Allahabad Court December 1921 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Anwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All276
Stuart, J.1. The facts are as follows. A bicycle was stolen from the precincts of the Allahabad Post Office. Another bicycle was stolen from the precincts of the Allahabad Bank. Parts of both stolen bicycles were found in the house of a man called Narbada Prasad. Parts of both stolen bicycles were found in the shop of a bicycle dealer called Ram Saran. Evidence was given to the effect that Anwar, an employee of Ram Saran in his bicycle shop, had been seen loitering both at the Post Office and at the Allahabad Bank just before the bicycles disappeared., All three men were charged before a Magistrate of the first class under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Anwar being charged in the alternative under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The magistrate convicted Narbada Prasad and Ram Saran under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Anwar under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Narbada did not appeal. Ram Saran appealed, and was acquitted on the merits. Anwar appealed, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Amanat and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Shakur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All184; 65Ind.Cas.424
Stuart, J.1. The facts are as follows: On the 27th of July 1921 the son of Muhammad Shakur died of cholera in a village in the Ghazipur District. Muhammad Shakur told the barber to arrange for the digging of a grave. The barber came back and said that Amanat, Ghura, Jamait, Fateh Ali and another were preventing the grave being dug, Muhammad Shakur went to these person and protested. They replied that as be was not joining the Khilafat party they would not permit his son to be buried. It has been found that the above facts are correct. The four men in question deliberately put obstacles in the way of Muhammad Shakur burying his son because he had not joined the Khilafat movement. They did not me any violence to him, though they boycotted him effectively. They have been convicted under Section 297, Indian Penal Code, of having offered an indignity to the corpse of the dead child, They have also been bound over to keep the peace. The matter has some before me on a reference from the Sessi...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All208; 67Ind.Cas.510
Stuart, J.1. The facts are as follows: A bicycle was stolen from the precincts of the Allahabad Post Office. Another bicycle was stolen from the precincts of the Allahabad Bank. Parts of both stolen bicycles were found in the house of a man called Narbada Prasad. Parts of both stolen bicycles were found in the shop of a bicycle dealer tailed Ram Saran. Evidence was given to the effect that Anwar, an employee of Ram Saran in his bicycle shop, bad been seen loitering both at the Post Office and at the Allahabad Bank just before the bicycles disappeared. All three men were charged before a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Anwar being charged in the alternative under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate convicted Narbada Prasad and Ram Saran under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Anwar under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Narbada did not appeal. Ram Saran appealed and was acquitted on the merits. Anwar appealed but his...
Tag this Judgment!Anrudh Kumar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.436
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. This is an application on the part of Anrudh Kumar and Mahtab Singh that criminal proceedings which were ordered to be instituted by the Subordinate Judge of Dehra Dun may be stayed until the decision in this Court of a first appeal. I think myself that it is of importance that the Criminal Law should proceed with due expedition. I should, however, have been prepared to make the order if this first appeal could have been brought on in two to three months. It cannot, however, be so accelerated. It is agreed that it could not be brought on before at least six months, which may very well mean that it would not come into the list until October or November of nest year. In these cases where a Subordinate Judge, District Judge or Sessions Judge of experience makes an order that a party or witness shall stand his trial under Section 476 of the Indian Penal Code, it is of importance that the case should be dealt with promptly. There is no reason why the decision arrived ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahmat Ullah and ors. Vs. Rai Saheb Chaudhri Dharam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.948
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision made under the following circumstances. The plaintiff brought a suit claiming several reliefs. Some of these reliefs were granted by the Court of first instance, which decreed a part of the claim and dismissed the remainder of it. The defendant submitted to the decree, but the plaintiff preferred an appeal as regards the portion of the claim which had been dismissed. The lower Appellate Court, being of opinion that the Court of first instance had not decided the case properly, remanded it to that Court with directions to re-try it. When the case went to trial, the plaintiff put in an application in which he stated that the defendant had submitted to the decree granted to him (the plaintiff) but that the plaintiff did not wish 'for some reasons and defects' to proceed with the suit, and asked that he should be permitted to abandon that part of the suit which had been originally dismissed by the Court of first instance with liberty t...
Tag this Judgment!Ajodhia Prasad Vs. Musammat Majidan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All346; 64Ind.Cas.952
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage executed by two Muhammadan ladies in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 50. The first of these ladies did not defend and the second is dead and is represented by her daughter, the defendant No. 2, Her main defence to the suit was that no consideration passed, but that if it did, the money was paid to the first defendant and not to the second defendant's mother. The Court of first instance on the pleadings framed two issues only: (1) Is the deed in question a mortgage deed If so, is it valid and for consideration.? Are the defendants bound by it? and (2) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?2. Evidence was led on these issues and in the result the Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit as brought. The defendant appealed and attacked all the findings of the First Court and for the first time pleaded that Musammat Sarwarunnissa was a pardanashin lady and that it had not been shown whether she had independent ...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal and anr. Vs. Allah Baksh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.107
1. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Roorki has dismissed a suit on an instalment bond on a finding that the whole is barred by limitation. Of Bourse he had jurisdiction to try the issue of limitation, but he has determined it without referring to the Article of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908) which would be applicable. It is quite clear that under Artiste 75 of the said Schedule the plaintiff was in time in respect of those instalments to which his suit referred, where there had been no waiver on his part. We cannot allow the plaintiff to suffer injustice on account of a mere failure on the part of the Trial Court to consult the Statute under which it had acted. Our power of supervision in respect of decisions by Courts of Small Causes are certainly Adequate to warrant our interference in a matter of this sort. We set aside the decree dismissing the suit and direct the Court below to re-admit the suit on to its file of pending cases and to try it on the merits. This...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Mal Vs. Emperor Through Bhukan Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.422
Stuart, J.1. The Officiating Sessions Judge has directed a further enquiry against Sagar Mal who was discharged by a Magistrate of the First Class without notice having been served on Sagar Mal. An attempt was made to serve notice on Sagar Mal but the attempt was not successful, and when the matter was heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar Mal was absent and unrepresented. In these circumstances the order directing further enquiry cannot stand. The principles laid down in the case of Queen-Empress v. Ajudhia 20 A, 339 : A.W.N. (1898) 60 9 Ind. Dec. (N. s.)577 have invariably, as far as I am aware, been followed in this Court. I, therefore, set aside the order directing further enquiry and remit the case to the learned Sessions Judge who has succeeded the officer who passed the order, so that he may issue notice to Sagar Mal and then proceed to determine the matter....
Tag this Judgment!Maqsud HusaIn Minor Through Ibrahim and anr. Vs. KarimuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.979
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of the plaintiffs' share in a certain property mortgaged in the year 1835. It appears that in the year 1890 the heirs of one of the mortgagors brought a suit for redemption against the heirs of the mortgagees and to that suit they impleaded as defendants the present plaintiffs, who are the heirs of the remaining mortgagors. The present suit was brought in the year 1918 by the plaintiffs to redeem their share of the property from the defendants, the heirs of the co-mortgagors on payment of the proportionate amount due from the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the suit was barred by time, as it had been brought more than sixty years after the date of the mortgage. It is, no doubt, true that limitation commenced to run from the date of the mortgage and unless it can be shown that there was some acknowledgment , of the plaintiffs' right within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit was barred by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ulfat Rai Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All41; 65Ind.Cas.819
1. These two appeals are by the plaintiff in a redemption suit. The suit was by the plaintiff to redeem a usufructuary mortgage of the 22nd of November 1884 for Rs. 1,500, and for recovery of surplus profits. There was another simple mortgage of the same date which was to be paid along with the usufructuary mortgage. These mortgages were in favour of one Daulat Ram. He sold his lights as mortgagee to Srikishen Das and Tika on the 10th of April 1885. On the 20th of June 1912 the mortgagors sold the mortgaged property to Tika Ram. The result was that Tika Ram became the sole owner of half the mortgaged property and had the equity of redemption only in the other half.2. The plaintiff, who is the son of Tika Ram, sues to redeem half the mortgage on payment of half the amount due under the usufructuary mortgage only, but does not want to pay the second mortgage which was contracted to be paid along with the usufructuary mortgage, The defendants pleaded in defense that the plaintiff was boun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »