Allahabad Court March 1921 Judgments
Haji Bashir Ahmad Khan Vs. Nazir Ahmad Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All74; 63Ind.Cas.495
1. The only point pressed in the Court below was the question of law which has been also raised before us. On the 10th of February 1905 the plaintiffs-respondents' predecessor-in-title sold certain Zemindari to the defendant-appellant for the sum of Rs. 799. Rs. 300 were paid in cash and in respect to Rs. 499 the sale-deed set out that it would in certain circumstances be not paid by the vendee to the vendor. Three days afterwards, i.e., on the 13th of February 1905, the vendee executed a simple agreement under which be agreed to pay Rs. 499, the balance of the purchase-money, in monthly instalments of Rs. 50 each, and further agreed that if two instalments in succession remained unpaid, the vendor should be entitled to recover the whole at once.2. The present suit was brought on the 10th of February 1917 to recover the unpaid balance of the purchase money by sale of the property sold, in other words, to enforce the charge which is given to a vendor under Section 55(4)(6) of the Transf...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sahai Vs. Chhotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All256; 63Ind.Cas.567
1. Technically, this is an appeal from an order of the 17th of April 1920 by the District Judge of Agra removing one Ram Sahai from the position of guardian and appointing in his place one Chhotey guardian of the person and property of the minor. The case which has been very carefully laid before us, when examined, is shown to raise a variety of questions about which it is not necessary for us to express our opinion. For example, there is a subsequent order of the same Judge of the 26th of June 1920 which, it is objected before us, is not appealable at all. There is one matter to which our attention has been drawn which, we think, we ought to refer to by way of warning to the learned Judge and others so that the same procedure should not be followed in another case. Ram Sahai, the maternal uncle of the minor, having been appointed guardian by the District Judge for reasons which he gave, applied for leave to mortgage some property, while, on the other hand, his opponent Chhotey opposed...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Khazano and anr. Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.519
1. In this case one Chiranji Lal was made insolvent in the year 1914. In his schedule of property he mentioned one house which is part of he property now in dispute He did not mention the other piece of land which contained a thatched shed which is now in dispute, or the cow, There is no evidence that the wife Musammat Khazano, the present appellant, ever knew what he had stated in his schedule. The uncontradicted evidence on the application with which we now have to deal is that at the time of the insolvency Musammat Khazano, the wife of the insolvent, was living apart from her husband; was working as a cook receiving wages and assistance by way of charity; and that the insolvent was living somewhere else, being in some service, altogether separate from his wife. On the 20th of January 1920 the Receiver attached the house which the insolvent had mentioned in his application, also the land, the thatched shed, and the cow. Immediately after this attachment Musammat Khazano filed the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Sabir HusaIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All261; 63Ind.Cas.157
Ryves, J.1. These two revisions arise out of a fight which took plane between two factions. Both sides were tried by Mr. Bain. He same to the conclusion that the evidence on both sides was perjured up to the hilt, so much so that be was not prepared to find that of the six persons sent up for trial on one side more than four were present, and on the other side he found he could hold five men guilty but no more. He came to the conclusion that these cine men were engaged in the fight either because of their own admission or because they had injuries on their persons, and, therefore, it was safe to conclude that they at any rate took part in the flight. He convicted them all under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and pasted the maximum sentence allowed by law. Both parties appealed. The learned Sessions Judge in the case of the four men held that on the finding it was unsafe to say that more than these four persons took part, and that the conviction under Section 147 was illegal. He, ...
Tag this Judgment!Benarsi Vs. Syed Altaf Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.171
Stuart, J.1. The facts out of which the connected Appeals Nos. 274 and 1123 of 1913 arise are as follows, Benarsi is a Kandighar residing in a Mahalla in Benares City. He owns business premises, where he carries on his trade. These business premises are on one side of a small rectangular open space, which is surrounded on all four aides by houses. Opposite his premises are a mosque and an Imambara. Benarsi has rights over the whole of the ground. A suit was instituted by Mir Altaf Husain on the following allegations. Mir Altaf Husain said that he was the Mutwalli of the mosque and Imambara (a Shia mosque and Imambara) and that, as Mutwalli, he arranged the Moharram ceremonies every year. In particular he referred to the Dul Dul, Zulfikar and Alam ceremonies. His case was that for over 20 consecutive years the Dul Dul, Zulfikar and Alam ceremonies had been performed on the piece of ground between Benarsi's premises and the mosque and the Imambara, that Benarsi was proposing to build ove...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.165
1. In this case the accused has been found guilty of culpable homicide, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, of his daughter-in-law under circumstances which, carding to the finding of the lower Court, were simple but tragic. The accused arrived home about the middle of the day and finding the door of the house shained from inside he demanded admittance and discovered his daughter-in-law in the company of a Mubammadan, the woman being of the Bania caste. He seized hold of the man and also of an axe, but being an old man was unable to prevent the escape of the paramour and he thereupon turned upon the young wife and hanked her to death Misting something like sixteen serious injuries including a complete severance of the head from the trunk which, of course, was sufficient to cause instantaneous death. The nature of the injuries indicate plainly that the man was in a frerzy of rage. Whether he saw misconduct or merely drew the obvious inference, which any man of ammo sense would b...
Tag this Judgment!Hadeo Rai and ors. Vs. Baldeo Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.504
1. Second Appeals Nos. 1257 and 1258 arise out of one and the same suit. Both parties appealed to the lower Appellate Court, which partly decreed that of the plaintiffs and dismissed that of the defendants.2. The latter have, therefore, filed two appeals.3. The facts of the case are as follows:There were three sets of defendants to the suit, The appellants before as constitute the first set. The second set (Nakched Rai and Nageshar Rai) took a lease of property from the Maharaja of Benares (defendant third set) and as security for the payment of the rent thereof, hypothecated two items of property: (a) certain Zemindari property withan area of about 29 bigahs;(b). a fixed rate tenure of area 6 bighas 9 biswas odd.4. This was on 18th January 1901. The rent fell into arrears and a snit to recover the arrears was brought in the Revenue Court, and a degree for those of 1311 and 1312 F. was obtained on 22nd January 1906.5. The lien upon the property could be enforced in the Revenue Court an...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Rai and ors. Vs. Mahadeo Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All539
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. S.A. Nos. 1257 and 1258 arise out of one and the same suit. Both parties appealed to the lower appellate court which partly decreed that of the plaintiffs and dismissed that of the defendants.2. The latter have therefore filed two appeals.3. The facts of the case are as follows:There were three sets of defendants to the suit. The appellants before us constitute the first set. The second set (Nakched Rai and Nageshar Rai), took a lease of property from the Maharaja of Benares (Defendant third set) and as security for the payment of the rent thereof, hypothecated two items of property, (a) certain zamindari property with an area of about 29 bighas and (b) a fixed rate tenure of area 6 bighas 9 biswas odd.4. This was on the 18th of January, 1901. The rent fell into arrears and a suit to recover the arrears was brought in the Revenue Court and a decree for those of 1311 and 1312 Fasli was obtained on the 22nd of January, 1906.5. The lien upon the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisiawan Pande Vs. Musammat Raj Kumari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All33; (1921)ILR43All534
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. On the 4th of November, 1920, a Bench of this High Court sent back this case to the learned Subordinate Judge for him to decide one issue, which was, whether the plaintiff, who admitted for the purposes of that issue that Nageshar Ram was the son of Chandar Ram and Musammat Raji, could in the circumstances maintain the action for a declaration that a sale deed executed by Musammat Raj Kumari and Nageshar Ram would not operate against him after the death of Musammat Raj Kumari. The learned Subordinate Judge has considered the law and the circumstances and has decided that it is competent to the plaintiff to ask for such a declaration. We are of opinion that his decision is right and that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration for which he has prayed.2. Reference was made to the case of Bajrangi Singh v. Manokamika Bakhsh Singh (1907) I.L.R. 30 All. 1 as embodying the correct proposition of law, namely, that an alienation by...
Tag this Judgment!Damarcha Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All148; 62Ind.Cas.192
Stuart, J.1. Damarcha was prosecuted by the Police on the allegation that he had committed an offense punishable under Sections 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. These being offenses triable by a First Class Magistrate as warrant oases, the procedure adopted was that laid down under Chapter XXI, Act V of 1898. Under the provisions of Section 255 the accused does not require to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution until the charge has been framed. The Trying Magistrate came to the conclusion after hearing the evidence that a prima facie case was made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. That offence is triable not by a Magistrate but by the Court of Session. He, therefore, converted the proceedings into an enquiry into a case triable by the Court of Session. Chapter XVIII of Act V of 1898 then applied. Under the provisions of that Chapter the accused must cross-examine as each witness is called or not cross-examine at all. Because the accused had not cross-exam...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »