Allahabad Court October 1922 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.
Jhunwa and ors. Vs. the Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.291
1. The two Appeals Nos. 1625 and 32 of 1921 are connected and arise out of one suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants against the Municipal Board of Dhampur and the lessee from the Board for a declaration that the plaintiffs-appellants were entitled to collect the carcasses of dead animals within the Municipal Board of Dhampur and that the lease granted by the Municipal Board to Buddhan was invalid and inoperative against the plaintiffs and should be cancelled. They further asked for damages and a perpetual injunction against the Board preventing them from issuing any fresh leases. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 326 of the Municipalities Act. There were two appeals before the learned District Judge, as the Municipal Board and the lessee had filed separate appeals. Both the appeals were decreed by the learned District Judge and the plaintiffs have, therefore, pre...
Bharat Indu and ors. Vs. Asghar Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All460; 73Ind.Cas.453
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in an execution matter. In the form in which it comes before us in consequence of the decision of the Court below, it raises a simple question of law. On the 28th of May 1921 an application fot execution of a certain decree, which had been made on the 7th or April (sic), was dismissed by the Execution Court on the ground that the decree-holder had railed to prosecute it with due diligence. On the 1st of June 1921 the decree-holder presented to the Court below an application not described as falling under the provisions of any specified section or rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, but offering an explanation of the alleged default of prosecution and asking the Court to restore the application of April the 7th 1920, to its file and to proceed with its disposal according to law. The Court below has rejected this application on the ground that the provisions of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure have no application to execution proceedings ...
Gajraj Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All528; 71Ind.Cas.213
Stuart, J.1. This application must succeed.2. The facts are, shortly, that two parties are claiming succession to the property of Musammat Bishan Devi deceased:(1) Persons who allege that they are trustees under a deed executed by the deceased which entitles them to succeed as trustees;(2) Har Charan, who claims as a collateral of her deceased husband and contests her authority to execute the deed of trust.3. The Magistrate being moved in the matter under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code has found that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists, and being unable to decide on the question of possession, had attached the property and appointed a Receiver thereof under Section 146.4. This order cannot be questioned in so far as the 'land' in dispute is concerned. The 'land' in dispute consists of one house. But the order goes further and covers all the moveable property left by the lady. This application asks that the order, in so far as it affects property other tha...
Emperor Vs. J. John
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All145
Stuart, J.1. Mr. Sanyal, for Sushil Chandra Chakraverti states that his client does not oppose the application. His client accepted the applicant's apology, and had no intention of proceeding with the case. He did not prosecute. He withdrew. The police, however, challaned under Section 120, Railways Act, and he was called as a witness. The applicant was acquitted-under that charge.2. I accept the learned Sessions Judge's view. The case, in so far as the charges under Sections 504 and. 323 of the Indian Penal Code were concerned, was clearly compounded.3. I set aside the convictions and sentences and direct that fines, if paid, to be refunded....
Emperor Vs. Musammat Bashiran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All479; 83Ind.Cas.483
Stuart, J.1. This is an application in revision by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, to set aside an order allowing bail to Bashiran, Begam and Masita on a murder charge. It is open to this Court to set aside such an order under the provisions of Section 497 (3) and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Imperatrix v. Sadashi v. Narayan 22 B. 549 : 11 Ind Dec. (N.S.) 947] but notice must first issue to the parties. Let notice go to Bashiran, Begam and Masita to show cause why the order admitting them to bail should not be set aside.2. After the above notices were served Mr. Justice Stuart passed the following3. Notices served on Bashiran, Begam and Masita. They are absent and unrepresented. The facts are these. These three persons have been challaned by the Police on a charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Panal Code and other charges. There is considerable evidence against them. The offence of murder is, of course, non-bailable. The Magistrate admitted them to bail....
Ganga Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.652
Stuart, J.1. This conviction cannot be upheld. The appellant has been convicted of criminally misappropriating, a total sum of Rs. 213-5. On the facts, 26 different sums amounting to Rs. 91-2 were criminally misappropriated between the 4th of August 1921, and 12th of January 1922, Rs. 2 were criminally misappropriated on the 12th of August 1921. Twelve annas were criminally misappropriated on the 8th of December 1921. Eight annas were criminally misappropriated on the 23rd November 1921 and fifteen arenas were criminally misappropriated on the 18th December 1921. There was a further shortage of Rs. 118 between the 12th and 23rd August 1921.2. The procedure was in contravention of the law. The error was the error which occurred in the case of Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor 25 M. 61 : 28 I.A. 257 : 3 Bom. L.R. 540 : 5 C.W.N. 866 : 11 M.L.J. 233 : 2 Weir 271 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 160 (P.C). The observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in that case would equally apply to this case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›