there is found to be a degree of association between the Magistrate and one or other of the parties to a case and when, moreover, it is found that one of the parties to the case has or may possibly have some financial hold over the Magistrate, it is very undesirable that the Magistrate should adjudicate in a case of Thai character. The evidence in relation to what I have called 'some financial hold' is this. I am told, that an action was brought for commission against the Honorary Magistrate and that the plaintiff in that auctio...
Emperor Vs. Jaisukh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All125
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J.1. Jaisukh accused was charged before the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur with having brought about the death of one Udmi by administering arsenic. A great deal of evidence was taken, the assessors gave their opinion and the assessors were discharged, and then it occurred to the learned Sessions Judge when he was about to write his judgment that he would like to put one or two questions to another man by name Jaisukh, son of Sahibu, who had originally been challaned with the accused, but had been discharged by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge thought he would like to put further questions to another witness who had already given evidence. This he in fact did, and did so in the absence of the assessors, and he justifies having done that by placing reliance upon a decision of Mr. Justice WALSH, who, in the case of King-Emperor v. Birbal and Ors. (1916) Cr. A. No. 580 of 1916, decided on the 22nd of September, 1916, decided that a Judge after having discharg...
Jaisukh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.559
1. Jaisukh, accused, was charged before the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur with having brought about the death of one Udmi by administering arsenio. A great geal of evidence was taken, the assessors gave their opinion and the assessors were discharged and then it occurred to the learned Sessions Judge, when he was about to write his judgment, that he would like to put one or two questions to another man by name Jaisukh, son of Sahibu, who had originally been challenged with the accused but had been discharged by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge thought he would like to put further questions to another witness who had already given evidence. This he, in fact, did and did so in the absence of the assessors and he justifies having done that by placing reliance upon a decision of Mr. Justice Walsh who, in the case of Emperor v. Birbal (Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 1915, decided on the 22nd of September 1916), decided that a Judge after having discharged the assessors could, neverthel...
Harbaran Lal Vs. Musammat Naurangi Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All307; 60Ind.Cas.613
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a plot No 96/2 khasra situated in the pillage Kuli Kalan. The plaintiff, MUSammat Nurangi Kunwar, claims to be the occupancy tenant of the said plot in succession to her husband, Brindaban. The land is at present in the actual cultivation of the defendant, Harbaran Lal. The plaintiff filed a suit for the ejectment, of the defendant in the Revenue Court alleging that the latter was her sub-tenant. The defendant denied that he was a sub tenant of the plaintiff. The Revenue Court evidently accepted his defense and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff then filed the present suit for possession of the said land with mesne profits, alleging that the defendant had wrongfully denied the title of the plaintiff in the Revenue Court. The defendant re-asserted that he *as holding possession of the land in his own right and that the plaintiff had no right to it and had not been in possession of it within 12 years previous to this suit. His story was that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »