Allahabad Court March 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.
R. Simeon Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.515
1. After deriding a Probate suit, the District Judge of Saharanpur, being o opinion that there were grounds for suspect log a criminal conspiracy in connection with the preparation and execution of the Will propounded, took proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code against Raja Ram, alone, in the first instance. He came to the conclusion that four persons, three of whom are now before me, should be charged with various offenses. His order concludes, 'A copy of this order will be sent to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, with a request that he will range proceedings to be instituted against the other three persons (i. e., other than Mr. Simeon). If the District Magistrate derides to institute proceedings he should inform the C. I. D. who investigated the age.' These words show that the order is not in the terms of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of Mr. Simeon, the Sub Registrar, the Judge took further proceedings under Section 476, Criminal ...
Musammat Dulari Koer Vs. Salig Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All210; 66Ind.Cas.603
Lindsay, J.1. The appellant in both these oases is Musammat Dulari Kunwar, who I is a Zemindar in the village Ganaura. She brought two suits against certain tenant of this village alleging that about a year or a year and a half before the suits were brought, these persons had encroached on her land in the village by putting up building, In short, her case was that these defendants occupied houses in the village and that they bad enlarged them by encroaching upon laid which belonged to her Musammat Dulari Kunwar claimed that, in the circumstances, she was entitled to a decree directing the defendants to demolish these new structures.2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suits. They have not believed the evidence which she put forward for the purpose of showing that the buildings demolition of which was sought, had been created shortly before the suits were filed.3. The Courts also appear to have decided both cases on the consideration that Musammat Dulari had stood by ...
Seth Ram Sarup Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All542
Piggott, J.1. This memorandum of appeal has been laid before me as Taxing Judge in order that the question of the court fee payable in respect of the same may be finally determined. The suit was one 'for accounts,' within the meaning of Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act (No. VII of 1870). It was incumbent on the plaintiff to state the amount at which he valued the relief sought, and the amount of the fee payable under the said Act was to be computed on this valuation; The plaintiff accordingly valued the relief sought by him at a sum of Rs. 8,000 and paid the necessary court fee. The court below has passed a preliminary decree which calls upon the defendant to render a true account of the transactions in suit. The defendant by his memorandum of appeal seeks to have this decree set aside, not because he denies his liability to render accounts, which he has all along admitted, but because he takes exception to the form of the decree and contends that it ought to have contained a spe...
Puran Chand Amir Chand Vs. Jodh Raj-ram Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All448; 66Ind.Cas.501
1. The first point taken in this revision is that the cause of action arose outside the local jurisdiction of the Court. It seems that the contract was made in Bengal and the goods were to be sent to Bengal. The only thing done in Azamgarh was that the goods were despatched from Azimgarh. I do not think it can be said that the cauce at action wholly or in part arose in Azimgarh. In this view, the application must succeed with costs. I set aside the decree of the Court below and direct it to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court....
Seth Bithal Das Vs. Jiwan Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All190; 66Ind.Cas.744
1. The applicant, Seth Bithal Das, has two sons, Jiwan Ram and Jagannath. We have it that a mortgage-deed was executed in favour of Bithal Das and his three brothers and that in a subsequent partition the rights under the mortgage-decree were assigned to Bithal Das and a brother sailed Kanhaiya Lal; that subsequently a suit was brought upon the mortgage-deed and a decree obtained, half the benefits of whish acarned to Kanhaiya Lal's heirs and half to Bithal Das. Subsequently, a sum was paid into Court in satisfaction of the whole decree. Half of that sum has been taken away by the heirs of Kanhaiya Lal, and we are in no way sonaerned with that. With regard to the remaining half, the present dispute has arisen. Jiwan Ram same into Court requesting that 1-6th of the decretal amount in the hands of the Court should be paid to him, Jagannath same later and requested that 1-6th should be paid to him. Their father, Bithal Das, stales that be sent many telegrams of protest, but that he was no...
Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. Seth Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All228; 66Ind.Cas.841
1. This memorandum of appeal bas been laid before me as Taxing Judge in order that the question of the Court-fee payable in respect of the same may be finally determined. The Bait was one 'for accounts' within the meaning of Section 7 (4) (f) of the Court Fees Act. VII of 1870. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to state the amount at which he valued the relief sought, and the amount of the fee payable under the said Act was to be computed on this valuation. The plaintiff accordingly valued the relief sought by him at a sum of Rs. 8,000 and paid the necessary Court-fee. The Court below has passed a preliminary decree which calls upon the defendant to render a true account of the transactions in suit. The defendant by his memorandum of appeal seeks to have this decree got aside, not because he denies his liability to render accounts, which he has all along admitted, but because he takes exception to the form of the decree and contends that it ought to have contained a specification of th...
Gobind Pershad and ors. Vs. Kalian and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All216; 66Ind.Cas.910
Lindsay, J.1. In my opinion the snit of the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed. The suit was to recover possession of a portion of a house said to stand on a plot, No. 52/1, in the village of Ninawa.2. A reference to paragraph 4 of the plaint shows the title on which the plaintiffs were suing. The allegation was that in the course of a partition carried out by a Revenue Court and whish took effect from the 1st of July 1918, a house standing on old plot No. 52 had been divided between the parties. One portion of the house was allotted to the plaintiffs as No. 52/1 and the rest of the house was allotted to the other party as standing on No. 52/2. The case for the plaintiffs was that subsequent to the decision of the partition Court the defendants had dispossessed them.3. It appears to me to be absolutely clear that a Revenue Court making a partition under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Land Revenue Act has no jurisdiction to make a division of homes. That has been laid down in a...
Emperor Vs. Shuja-ud-dIn Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All540
Gokul Prasad, J.1. In this case the appellant Shuja-ud-din has been convicted of the offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant in respect of three items, and also of falsification of accounts in order to conceal the defalcations, under Section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code. He appeals, and one of the grounds pressed before me by the learned vakil for the appellant is that there has been a misjoinder of charges which vitiates the trial. The charge on which the accused was committed to the Sessions Court was admittedly different. The learned Judge amended the charge before the trial, and the accused has been convicted and sentenced, It is urged before me that Sections 234 and 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not warrant such a joinder of charges, that is, three under Section 408 and one under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. I was at first, inclined to the view that this could 'be done, having regard to the provisions of Section 235 read with the provisions o...
Emperor Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All538
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. In this case one Badri Prasad was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of Aligarh. The prosecution case against him was that he with two other companions, on the evening of the 21st of January, followed three servants who were going to the house of their master, Jarao Lal, and who had at the time with them some money and a considerable quantity of valuables, said to be worth about Rs. 700. When two of the servants had entered the shop of their master, Badri Prasad was proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate to have struck the third and rearmost man, Jwala Prasad, with a stout danda on the head; and, in the confusion which resulted, either Badri Prasad or one of his associates got hold of the box containing the valuables and got away with it. The blow struck was not a severe one. After that Badri Prasad ran away. The man who had been struck was apparently able to follow him and somebody or other caught Badri Prasad, he having slipped up. In these circ...
Badri Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All245; 66Ind.Cas.418
Grim Wood Mears, C.J.1. In this case one Badri Prasad was convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class of Aligarh. The prosecution case against him was, that he, with two other companions, on the evening of the 21st of January, followed three servants who were going to the house of their master, Jarao Lal, and who had at the time with them some money and a considerable quantity of valuables, said to be worth about Rs. 700, When two of the servants had entered the shop of their master, Badri Prasad was proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate to have struck the third and rearmost man, Jwala Prasad, with a stout danda on the head; and in the confusion which resulted either Badri Prasad or one of his associates got hold of the box containing the valuables and got away with it. The blow struck was not a severe one. After that, Badri Prasad ran away. The man who bad been struck was apparently able to follow him and some body or other caught Badri Prasad, he having slipped up. In these c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »