Allahabad Court June 1921 Judgments
Badal Ram Vs. Jhulai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All165; 63Ind.Cas.861
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff was Parjotdar of 1 bigha 15 biswas of land, for which he need to pay Rs. 40 per year as ground rent to this defendant. On the 16th May 1917 the plaintiff relinquished 17 biswansis of land and agreed to pay Rs. 21 per year for the remaining land. A formal deed of relinquishment was executed by him, in which it was stated that the plaintiff did so because the portion of land relinquished was not fit for cultivation.2. The allegation of the plaintiff was that at the time he executed the said deed of relinquishment, there had been a separate oral agreement between him and the defendant by virtue of which the latter agreed to pay Rs. 200 to the former, out of which Rs. 32 were to he credited towards the arrears of rent due by the former to the latter. Subsequently the defendant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 32 due to him on account of the said arrears of rent and obtained a decree against the plaintiff. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All205; 64Ind.Cas.142
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application directed against an order by which the applicant Mohan Lal has been ordered to be tried for an offence committed Under Section 82 of the Registration Act.2. The order has been attacked on two grounds. In the first place, it has been said that a previous order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad sitting in appeal is a bar to the prosecution of the offence with which the applicant is now charged. It seems that Mohan Lal appeared at a registration office and presented a deed purporting to be executed by himself and Makhan Lal, With Mohan Lal at the time was a person who gave himself out to be Makhan Lal but who has been found to be another person named Nand Ram, Certain witnesses too were present at these proceedings, who identified this person Nand Ram as being Makhan Lal.3. When these facts same to light, a case was instituted against Mohan Lal and these other persons and they were convicted by a Magistrate Under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Alay Mohammad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All457; 64Ind.Cas.278
Lindsay, J.1. These petitions have been presented on behalf of seven accused persons who have been convicted in the Court of the Magistrate of Moradabad District.2. Case No. 275 is concerned with three persons, Aley Muhammad, Husain Beg and Aley Payamber. Each of these was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code and to a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the fines imposed under Section 332 were reduced to Rs. 50 cash,3. Case No. 276 is concerned with three men, Masud Husain, Muslim Husain and Ali Husain alias Dhanna. These men were convicted under the same sections as the three persons above mentioned, but they were sentenced to fines only, the fines under two of the sections charged being reduced in the Court of Appeal.4. The last case No. 277 is concerned with one Ghulam Akbar. He was convicted under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All206; 67Ind.Cas.505
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of one Jiwan who has been convicted in the Court of the Magistrate on a charge under Section 411. It appears that two other persons were tried along with Jiwan, one of whom was acquitted the other being convicted. The latter has not made any application to this Court.2. Jiwan's conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge in spite of the plea taken before him that the trial was illegal. There can be no doubt as to the illegality of the trial and I cannot agree with the Judge who seems to have taken the view that an illegality of this kind can be cured by the application of Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I must give effect, therefore, to this application and set aside all the proceedings in the Court below.3. The result is that the accused will be released....
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rashid Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.141
Sulaiman, J.1. The applicant was arrested under most suspicious circumstances. At midnight three men were seen by two constables walking along a narrow lane in a mohalla not that of the applicant. On perceiving that their presence had been detected, they rushed out of the lane and went in different directions. The constables sounded their whistles and pursued the applicant. People arrived from the opposite direction and he was arrested. On being asked his name and address he gave a number of wrong names and addresses, and gave no less than four conflicting explanations of his presence there at that hour of the night. The evidence proved that Abdul Rashid had no independent means of income, but lived with his father who, in the words of the learned District Magistrate, 'is a respectable Julaha who earns his living from tuition.' On these facts the applicant has been bound over Under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The learned Advocate for the applicant strongly urges th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Mukerji Vs. Anandi Prasad Dube and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All9
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a mortgage suit. The mortgaged property is a residential house in Allahabad. The original owner, on the 10th of May, 1907, mortgaged it to Dr. Banerji for the sum of Rs. 7,000. On the 1st of February, 1911, he mortgaged it for the sum of Rs. 1,000 to one Badri Prasad. On the 16th of February, 1911, he mortgaged it for the sum of Rs. 6,000 to Krishna Chandra Mukerji. On the 19th of June, 1911, he mortgaged it for the sum of Rs. 3,000 to Ganga Prasad. All four mortgages were simple. The present appellant before us purchased the property from the original mortgagor on the 20th of September, 1911 for the sum of Rs. 14,000. The vendor loft in the appellant's hands Rs. 8,500 to pay off the first mortgage; Rs. l,100 to pay off the second mortgage; Rs. 1,500 towards payment of the third mortgage, and Rs. 500 towards payment of the fourth mortgage. The appellant paid off the first two mortgages. That of Dr. Banerji was paid...
Tag this Judgment!Anandi Prasad Dube Vs. Krishna Chandra Mukerji and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All185; 63Ind.Cas.738
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a mortgage suit. The mortgaged property is a residential house in Ahahabad. The original owner on the 10th of May 1907 mortgaged it to Dr. Banerji for the sum of Rs. 7,000. On the 1st of February 1918 he mortgaged it for the sum of Rs. 1,000 to one Badri Prasad. On the 16th of February 191 he mortgaged it for the sum of Rs. 6,000 to Krishna Chandra Mukerii. On the 19th of June he mortgaged it for the sum of Rs. 1,000 to Ganga Prasad. All four mortgages were simple. The present appellant before us purchased the property from the original mortgagor on the 20th of September 1921 for the sum of Rs. 14,000. The vender left in the appellant's hands. Rs. 8,500 to pay off the first mortgage Rs. 1,100. to pay off the second mortgage Rs. 1,500 towards payment of the, third mortgage and Rs. 500 towards payment of the fourth mortgage. The appellant paid off the first two mortgages. That of Dr. Banerji was paid off on the 9th of June 1912 and that of B...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Das Vs. Bishan Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All185; (1921)ILR43All711
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff is the son of one Narain Das. The defendant respondent, Musammat Bishan Devi, is his own mother and Lala Jagannath Das, the other defendant respondent, is his own brother. According to the allegations in the plaint, the father, Lala Narain Das, and the two sons constituted a joint Hindu family, and their mother, the defendant No. 1, lived jointly with Lala Narain Das, when on the 20th of November, 1891, Narain Das purchased out of joint family funds the property which is now in dispute, at an auction sale in execution of a decree obtained by him against certain judgment-debtors. The purchase was made in the name of Musammat Bishan Devi, the wife of Narain Das. The certificate of sale was issued in her name and mutation of names took place in her favour after the sale. Her name has continued from that time down to the present. In January, 1911, Narain Das died. In 1917 Musammat Bishan Devi applied to the Revenue Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabjit Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All162; (1922)ILR44All5
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to certain plots of land, situated in the village Nemi Amna, Pargana Sylhet, The plaintiffs are some of the co-sharers of that village. The defendants are also co-sharers in the same village.2. In the year 1898, the said village was partitioned by the Government and lots were prepared by virtue of which the plots in dispute were allotted to the mahal to which the predecessors in title of both the parties belonged. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that after the said partition the plots in question had been in the joint khudkasht cultivation of the predecessors of the parties, and that the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly cultivated the said plots till 1318 Fasli. It was also stated that after the said year a person named Thagai was put in cultivatory possession of the said plots on behalf of the above parties; that he continued in cultivation till 1321 Fasli, and that the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Bisheshar Singh Vs. Hanuman Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All314; (1922)ILR44All1; 63Ind.Cas.802
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to certain plots of land, situate in shamilat patti Pami in mauza Kara Kanik. The plaintiff is one of the co-sharers of that village. So is the defendant.2. The land was originally a part of the shamilat land of that village, yielding grass, to the benefit of which, according to the plaintiff, both the parties were entitled.3. The allegation of the plaintiff was that up to 1323 Fasli the plaintiff used to take the grass of the southern half of the land and the defendant used to take the grass of the northern half of the land. There was a further allegation that in the year 1324 Fasli the land became fertile owing to the deposit of silt from the river Jumna and that the parties cultivated their respective half shares and appropriated the profits of their shares of the land that year. There was also an allegation that in 1325 Fasli the defendant ousted the plaintiff and took up wrongful cultivation of the entire land, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »