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.
Shuja-ud-dIn Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.322
1. In this case the appellant, Shuja-ud-dir, has been convisted of the offense of criminal breach of trust by a public servant three of three items and also of falsifies ion of accounts in order to conceal the defalcations under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Ho appeals, and one of the grounds pressed before me by the horned Vakil for the appeliant is, that there has been a micjoinder of charges which vitiates the trial. The charge on which the accused was committed to the Sections Court was admitedly different. The leaned Judge amended the charge before the trial, aid the Ecsnsed has been convicted and centered, It is nrped before me that Sections 214 and 73 of the code of Criminal Procedure do not warrant such a joinder of charge, that is, three under Section 408 and one under Section 477A of the Indian. Penal Code, I was at first inelined to the view that this could be done having regard to the provisions of Section 235, read with the provisions of Section 2:4, but I find th...
Saiyid Muhammad Vs. Lala Parshotam Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.681
1. This appeal arises out of a gait brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the enforcement of a mortgage given to his father Durga Prasad on the 18th August 1913 by the defendant-appellant Saiyid Muhammad. It appears that the latter gave the mortgage of two of his properties in lieu of Rs. 1,000. The two properties were (1) land at Mauza Gandupal, and (2) some land forming part of the compound of a bungalow in the Civil Lines at Moradabad. The mortgage-deed was registered at Moradabad, Durga Prasad died prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff, as the legal representative of the original mortgagee, instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad on the 1st of August 1919 for the recovery of the mortgage-money by sale of the two properties hypothecated in the dead. The claim was resisted on various pleas, but we are concerned with one of them only in this appeal. The said plea was that the land which formed a part of...
Musammat Jhamola Kunwar Vs. Thakur Hanwant Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All129; 66Ind.Cas.915
1. These are cross-appeals against a decree of the Additional Judge of Allahabad. We have heard Counsel at length in both oases and have come to the conclusion that the decision of the Court below should be maintained and that both appeals should be dismissed.2. The dispute between the parties relates to an area of 27 bighas and 8 biswas which is situated in a village called Mauza Ghosia, Mahal Turab Ali. The suit, which was filed by Musammat Jhamola Kunwar, plaintiff, was filed in consequence of certain directions given by a Revenue Court in which an application for partition of this village had been filed by Thakur Hanwant Singh and Thakur Raghuraj Singh.3. The facts of the case are somewhat complicated, but the following statement of them will show the point which arises for decision:4. In this village there are three sets of co-shares. Hanwant Singh and Raghuraj Singh between them owned a 4-annas share. Formerly one Talaiyar and his wife Siddan Bibi owned a 6-annas share and Mohamm...
Bechai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All244; 69Ind.Cas.159
Ryves, J.1. Bechai was tried at one trial under sections 420 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code by a Magistrate of (be First Class and was convicted under both charges and given consecutive sentences of imprisonment. He appealed. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal but made the sentences concurrent. In revision before roe the point has been taken that it was illegal to try the accused under both the charges at the same trial because the joinder of the two charges must prejudice him. The facts found are as follows:One Suraj Bali, a villager, tame into the Allahabad city with some wheat for sale. He put up with Bechai, the applicant, who is his first cousin. Suraj Bali's object in coming to Allahabad was to dispose of his wheat and to purchase silver to make ornaments for his wife. Bechai agreed to buy the wheat and promised to show Suraj Bali where he could purchase the silver. He took him next morning, not to the part of the town where the sonars' shops are situated, but near...
Ram Das and ors. Vs. Saiyid Muhammad Sayeed Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All524; 67Ind.Cas.160
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit on a deed dated the 17th of July 1901 on the ground that it was time barred. We have been taken through the terms of the deed in question. We find that the executant, Muhammad Raza, executed the deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum. He covenanted to pay the interest year by year and the principal within three years of the date of execution, and in case of default of the payment of the annual interest he empowered the mortgage without waiting for the expiration of the period fixed for payment of the principal to realise the amount due for the principal and interest from the hypothecated property. He also covenanted that so long as the principal remained unpaid interest at 24 par cent, per annum would accrue and that interest at this rate should be payable from the date of default to the date of the payment. 2. We can only interpret these portions o...
Muhammad AmIn and anr. Vs. Shankar Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All534
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. The suit is brought by certain alleged minors through the guardianship of their mother in an effort to redeem property which has been already sold over their heads as the result of a decree for sale obtained in a suit by the mortgagee against their father, the original mortgagor. It has the aspects of being a proceeding of a some what suspicious character, but nonetheless these suspicions have to be confirmed and not inferred. In some respects the attempt which they have made resembles the case referred to in the judgment of the court below, namely, Ganpat Lal v. Bindbasini Prashad Narayan Singh (1920) I.L.R. 47 Calc. 924, where the Privy Council pointed out that after the sale has taken place, (they are speaking of a mortgage), the owner holds as purchaser and is entitled to raise all the defences belonging to him as such, and unless the claim to set aside the sale is made in a properly constituted action and properly raised in su...
Pitambar Lal Vs. Murlidhar and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All525
Ryves, J.1. Ghazi Din and his first cousin Pitambar formed a joint Hindu family of which Ghazi Din was the karta. Pitambar was a minor. On the 27th of April, 1913, Ghazi Din made a mortgage of the joint family property in favour of Munni Lal and Kashi Prasad. The mortgagees sued Ghazi Din and Pitambar under the guardianship of Ghazi Din on foot of their mortgage. Ghazi Din confessed judgment and a preliminary decree was passed on the 30th of March, 1916. This was duly made final and the property was attached and put up for sale, and the 6th of February, 1918, was the date fixed for the sale. On that date Pitambar, still a minor, filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, against Kashi Prasad and the representatives of Munni Lal, the mortgagees, and Ghazi Din, for a declaration that the decree in the former suit was void and illegal as against the plaintiff and that he was not bound by it and that in execution of the said decree the remaining half of the joint family property was n...
Murli Dhar Vs. Pitambar Lal and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.372
Ryves, J.1. Ghazi Din and his first cousin, Pitamber, formed a joint Hindu family of which Ghazi Din was the Harta. Pitambar was a minor. On the 27th of Apr 1 1913 Ghazi Din made a mortgage of the joint family property in favour of Munni lal and Kashi Prasad. The mortgagees sued Ghazi Din and Pitambar, under the guardian ship of Ghazi Din, on foot of their mortgage. Ghazi Din confessed judgment and a preliminary decree was passed on the 3Oth of March 1916. This was duly made final and the property was attached and put up for sale, and the 6th of February 1918 was the date fixed for the sale. On that date Pitambar, still a minor, filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, against Kashi Prasad and the representatives of Munni lal, the mortgagees, and Ghazi Din for a declaration that the decree in the former suit was void and illegal as sgainst the plaintiff and that he is not bound by it and that in execution of the acid States the remaining half of the joint family property was not...
Shanker Lal and anr. Vs. Mohammad AmIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.920
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. The suit is brought by certain alleged minors through 'the guardianship of their mother in an effort to redeem property which has been already sold over their heads as the result of a decree for sale obtained in a suit by the mortgagee against their father, the original mortgagor. It has the aspects of being a proceeding of a somewhat suspicious character, but nonetheless these suspicions have to be confirmed and not inferred. In some respects the attempt which they have made resembles the case referred to in the judgment of the Court below, namely, Ganpat Lal v. bindbasini Prashad Narayan Singh 56 Ind. Cas. 274 : 18 A. h. J. 555; (920) M. W. N. 382 : 12 L. W. 59 : 47 I. A. 91 : 39 M. L. J. 108 : 9 U. P. L. R. (P. C.) 103 : 24 C. W. N, 954 : 28 M. L. T. 330 : 470. 924 (P. C.), where the Privy Council pointed out that after the sale has taken place, (they are speaking of a mortgage), the owner holds as purchaser and is entitled to r...
Fazal Ilahi Vs. Prag Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All133; (1922)ILR44All523
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. In this case an order of reference outside the court was made to two arbitrators and an umpire, both the arbitrators being vakils of this Court and the umpire being a barrister, formerly of this Court. No order of reference was found necessary or was in fact obtained under paragraph 17 of the second schedule, we do not know why, but presumably because the parties were reasonable men of business and they did not consider it necessary to waste time and money in obtaining an order when they were entirely agreed about the procedure. The arbitration was begun, but unfortunately it fell through owing to one of the arbitrators declining to act. Thereupon, the present appellant applied to the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad for an order of reference under paragraph 17. and for an order under paragraph 5 appointing an arbitrator in the place of the vakil who had retired. The learned Judge took a very narrow view of the matter. He held that he was unable to appoint a fresh ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »