Allahabad Court February 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.
C. Dunn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.1005
Stuart, J.1. We have before us Criminal Reference No. 743 of 1921 from the Sessions Judge of Banares and Criminal Revisions Nos. 16 and 17 of 1922. The same point arises in all:-' Has the High Court authority to expunge from the judgments of lower Courts remarks reflecting unfavourably upon the credibility or the character of witnesses in cases in which the effective orders of the Courts are not before the High Court either in appeal or on revision ?' In the Reference the station-master of Benares Cantonment took exception to remarks reflecting upon himself made by a Magistrate at Benares in a judgment in a criminal case. In that case the accused persons were acquitted. The station-master appeared as a witness for the defense. The Magistrate, while finding that the evidence did not justify a conviction, disbelieved the station-master in certain particulars. We have it that the learned Sessions Judge believed the station-master to be telling the truth-a circumstance which goes far to re...
Kashi Nath Alias Kashi Ram, and After His Death Babu Lal and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All54; 65Ind.Cas.836
1. Abdul Rahman brought this suit on the 1st of June 1916 to recover the site of a house. He alleged that there was an agreement of the 8th of May 1368 whereby the defendant had contracted to pay eight annas a year as the rent of the site. The case presented DO difficulty if the kabuliyat of the 8th of May 1S68 could be receivable in evidence provided, of course, the Court was of opinion that the document was a genuine one. In this appeal that has been the substantial matter raised and our attention has been drawn to Section 17 of Act XX of 1866, which was the Statute governing the reception or rejection of the document of the 8th of May 1868. The terms of the kabuliyat have been read to us. Shortly, they are to the effect that the Zamindar let the site to Sheo Prasad on a payment of eight annas a year and incidental obligations but the kabuliyat provided that if the eight annas was not paid in any one year, or if the tenant failed to make the incidental payments for marriages et cetra...
Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakur Ganga Behariji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.148
1. We have heard the learned Counsel in support of this appeal and are of opinion that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court mast be maintained.2. The only point on which the judgment of the Court below is impeached is the ground of limitation. The contention for the defendant-appellant is that the snit is time barred.3. There can be no doubt that the proper Artiste applicable to the suit was Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The suit was a suit for a declaration of title.4. The only question which has to be considered is the date from which the plaintiff's right to sue accrued. The plaintiff, in paragraph 8 of his plaint, sets out the date on which his right to sue accrued as being the month of January 1918 and this suit was filed on the 11th of January, 1919.5. On the other hand, the contention is that limitation began to run from the year 1901, corresponding to the year 1309 Fasli. The reason why this latter date is put forward is because it was in the village p...
Baldeo Prasad Vs. Bindeshri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All215; (1922)ILR44All388
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. It appears that one Ganesh Prasad was under the Court of Wards for several years up to the time of his death in May, 1914, On the 7th of January, 1912, and 10th of April, 1912, he executed two promissory notes in favour of Chaube Baldeo Prasad for consideration, carrying interest at the rate of Rs. 1-6-0 per cent. per mensem. Ganesh Prasad died leaving a will by which he left his estate in charge of certain trustees. The will of Ganesh Prasad was contested by his son Bindeshri Prasad, who in the end was successful in having it set aside. The Court of Wards continued in possession of the estate till the 19th of December, 1914. On the 5th of October, 1914, there was a compromise between Bindeshri Prasad and the trustees appointed under the will of his father. On the 6th of October, 1914, Bindeshri Prasad executed a simple money bond in favour of Baldeo Prasad in lieu of the moneys due on the two promissory notes given by his father on the 7th of January,...
Dharam Singh and anr. Vs. Hira and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All141; (1922)ILR44All390; 65Ind.Cas.828
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. The following pedigree will show the right under which the parties to the suit are litigating: SAHAB RAI. ________________________|_______________________________ | | | Jaisukh. Nathua. Mir Singh. _____|______ _______|_____ ________|_______ | | | | | |Saligram. Bahal Gulab Mahtab Gopal Baldeo | Singh. Singh. Singh Singh. Singh | | | (issueless.) (issueless). | | | | Mat. Rukman Mst. Deso | | (deceased), (widow)- | |_______________________________________________ __________|_________________________________________________ | | | | | | Dharam Singh, Kartar Singh Kadam Singh. Sheo Singh. | (Plff.No.1). (Plff.No.2). | | | __________________|_____________ Fateh Singh. | | | | Maharban Singh. Chhaju Singh. | Sheo Ram. ____________________________________| ___________________________|___________________________ | | | Umrao Singh Summer Singh Bajja | (Defdt. No. 2) | | Mst. Parsandi Hira Singh (Defdt. No. 3) (Minor, dedft. No. 1.)2. Baldeo Singh, the grandson ...
Krishnanand Nath Khare Vs. Raja Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All116; (1922)ILR44All393; 66Ind.Cas.150
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a suit brought upon a promissory note of 1917 which is admittedly a renewal of a previous promissory note of 1914 which in itself was a renewal of a previous promissory note of 1911. The promissory note in suit was made by one defendant only, namely Babu Ram Baran Singh. The suit is brought against Babu Ram Baran Singh and also his brother Babu Raja Ram Singh upon the ground that the note was made by the defendant Babu Ram Baran Singh as head and manager of a joint Hindu family of which his co-defendant Babu Raja Ram Singh was an adult member. The Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation, Limited, were also made defendants as the original payees and endorsers in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that both the brothers, Babu Ram Baran Singh and Babu Raja Ram Singh, were makers of the original promissory note of 1911 of which the promissory note of 1914 was the first renewal. This fact may be of importance upon the question whether the note sued upon wa...
Lachchi Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All61; 65Ind.Cas.852
1. The decision of this revision has been referred to this Bench. The facts are as follows. Lachchi Ram, applicant, occupies a shop in Muzaffarnagar city. The Superintendent, of Police, on information received, raided the shop on the 15th of October 1921. He found therein a book of tickets in a red cover and a cash-box. On the facts, we are satisfied that the tickets contained in the book were being used as forms of memoranda on which to record wagers. It is clear that wagering was actually in progress. The event on which the wagering took place was the determination of the last digit or the last two digits in the average price at which a chest of opium might be sold in the Government sales during a certain period. This is a form of wagering which is common in certain towns in this Province. The question which we have to consider is whether, upon these facts, the applicant has been rightly convicted under Section 3 of the Gambling Act for keeping a common gaming house, The tickets in q...
Hira Lal Vs. Jhunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.967
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Judge refusing to entertain an appeal on the ground that no appeal lay to him. It appears that the suit in this case was instituted in the Court of a Munsif who exercised Small Cause Court powers. He decided the suit and made an ex parte decree which was final. He was subsequently transferred, and his successor was an officer who was not invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes An application was made to him to have the ex parte decree set aside under Order IX, Rule 13. This application was refused by the Munsif upon grounds to which it is not necessary to refer. An appeal from the order of the Munsif was preferred to the District Judge and he held that no appeal lay. I think the view of the learned Judge was right. An appeal from an order passed under Order IX, Rule 13 is maintainable under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) in a case 'open to appeal.' This was not a case 'open to appeal' inasmuch ...
Chaubey Baldeo Prasad Vs. Bindeshri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.128
1. It appears that one Ganesh Prasad was under the Court of Wards for several years up to the time of his death in May 1914. On the 7th of January 1912 and 10th of April 1912 be executed two promissory notes in favour of Chaubey Baldeo Prasad for consideration carrying interest at the rate of Rs. 1-6-0 per sent, per mensem. Ganesh Prasad died leaving a Will by which he leit his estate in charge of certain trustees. The Will of Ganesh Prasad was contested by his son Bindechri Prasad who in the and was successful in having it set aside. The Court of Wards continued in possession of the estate till the 19th of December 1914, On the 5th of October 1914 there was a compromise between Bindeshri Prasad and the trustees appointed under the Will of his father. On the 6th of October 1914 Bindeshri Prasad executed a simple money bond in favour of Baldeo Prasad in lieu of the moneys due on the two promissory, notes given by his father on the 7th of January 1912 and 10th of April 1912 to Baldeo Pra...
Ganesh Prasad Sahu Vs. Dukh Haran Sahu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All441; 66Ind.Cas.509
1. In my opinion this application for revision is without forte The Court of first instate made an order for the issue of an injunction subject to a condition. From that order an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge and the learned Judge modified the order in so far as it imposed a condition on the opposite party. It is urged that no appeal lay to the Court below, and that, there fore he learned Judge had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law. In my opinion an appeal did lie to the Court below under Order XLIII, Rule (I)(n). The order of the Court of first instance was an order passed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, and therefore, an appeal lay from that order to the District Judge. The District Judge, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Whether in the exercise of the jurisdiction be committed an error of judgment is not a matter upon which revision can lie. The application for revision is accordingly dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »