Allahabad Court October 1923 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Bidha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All319; (1924)ILR46All114; 81Ind.Cas.142
Sulaiman, J.1. In this case the accused was convicted under Section 22 of the Criminal Tribes Act (No. III of 1911) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year including one month's solitary confinement.2. The learned District Magistrate has referred the case to the High Court with a recommendation that so much of the sentence as relates to the solitary confinement be set aside. This reference must be accepted.3. Solitary confinements are imposed under Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code. Under that section, whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which, under that Code, the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion of the imprisonment to which he has been sentenced. Under that section there is no authority for imposing a sentence of solitary confinement when a person is convicted under some other Criminal Act. The Criminal Tribes ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chitar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All158; 82Ind.Cas.705
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government, presenting some peculiar features. The case itself was a simple one. Sub-Inspector Mohan Lal, officer-in-charge of Aurangabad police station, received information that Chitar Singh, a petty shopkeeper of a village called Saidpura, was selling liquor at his shop, which he kept ostensibly for the sale of groceries. Chitar Singh had No. licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The Sub-Inspector raided the shop. He says, and he is corroborated by, at any rate, two witnesses, that Chitar Singh was sitting outside his shop as the police officer and those, with him approached, and that he thereupon ran away. The shop being searched, there were found inside seven bottles of country spirit and a barrel of the same, together with a vessel used for filling bottles from the barrel. The expert evidence of Babu Girwar Singh, Excise Inspector, shows that the liquor was of abnormal strength, being more powerful ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.577
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff is the zemindar and his allegation was that the defendants were non-occupancy tenants of the land on which some trees stood, and they had wrongly transferred them. The lower Appellate Court has found that the land had been taken from the zemindar for planting a grove on payment of a nazrana. The grove was thickly planted and was planted about the time when the land was taken. It has been in existence for 32 years, and in its present condition is incapable of cultivation. It accordingly found that defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were not non-occupancy tenants of any holding, but had the rights of grove-holders on this plot. This finding is fatal to this appeal. In section & of the Agra Tenancy Act 'holding' is defined as a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure or one lease or engagement and the word lease is defined as land which is let or held for agricultural purposes. The finding of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Kesri Singh Vs. Channo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All837; 78Ind.Cas.955
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment in the Revenue Court. The defendant pleaded that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. He in fact set up his rights as a mortgagee from the proprietor Ganesh, who is now dead, and one of whose sons is in Jail and the other absconding. He in support of his contention produced an unregistered deed dated the 22nd of April 1909.2. The Court of first instance found that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. It also remarked that in this village the lambardar was not the sole person who made collections, but that all the co-sharers made collections in respect of their separate shares. The first Court, therefore, was further of opinion that the suit by the lambar dar alone for ejectment was not maintainable.3. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has upheld the findings of the first Court and dismissed the suit. The judgment is not as clear as it mig...
Tag this Judgment!Piyare Lal Vs. Bed Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All814; 78Ind.Cas.849
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for demolition of certain constructions and for an injunction. The plaintiff's case, as set forth in the plaint, was' that the defendant had on his occupancy lands built these constructions without his permission some five years before the suit. The defendant pleaded that these constructions were not new but had existed for some 40 years When the case came on for hearing the plaintiff in his evidence stated that these constructions had been built some six or seven years before. On the other hand, the defendant's evidence was that they had been built some 15 years before. The Court of first instance in its finding on issue No. 3 came to the conclusion that these constructions were within six years of the institu-tionof the suit. It held that the Article applicable was Article 120 and, therefore, overruled the plea of limitation raised by the defendant.2. On appeal by the defendant the lower Appellate Court has, it appears...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chand and ors. Vs. Maula Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All110
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view which the District Judge has taken in this particular matter. The point in dispute is a small one and we think the law is really quite clear. It is probable that the true legal considerations were not pointed out to the learned Judge in the argument. There is in the mohalla Taksalyan, in Muttra, a well which has become the subject of much litigation. There is a mosque adjoining thereto and the trustees of the mosque, who are of course Muhammadans, have been from time to time asserting a right of private ownership over this well. When the word 'well' is used in this connection, it includes of course the chabutra and also certain strips of land adjoining the chabutra and appurtenant to the well, in the same way that when a man speaks of his house he includes the compound and the gate, although they are no part of the house. Some time back the trustees of the mosque came into collision with the Municipal Board about th...
Tag this Judgment!Sat Dhar Vs. Ram Chandra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All153
Sulaiman, J.1. The decree-holders respondents obtained a decree from the Court of Small Causes, on the 20th of November, 1918, against the applicant Sat Dhar. In execution of that decree they attached a grove situated in Bundelkhand. One Muhammad Yasin, on the strength of a sale deed from the judgment-debtor, raised certain objections that the property did not belong to the judgment-debtor. His objections were allowed. The decree-holders then instituted a regular suit for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of Muhammad Yasin was fictitious and that the property belonged to their judgment-debtor and was liable to attachment and sale in execution of their decree. In this suit Sat Dhar was also impleaded, but apparently did not put in an appearance. This suit was decreed on the 16th of February, 1920, and an appeal from that decree was also ultimately dismissed. The decree-holders had a declaration against Muhammad Yasin and Sat Dhar that the property belonged to Sat Dhar and was l...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chand and ors. Vs. Maula Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All178; 79Ind.Cas.310
1. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view which the District Judge has taken in this particular matter. The point in dispute is a small one and we think the law is really quite clear. It is probable that the true legal considerations were not pointed out to the learned Judge in the argument. There is in the Muhalla Taksalyan, in Muttra, a well which has become the subject of much litigation. There is a mosque adjoining thereto and the trustees of the mosque, who are of course Muhammadans, have been from liime to time asserting a right of private ownership over this well. When the word well is used in this connection it includes of course the chabutra and also certain strips of land adjoining the chabutra and appurtenant to the well, in the same way that when a man speaks of his house he includes the compound and the gate, although they are no part of the house. Sometime back, the trustees of the mosque came into collision with the Municipal Boarda bout this well. They applied ...
Tag this Judgment!Bans Lochan Rai Vs. Jagannath Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.873
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of certain plots of land.2. Musammat Soukali, a Hindu widow in possession, executed a permanent lease on the 28th of April 1902 of four sir plots in favour of Musammat Bhola Kunwar. There was another person who also joined in the deed, but as he did not actually become the heir of the estate it is immaterial to consider this circumstance. In 1918 Musammat Soukali executed a mle-deed of her rights in the same plots in favour of Bhawani Din. In 1916 Bhawani Din transferred his rights to Ram Naresh and others. On the 23rd May 1920 the widow died.3. The present plaintiffs, who are the reversioners to the estate, instituted this suit alleging that the lease in question was a fictitious document and, in the alternative, that it was not binding on them as subsequent heirs after the death of the widow. They also sought a decree for possession in case they were found to be out of possess...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ghariba and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All109
Walsh, J.1. I am not prepared to interfere in this case. It must be assumed that the Magistrate had some evidence of the likelihood of a breach of the peace being committed by these men before he issued notice. I am inclined to think that I went too far by saying in Jagdat Tewari v. Emperor (1920) 54 Indian Cases. 784, that there must be some evidence upon the record beyond a full consent to be bound over, given by the person summoned. I find that each of these persons had the notice read out to him and in answer to the notice expressed his willingness to execute a bond for Rs. 100 to keep the peace. This is in itself evidence on which a Magistrate can act. It is really a plea of guilty, assuming the person summoned understands what he is doing. A man may waive the formal production of evidence against himself. By doing so he saves himself and the court unnecessary trouble, and he may well consider in the case of a notice, the reason for which he doubtless understands perfectly well, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »