Allahabad Court December 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.
Sri Krishna Sonar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All193; 71Ind.Cas.368
Walsh, J.1. In my opinion a Sessions Judge is not prohibited in law from hearing an appeal from a conviction by a Magistrate in a case where, as an Insolvency Judge, on the application of a creditor, he allowed the prosecution to proceed. A Judge may reasonably object to hearing such a case, if he remembers being acquainted with it before. There is nothing in this application for revision. It is dismissed. The applicant must surrender to his bail and serve out the rest of his sentence....
Hori Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All480; 76Ind.Cas.971
Walsh, J.1. The history of this matter has been very ably set out in the admirable and thorosh judgment of Mr. Mushtaq Ali Khan, Magistrate First Class of Bareilly who tried the original case. The applicant before me has been convicted of selling night soil as Sanitary Inspector of the Pilibhit Municipalty, and while it was his duty, as such Sanitary Inspector, to see that the work of transport and deposition of the night soil was properly done, he is alleged to have sold three cartloads for about for Rs. 200 in all, and the mere statement that a Sanitary Inspector of a Municipal Board could do that, behind the back of his employers., and pocket the money, without committing a criminal offence is calculated, at first sight, to cause surprise. One substantial point, however, has been ably argued on his behalf in revision, as to whether the night soil which this man sold could be described, in any way, as the property of the Municipal Board, who are the complainants, so as to constitute ...
Chander Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All383; 73Ind.Cas.576
Walsh, J.1. In this case a puntiha coolie had stolen a brooch worth Rs. 20 which he Sold to the present applicant Chander Sen foroneanua. Chander Sen was examined as a prosecution witness and admitted that he had given the boy one anna and that he handed the brooch on to a caste-follow who was a sonar. He represented himself as a philanthropist which, of course, is nonsense. The next time he wants to do an act of philanthropy and give a boy one anna when he is hungry I should advise him not to take a stolen brooch in exchange. The notion that he handed on this illgotten gain as a present to his friend the sonar is nonsense. The brooch would only be worth to a sonar what it would fetch, and it is, therefore, reasonable to suppose , in fact quite certain, that Chandra Sen intended to divide the proceeds with his friend. It was clearly a dishonest act which deserved punishment though no more than a petty theft to which, no doubt, he was by chance subjected to a sudden temptation. The puni...
Ram Bahadur Vs. Bahadur Singh and Sri Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All277
Ryves, J.1. This appeal raises a very difficult question of law and I have arrived at my decision with some hesitation. The facts are as follows:One Salig Ram died in 1905, leaving him surviving two daughters only, Musammats Krishna Kuar and Ilaichi Kuar. It is stated that ho had separated in 1891 from Eaghunath and Bal Gobind, his first cousins, who were brothers, and that Eaghunath separated from Bal Gobind in 1895. On the death of Salig Bam in 1905 disputes arose as to the succession of his property. What exactly those disputes were is not established by any evidence on the record, but this much is certain that on the 22nd of September, 1905, about a month sifter the death of Salig Ram, an agreement in writing was entered into between Bal Gobind, Eaghunath and the two daughters of Salig Ram as to the division of the property left by Salig Ram. That document was executed by all four and is in the following terms:The aforesaid property left by Salig Bam has devolved upon us, the execu...
Behari Lal Vs. Maqsood Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All189; 71Ind.Cas.283
Ryves, J.1. This is an application in civil revision, asking this Court to set aside the order of the Judge of Small Causes at Cawnpore, refusing to restore a suit which had been dismissed for default. There is not really any serious dispute as to the facts. The suit was to recover money on a bond. On the date fixed for hearing, the plaintiff was present in Court but he left the precincts of the Court to attend a criminal case in which he was engaged. On return to the Small Cause Court he heard that his case was about to be called on. He went to call his Pleader but the Pleader was at the time engaged in cross-examining a witness in another Court and he was not able to attend the Small Cause Court till after some title time. In the meantime, the case was called on and, as is usual in the Mofussil Courts, the names of the parties were called out by the peon outside and inside the Court. The plaintiff was present and must have heard his name being called but he did not go into Court but ...
Rai Bahadur Babu Bahadur Singh Vs. Lala Ram Bahadur and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All204; 71Ind.Cas.405
Ryves, J.1. This appeal raises a very difficult question of law and I have arrived at my decision with some hesitation.2. The facts are as follows:One Salig Ram did in 1905, leaving him surviving two daughters only, Musammats Krishna Kuar and Ilaichi Kuar. It is stated that he had separated in 1891 from Raghunath and Bal Gobind, his first cousins, who were brothers and that Raghunath separated from Bal Gobind in 1895. On the death of Salig Ram in 1905 disputes arose as to the succession of his property. What exactly those disputes were is not established by any evidence on the record but this much is certain that on the 22nd of September 1905, about a mouth after the death of Salig Ram, an agreement in writing was entered into between Bal Gobind, Raghunath and the two daughters of Salig Ram as to the division of the property left by Salig Rain. That document was executed by all four and is in the following terms:The aforesaid property left by Salig Ram has devolved upon us, the executa...
Ajudhia Prasad Vs. Gobind Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All276
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff decree-holder in a pre-emption suit. The decree was on a compromise. The plaintiff was to pay to the defendant vendee, within thirty days, a specified sum. In this event of the defendant vendee refusing to accept the money when tendered, the plaintiff was given the option of depositing the sum in court. Failing such payment or deposit within the period limited, the suit was to stand dismissed. The decree was passed on the 29ud of December, 1920. On the 2nd of February, 1921, the plaintiff asked the court to execute the decree by putting him in possession of the property. On the 9th of February, 1921, the opposite party, Gobind Prasad, objected that the money had neither been paid nor tendered within the period fixed. The courts below, after taking some evidence, have held that the plaintiff Ajudhia Prasad never tendered the money to Gobind Prasad out of court, but that he did deposit it in court within the perio...
Abdul Karim Khan and anr. Vs. Qasim Ali Khan and Murad Ali Khan and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All254; 70Ind.Cas.951
1. The two Appeals Nos. 232 and 233 of 1921 arise out of two suits for pre-emption instituted in the Court of the. Munsif of Saharanpur. The sale-deed which was the basis of the two suits was executed on the 3rd December 1917 by Mansha Ram in favour of Rao Abdul Karim Khan and Abdul Rahim Khan. Qasim Ali Khan and Murad Ali Khan brought the two suits on the 2nd and 4th of December 1918, respectively, for preemption of the property sold by the defendants on the 3rd of December 1917. The allegation in the two plaints, was that the custom of pre-emption obtained in the village and that the plaintiffs were co-sharers of the vendor while the vendees, were strangers. The plaintiffs, therefore, had a preferential right to the property and claimed to get it on the payment of Rs. 400. The price given in the sale-deed was Rs. 800 but the statement of the two plaintiffs with regard to the sale consideration was that it had been inflated to defeat the right of preemption. The vendees resisted the c...
Raghunandan Singh Vs. Mulak Raj Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All255; 79Ind.Cas.470
1. The two appeals before us are by the vendee-defendant against decrees passed in favour of rival preemptors in respect of a single transfer by way of sale. The point upon which the two Courts below have differed is in reality a simple one. It depends upon the very peculiar constitution of the mahal to which the share which was the subject-matter of the transfer sought to be preempted appertains, This mahal, known as mahal Lalman, includes shares in sixteen different villages. A single wajib-ul-ars was drawn up for the entire mahal. In the records of proprietary rights drawn up for each of the sixteen villages there is a separate specification of the co-sharers in mahal Lalman and these co-shares are assigned to different thoks in each particular village. The transfer with which we are concerned included fractional shares in six different villages. The pre-emptive clause of the Wajib-ul-arz placed persons entitled to claim pre-emption in three categories, near co-sharers co- sharers i...
Ram Bharose Tiwari Vs. Pandit Chandra Shekhar Dat Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All135; 73Ind.Cas.295
1. This was a suit for preemption on the basis of a deed, bearing date the 12th April 1919, by which the defendants, second party, conveyed a share in village Ambehari to the first defendant, who is a relation of theirs by marriage. The deed, on the face of it, is a shankalap, or gift in favour of a Brahman, made from motives of gratitude and piety. The plaintiff, however, who is a co-sharer in the same village, came into Court alleging that the deed of gift was a mere cover for a contract of sale, which had really been carried out by the payment of consideration amounting to Rs. 200 on the part of the first defendant to the defendants, second party. In reply, this allegation was denied and both sets of defendants contended that the transaction was a transfer by way of gift, as it purports to be in the document by which it was effected. They also denied that the plaintiff had any right of pre-emption. The First Court found on the evidence that there had really been a Sale for a sum of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »