Allahabad Court November 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.
Gayan Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All277; 83Ind.Cas.509
1. In this case the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun had before him eight persons charged with complicity in a riot, under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and some of them further charged with particular offences alleged to have been committed either in the course of the riot, or as a part of the transactions immediately leading up to the riot. Thus Gayan Singh was charged under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, with the murder of one Jora. Dewan Singh was charged under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, with causing simple hurt by means of a dangerous weapon to one Kutta, while another accused whose name is also is Kutta was charged with causing grievous hurt to one Chaitu, the charge being under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. The remaining five persons on their trial, namely, Udai Singh, Kadaru, Bali, Nain Singh and Kangalu, were charged only in respect of the riot. We have been through the evidence in the case and we may say at once that we have received the greatest possible assistance...
Lala Bhagwan Das Vs. Mohabbat Shah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All170; 77Ind.Cas.955
Stuart, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit under Sections 150 and 154 of the Tenancy Act against the defendants for the resumption of what purported to be rent free land in his mahal on the allegation that the land in question was granted for the performance of a specific service which he no longer required.2. The defendants asserted that the giant had been made to them unconditionally and that it was thus not resumable under Section 154, and further that it had been held rent-free for 50 years by two successors of the original grantee, and that thus they held proprietary rights in the same. The Assistant Collector decided that the grant was unconditional and as such, not resumable, but that it had not been held rent-free for 50 years by two successors of the original grantee. He, therefore, assessed rent thereon under Section 157. The judgment is dated the 15th April 1920. On the 16th June 1920 the plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner on the ground that the land had been...
Lakshmi Chand Vs. Musammat Anandi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All245
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. On the 5th of June, 1915, two brothers, by name Baldeo Sahai and Lakshmi Chand, Bohra Brahmans, were the owners in possession of the whole joint family property. Each had a wife, each had daughters, neither had a son. Baldeo Sahai was ill, and on the 5th of June, 1915, the two brothers executed a document, on which this appeal is based. If on its true construction it is valid by Hindu law, either as a will or as a family settlement, then it is agreed that the claim of Lakshmi Chand, brought as it was against the widow of Baldeo Sahai, must fail.2. In the lower court Lakshmi Chand contended that the document had no legal validity, because on the death of Baldeo Sahai, (which occurred on the 10th of June, 1915,) he, Lakshmi Chand, became thereby the owner of the entire property. Musammat Anandi resisted the claim on the ground that she was in possession of the property in suit by virtue of the document of the 5th of June, 1915. On her behalf it is said that the doc...
Ram DIn Vs. Har Dayal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All368; 82Ind.Cas.790
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are these.--Har Dayal cultivates one bigha of land on a Rs. 10 rent in Allapur village in Budaun District. In 1920 Ram Din, zemindar of the village, sued Har Dayal for two years rent and interest in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class. Ram Din asserted that he was the zamindar of the plot and that the plot was his sir and that Har Dayal was his sub-tenant. Har Dayal denied this. The Assistant Collector, Second Class, found that the land in question was the sir of Ram Din which Har Dayal cultivated as his sub-tenant on a rent of Rs. 10 a year, and decreed the suit accordingly. That decision became final.2. The suit out of which this present appeal arises had apparently been filed before the suit for arrears of rent. It was filed on the 29th September 1919. In this, Ram Din and two women called Reoti and Chameli sued Har Dayal in the Court of an Assistant Collector, First Class, for the ejectment of Ha...
Lachhmi Chand Vs. Musammat Anandi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All109; 71Ind.Cas.574
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. On June 5, 1915, two brothers, by name Baldeo Sahai and Lakshmi Chand, Bohra Brahmans, were the owners in possession of the whole joint family property. Each had a wife, each had daughters, neither had a son. Baldeo Sahai was ill, and on June 5, 1915, the two brothers executed a document, on which this appeal is based. If on its true construction it is valid by Hindu Law, either as a Will or as a family settlement, then it is agreed that the claim of Lakshmi Chand, brought as it was against the widow of Baldeo Sahai, must fail.2. In the lower Court Lakshmi Chand contended that the document had no legal validity, because on the death of Baldeo Sahai (which occurred on June 10, 1915) he, Lakshmi Chand, became thereby the owner of the entire property. Musammat Anandi resisted the claim on the ground that she was in possession of the property in suit by virtue of the document of June 5, 1915. On her behalf it is said that the document, whether legal as a Will or not,...
Lachmi NaraIn and ors. Vs. Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All449; (1923)ILR45All235; 74Ind.Cas.248
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants for the recovery of damages, on the allegation that they had made over certain goods for despatch to the respondent company and that by the neglect of the latter the goods had been lost.2. One of the objections taken to the suit was that no delivery of the alleged lost goods-had been made to the respondent company.3. Both parties gave evidence. The court of first instance was of opinion that the goods had not been delivered to the railway company-and therefore no claim for damages could be maintained against them. The claim was accordingly dismissed.4. On appeal the decree of the first court was affirmed.5. The plaintiffs came up in second appeal to this Court and the case was heard first by a Bench of this Court on the 19th of July, 1922. On that date an argument was advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants that some important evidence in the possession of the respondent comp...
Surwan Prasad Tiwari and anr. Vs. Basdeo NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All129; (1923)ILR45All237
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. The question we have to decide in these two appeals, in both of which the same parties are appellants, is whether or not they had a right of preemption according to custom.2. The court below has dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs, holding that, on. their status as disclosed by the evidence, they are not entitled to pre-empt.3. The property which was sold, and in respect of which preemption was sought, is situated in a village called Dudhi, in the pargana of Sidhua Jobna, in the Padrauna tahsil of the Gorakhpur district.4. The lower court held that as the plaintiffs admitted themselves to be what are called arazidars and as they are so called in the village papers, they had no right of pre-emption, and for thus purpose the learned Subordinate Judge relied upon a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Uman Kunwari v. Jarbandhan (1908) I.L.R. 30 All. 479. If that ruling applies to the case which is now before us, then there can be no question that the deci...
Musammat Mustafai Bibi and anr. Vs. Sheikh Muhammad Shabbir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All164; 71Ind.Cas.273
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are these: On the 14th March 1896 Abdul Aziz transferred certain property to his wife in lieu of dower. This may be called property (a). His wife's name was Hajira. On the 29th June 1907 Hajira transferred this property (a) together with property (b) to Muhammad Fasih, the son of her deceased son Muhammad Wasi, and to Muhammad' Shabbir, the son of her deceased sou Muhammad Shibli, Hajira died in 1909. Muhammad Fasih died in the same year. In 1919 Musammal Mustafai Bibi, the widow of Muhammad Wasi and the mother of Muhammad Fasih, and Karim-uu-uissa Bibi, the daughter of Muhammad Wasi, instituted a suit against Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Shabbir for possession of such portion of property (a) and (b) as they could have inherited either from Muhammad Wasi on the allegation of previous oral gift or from Muhammad Fasih on the allegation of the deed of gift of 1907.2. The finding of fact of the lower Appellate Court is this: Tha...
Surwan Prasad Tewari and anr. Vs. Basdeo NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.124
1. The question we nave to decide in, these two appeals, in both of which the same parties are appellants, is whether or not they had a right of preemption according to custom.2. The Court below has dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs holding that, on their status as disclosed by the evidence, they are not entitled to pre-empt.3. The property which was sold, and in respect of which pre-emption was sought is situated in a village called Dudhi, in the Pargana of Sidhuajobna, in the Parauna Tahsil of the Gorakhpur District.4. The lower Court held that as the plaintiffs admitted themselves to be what are called arazidars and as they are so called in the village papers, they had no right of pre-emption, and for this purpose the learned Subordinate Judge relied upon a Full Bench ruling of this Court Uman Kuari v. Jarbandhan Pathak 5 A.L.J. 447 : A.W.N. (1908) 195 : 4 M.L.T. 162 : 30 A. 479 (F.B.). If that ruling applies to the case which is now before us, then there can be no question that...
Emperor Vs. Har Prasad Bhargava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All226
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. [After discussing the facts, their Lordships proceeded.] Two of the pleas left undetermined are against the jurisdiction of the trial court, others impeach the admissibility of the most material evidence in the case, while others again raise questions of law as to the manner in which the testimony of Bhagirath and Mangal Chand should be regarded, in view of the admitted fact that they are in the position of accomplices in the commission of the offence charged. Now it is clearly illogical that a verdict of acquittal should be recorded as the ultimate result of a trial in respect of which it has not been finally determined that it was held before a court of competent jurisdiction. It must also be exceedingly difficult for any Judge to arrive at a correct appreciation of the value of certain evidence, if he enters on the task while the back of his mind is still preoccupied with a doubt whether that evidence ought to have been admitted on to the recor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »