Allahabad Court June 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.
Sardar Singh and ors. Vs. Kunj Bihari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All503
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated the 6th of June, 1918, and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Laltu Singh, since deceased, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad on the 13th of September, 1913. The object of the suit was to set aside an alienation purporting to have been made for a religious or pious purpose by a Hindu lady of the name of Rani Kishori on the 8th of January, 1.876. The point involved in the determination of the appeal relates to the powers of a Hindu female on whom property devolves upon the death of the husband, son or father, as a limited estate, to alienate any part of the property for religious purposes. Rani Kishori was the widow of Raja Gur Sahai, who died in 1868 and was at the time of his death possessed of a considerable estate, yielding an annual income of some Rs. 60,000. He left two minor sons, both of whom died in infancy in 1873, five years after the death of their fa...
Ram Sarup Vs. Fakhr-ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All18
Kanhaiya Lal and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent for the recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, on the 12th of April, 1913. The promissory note purports to have been executed for Rs. 1,000. The whole of this sum was payable on demand. The allegations of the defendant were that he executed the said promissory note for Rs. 100, that the plaintiff was not competent to enter into the transaction which resulted in the taking of the promissory note from the defendant because he was a Government servant and that the claim was barred by limitation.2. The court of first instance found that the promissory note in question had been executed for Rs. 1,000 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on an old account, and that the plaintiff was entiled to sue for the recovery of the money due to him on that document. It further held that the suit had been brought on the 14th of August, 191...
Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Mohini Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All13
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a one-third share of the village Sewai Raghunathpur. An application was made by the defendant respondent for a partition of that share in the Revenue Court. It was opposed by the plaintiffs, who own another one-third share in the same village. Their contention was that the defendant held only a life-interest therein and was entitled to get the profits of that share for her life but was not entitled to claim a partition.2. The Revenue Court directed the objectors to get the question of proprietary title determined by the Civil Court; and the present suit was consequently filed by them for a declaration that the defendant had only a life-interest in the disputed property and was not entitled to claim a partition. The court below found against them and dismissed the suit.3. The entire two-thirds share belonged originally to Bisheshar Nath, the father of the defendant respondent. On the 19th of March, 1888, he executed a...
Emperor Vs. Shiboo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All17
Lindsay, J.1. I think this application must be allowed. The applicant is a young boy named Shiboo, who was convicted on a charge tinder Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to receive 10 stripes. At the same time his father was convicted of a similar offence and received an appealable sentence.2. The father appealed and when the case came up before the learned Sessions Judge the parties to the case compounded. The learned Judge made an order for composition.3. The boy had no right of appeal and the learned Sessions Judge was therefore asked to deal with the case in revision. He came to the conclusion that it was not possible for him to deal with the matter in this way and he refers to a ruling of this Court--Emperor v. Husain Khan (1016) I.L.R. 39 All. 293. That ruling, however, does not seem to me to affect the matter which I have now before me.4. Section 439 authorizes the High Court to exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal, and if a court of appeal ...
Jairam Das Vs. Raj Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1921All405; 70Ind.Cas.953
1. This is a case in which we regret we have to allow the appeal. The facts are that the plaintiff filed a plaint alleging that he was entitled to a certain house owned and possessed by him. He gave no details of his title but it happened that when he went into the witness-box to prove his title and to prove the acts of encroachment which, as he said, gave him a right against the defendant, he asserted, no doubt truly enough, that his title rested on a partition. He produced a document which purported to be a deed of partition. It was noticed that it was neither stamped nor registered, and the learned Munsif quite properly refused to receive it in evidence. Unfortunately, then, the Munsif was persuaded to allow oral evidence to be given not only of the bare fact that there had been a partition which would have been unobjectionable but also of the further fact that in the partition his house fell to the share of the plaintiff. The Munsif then decided the matter on the merits and gave th...
Ram Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All34; 85Ind.Cas.44
Lindsay, J.1. It appears that the applicant Ram Singh was convicted in the Court of a Magistrate of an offence under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, the offence of escaping from lawful custody.2. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in appeal is that Earn Singh was not in lawful custody. He has, therefore, acquitted him of the offence under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, but has convicted him under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code of the offence of assaulting the constable who arrested him.3. The story which was told regarding this arrest was that the constable had been deputed by the Station Officer to arrest Ram Singh in connection with a charge of dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge's finding is that it is not proved that the Station Officer did depute this constable for this purpose. He did not believe the statement of the Station Officer in this respect.4. It is argued, therefore, that the learned Judge ought not to have convicted Ram Singh un...
Fakhrullah Khan Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All64; 68Ind.Cas.978
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of money due on a promissory-note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, on the 12th of April 1913. The promissory note purports to have been executed for Rs. 1,000, The whole of this sum was payable on demand. The allegations of the defendant were that be executed the said promissory-note for Rs. 100, that the plaintiff was not competent to enter into the transaction which resulted in the taking of the promissory-note from the defendant because ho was a Government servant and that the claim was barred by limitation.2. The Court of first instance found that the promissory-note in question had been executed for Rs. 1,000 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on an old account, and that the plaintiff was entitled to sue for the recovery of the money due to him on that dominant. It farther held that the Suit had been brought on the 14th of August 1918, after the time allowed by la...
Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Musammat Mohni Koer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All483; 68Ind.Cas.989
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a one-third share of the village Sewai Raghunathpur. An application was made by the defendant-respondent for a partition of that share in the Revenue Court. It was opposed by the plaintiffs, who own another one-third share in the same village. Their contention was that the defendant held only a life-interest therein and was entitled to get the profits of that share for her life but was not entitled to claim a partition.2. The Revenue Court directed the objectors to get the Question of proprietary title determined by the Civil Court and the present suit was consequently filed by them for a declaration that the defendant had only a life interest in the disputed property and was not entitled to claim a partition. The Court below found against them and dismissed the suit.3. The entire two-thirds share belonged originally to Bisheshar Nath, the father of the defendant respondent. On the 19th March 1888 he executed a Will, by virtue of which he devise...
Lala Durga Prasad and ors. Vs. Ganga Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All501; 70Ind.Cas.763
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for settlement of accounts against a co-sharer under Section 165 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that all the dues entered in the papery had been realised by the defendants and he gave the plaintiffs a decree on that basis. On appeal the learned District Judge, was of opinion that the arrears of rent which were due on account of years previous to the period in dispute and which had been collected during that period could not be fairly taken into account and that, excluding such arrears, the defendants had not collected any more than what would prevent their own share after deducting the land revenue to be paid by them. In this view of the matter, he allowed the appeal and purported to dismiss the whole suit, though he omitted to use these latter words.2. In my opinion the decree of the learned District Judge must be upheld. I am aware of cases coming under Section 164 of the Ac...
Kohna Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All502; 68Ind.Cas.32
Walsh, J.1. In our opinion this application must succeed. The fact that the matter has been in one form before another Judge of this Court is irrelevant, It was referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge for enhancement of sentence. A learned Judge of this Court looked into the matter and came to the conclusion that there was no ground for issuing notice. It would amount to a denial of justice to accept the argument of the Assistant Government Advocate that a reference by a Sessions Judge which this Court may or may not see fit in its discretion to entertain, resulted in depriving a convicted person of the right to apply to this Court in revision. It by no means follows from this view that any accused person has the right to come in revision more than once. At any rate he would come with little hope of success. The mere fast that he had failed on his first application to raise the point whish he relied upon in his second, would give a discretionary power not to entertain the second a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »