Allahabad Court May 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.
Udai Raj Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All429; 71Ind.Cas.528
Ryves, J.1. In this case proceedings were taken against Udai Raj Singh under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The matter was inquired into by a Magistrate who heard a large number of witnesses on both sides and in a well-considered judgment came to the conclusion that it was not proved that orders under section no of the Criminal Procedure Code should issue against Udai Raj Singh. The District Magistrate, without issuing notice, ordered further inquiry under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On revision this Court set aside that order. Notice was then sent to Udai Raj Singh, and the successor of the then District Magistrate ordered further inquiry. The reasons given really amount to this that if the Trying Magistrate had taken a proper view of the evidence, that is to say, the view which the District Magistrate felt inclined to take, then he would have passed orders under section no of the Criminal Procedure Code. He now refers the matter back to him for further) i...
Arjun Singh Vs. Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All465; 69Ind.Cas.173
1. The fasts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are these. Ganga Prasad Tiwari died in Mainpari in 1911. He left a widow Musammat Parbati, Arjun Singh claimed to be his adopted son. Musammat Parbati set up that Arjun Singh was not the adopted son of Ganga Prasad. 0 i the 8th October 1911 Musammat Parbati and Arjun Singh executed an agreement in writing by which they undertook to refer their disputes to the arbitration of a certain Dambar Lal. Dambar Lal accepted the arbitration and made an award on the 8th November 1911 by which he awarded a molety of the debts doe to the deceased to Arjun Singh and the remaining moiety to Musammat Parbati. He awarded Musammat Parbati a life interest in other property. Arjun Singh instituted a suit on the 6th May 1912 against Musammat Parbati for a declaration that the award in question was of no effect as against him and that be was the adopted son of Ganga Prasad and the owner of the entire property left by the latter.2. The learned Subordin...
Jangi Vs. Musammat Sundar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.589
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises has disclosed a rather extraordinary state of things. In 1920 a man called Jangiinstituted a suit against a woman called Musammat Sundar in the Court of Munsif of West Budaun, on the allegation that he was married to her, claiming restitution of conjugal rights. He first asserted that the woman was a major. It might have been expected that a man would be in a position to know at the out-set whether his own wife was a major or a minor. He subsequently however stated that Musammat Sundar was not a major but a minor. He asked that her brother Budha, should be made her guardian ad litem. Budha was appointed as guardian ad litem without his views on the subject being ascertained. The notice issued to him was not personally served. On the 9th March 1920 Budha was appointed guardian ad litem. On the 13th March 1920 he appeared and stated that he did not wish to be guardian ad litem. The Munsif refused to permit him to withdraw from the guardianship....
Fateh Chand and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All428; 68Ind.Cas.820
Ryves, J.1. During the forenoon of the 5th of July 1921, a largo crowed gathered in front of the District Magistrate's Court during the trial of ore Malkhan Sirgh for some alleged political offence. The trial created a good deal of excitement and, it appears, that, in the light of previous disturbances, the Police authorities gathered an unusually large number of Policemen to keep order. Apparently, it was feared, rightly or wrongly, that an attempt might be made by the crowd to rescue Malkhan Singh, Daring the course of the morning there was some sort of a melle, and nine individual Policemen were hurt, although with the exception of one man, who had him lip out, none of the others received more than the meet trivial injuries. The result was a magisterial enquiry, and 27 men were committed to the Court of Session charged under Sections 147 and 332/149 of Indian Penal Code. Now, that was a perfectly intelligible charge and implied that the 27 men committee were actuated by a common obj...
Genda Lal Through Ujyari Vs. Bal Kishan Alias Balli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All422; 70Ind.Cas.596
1. The question to be determined in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant, who is the appellant here, a sum due in respect of a hundi of one thousand rupees which was drawn on the nth of March 1917.2. The plaintiff sued to recover the amount so due, as also certain other sums due in respect of two other hundis drawn on the same date. The plaintiff has got a decree as regards the two other hundis, and in the lower Appellate Court he has been given a decree in respect of the hundi for one thousand although the Court of first instance dismissed the suit with regard to this sum.3. The bill was drawn by one Raghunath Das Dantri who is stated to have died on the 18th March 1917, about seven days, after the drawing of the bill.4. The plaintiff was the payee and he, according to the case set out in the plaint, endorsed it to one Yusuf Ali Adamji, Bombay. It was alleged that the bill was presented for acceptance to Ramkishan Dass Madan Gopal, a Calcutt...
Maqbul Ahmad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.836
Rafique, J.1. This is a revision from an order purporting to have been passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, It appears that one Maqhul Ahmad is the proprietor of a market-place where there are grain shops. One set of persons claims to have the right of weighing grain in that market. Maqbul Ahmad asked the said men to give him a certain percentage on the earnings on the weighing as his dues as a Zeminder. They objected and would not pay him. Thereupon Maqbul Ahmad permitted the applicants to weigh the grain in the market and the applicants agreed to pay Maqbul Ahmad his Zamindari dues.2. The Police reported that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace between the old weighmen and the applicants. The learned Magistrate thereupon issued a notice to the applicants under Section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code calling upon them to show cause. The notice that was issued by the learned Magistrate stated thatWhereas on the report of the Police it had come to his ...
Ram Jas Singh Vs. Babu Nandan Singh and ors. and Musammat Raj Kali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.98
1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances: The plaintiff filed his plaint in the Revenue Court, heading it as a suit under Section 16b of the Agra Tenancy-Act. He then set out in his plaint the allegations on which he asked for relief from the Court. The Assistant Collector of the first class, before whom the case came on for hearing, was of opinion that the suit was not one under Section 160 of the Agra Tenancy Act, but was a suit for contribution by one judgment-debtor against others for the excess share which he had paid. He held that he had he jurisdiction to decide this suit and dismissed it. No evidence at all was recorded. The plaintiff appealed to the learned District Judge and the first ground of appeal taken by him was that, even admitting the fact, that the suit was not cognizable by the Revenue Court, the Revenue Court ought to have passed an order for the return of the plaint, The learned District Judge held that he could not decide the case as there were no...
Asad Ali Vs. Faiyaz Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All421; 70Ind.Cas.591
1. The question for decision in this second appeal is the principle upon which the claim of the plaintiff in respect of profits ought to be allowed for the years 1324 and 1325 Fasli.2. The suit was a suit in respect of these two years but it appeared in the course of the trial that during these years decrees had been obtained by the defendant Lambardar for a sum of Rs. 635-13-2.3. The Courts below have allowed profits to the plaintiff against the Lambardar on the basis of the gross rental for the two years in suit and have also awarded the plaintiff his share in the decrees which have been obtained on account of arrears for the years antecedent to the two years in suit.4. According to the finding of the lower Appellate Court the defendant was liable to account* for the years in suit on the basis of the gross rental by reason of* his having been grossly negligent.5. In appeal it has been contended, on the strength of the rulings reported as Chhabraji Kuar v. Ganga Singh 60 Ind. Cas. 645...
JainaraIn Pande and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1922
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.1006
1. The plaintiffs in this case seek to set aside a sale-deed of a certain fixed rate tenancy, which was executed by Richhpal Pande in favour of the defendants on the 8th of June 1911. One of the plaintiffs is the brother of Richhpal Pande; the other plaintiffs are his sons. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they were living jointly with Richhpal Pande, that the said property was their ancestral property and that Richhpal Pande transferred the same without any legal necessity. The sale was made for Rs. 375. The Trial Court found that Rs. 101 out of the sale consideration represented the amount taken for legal necessity, but the lower Appellate Court held that the amount taken for legal necessity was Rs. 275-3-0. The Court of first instance had decreed the claim for possession on payment of Rs. 101 to the defendants-vendees, but the lower Appellate Court dismissed the claim in its entirety, observing that Rs. 275-3-0 represented the bulk of the sale consideration.2. The question ...
Baijnath and anr. Vs. Mohammad Ismail
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All417; 68Ind.Cas.764
1. We have heard Counsel on both sides in this appeal and have some to the conclusion that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is wrong and matt be set aside and the decree of the Court of first instance restored.2. The suit was a suit in ejectment brought by two plaintiffs, Baijnath and L. Bankey Lal.3. It appears that there is in Agra a body known as the Islamia Committee which is entrusted with the duty of looking after the Jama Masjid.4. It appears that attached to the Masjid there are certain shops and for the purpose of providing funds for the upkeep of the mosque, it has been the practice of this Committee to wake arrangements for the leasing out of these shops so as to secure a regular income.5. In their plaint the plaintiffs staled that they were the lessees of these shops on behalf of the Islamia Committee under a lease executed in their favour for a period of five years with effect from the 1st April 1919. The allegation was that Muhammad Ismail was in possession at th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »