Allahabad Court December 1923 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.
Alkhu Rai and ors. Vs. Lachhman Upadhia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.550
Piggott, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are sufficiently stated in the referring order. The essential point for determination is whether, under a custom described in the wajib-ul-arz, the plaintiffs--appellants have or have not a right of pre-emption in respect of a foreclosure decree which was made absolute on the 12th April 1919. The said decree was passed on a mortgage by conditional sale executed in the year 1861. The record of the custom in the wajib-ul-arz is in the following terms:If one of the co-sharers desires to make a mortgage, or a mortgage by conditional sale, or an out-and-out sale, he must do so on the same adequate price as may be offered by other parties, in the first instance to a near co-sharer in the same patti, next to other co-sharers in the patti, if they will not take, hen to a near co-sharer in another patti; next to any co-sharer in the mahal, and finally to a stranger.2. It we were called upon to interpret these words, apart altogether from a...
Rani Vs. Aidal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All431; 78Ind.Cas.1041
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. The respondents, who are four in number, instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the ejectment of the appellant's predecessor in interest (husband) from certain plots. The allegation was that the respondents were the occupancy tenants and the original defendant was their sub-tenant. The defendant pleaded that he was a co-sharer in the village and he was holding the land as his Khud Kasht. He denied the respondent's right to eject him as a sub-tenant. He also pleaded limitation.2. The suit was thrown out by the Court of first instance, but on appeal the learned District Judge remanded an issue to the Muusif. That issue was: ' Are the present appellants occupancy tenants in the land in dispute or is it Khud Kasht of the present respondents? ' The learned Munsif held that the plaintiffs, the appellants before the first Appellate Court, were occupancy tenants. He also held that there was no relation of...
imam Ali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.888
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Brada recommending that the order of the Magistrate for the prosecution of the applicants under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, be quashed.2. The applicants are two Civil Court process servers and, witnesses, who had been sent out with a warrant of arrest against Mahant Ram Kishen Das, who was a judgment-debtor in certain execution proceedings. On the 5th of March, the applicants stated that, they went to the Railway Station Bahitpurwa and found the judgment-debtor there; the warrant was shown to him; and he was arrested. A Police Constable was also in attendance, and the judgment-debtor was asked to give in writing to the Constable a written note to the effect that he had been served. He did sign a paper, Later on the judgment debtor taking a spear from his servant asked the Constable to give back the paper to him which was returned. On this he tore the paper into pieces aid threw then away, and then road a way from the stati...
Emperor Vs. Roshan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All235
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the District Magistrate, who set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on an inquiry under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and directed a further inquiry to be made. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate had come to the conclusion that Roshan Singh and Mannu Chaube could not properly be called upon to furnish security for keeping the peace. The point that has been taken is that whilst the District Magistrate had power to set aside an order, he had no power to send the matter back for further inquiry. Apparently he was purporting to act under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but it has been pointed out by the counsel for the applicant and accepted by Mr. Sankar Saran that the proceedings under Section 107 are not included in the provisions of Section 436. Under Section 438 the District Magistrate could have reported the result of his examination of the record to this Court, wh...
Ram Prasad Vs. Mahabir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All310; (1924)ILR46All220
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a matter which is perfectly simple and straightforward, but which by a combination of circumstances has got into a slight tangle. The whole question turns upon the interpretation of a will, about which unfortunately there has been a difference of opinion. But that question was finally and conclusively determined against the parties to this suit by a judgment of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Banreji, on the 5th of December, 1919. In order to simplify this judgment, we propose to call the parties merely appellant and respondents. The appellant and respondents to this appeal were entitled by a will of an ancestor, dated the 10th of April, 1882, to a half share of a business. A controversy has arisen over the meaning of the will as to the house. The respondent brought a suit against the appellant to determine that question. It reached the High Court in second appeal and every court was against the appellant, and it was decided by a single Judge of this Co...
Emperor Vs. Sardara and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All236
Piggott, Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. In this case Sardara, Bansi and Pokha, described as pasis by caste, residents of the same village, mauza Meoli, in the Rampur State, were put on their trial on a charge framed under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a dacoity committed on the 27th of June, 1922, at a village called Majhaula, in the Bahjoi police circle of the Moradabad district. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted all three accused and the record is before us for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by the sessions court. The accused have submitted petitions of appeal and the case has been argued by counsel on their behalf. The commission of a serious dacoity on the date and at the place specified in the charge is proved by abundant evidence and is not contested. The villagers seem to have expected succour from a fort belonging to a local Eaja and as the dacoits who were somewhere about thirty in number, were leaving the house which they had plundered, ...
Muhammad Jan Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All218; (1924)ILR46All328
Piggott, Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. The facts out of which the two appeals before us arise are stated in the referring order of the 22nd of June, 1923. In substance they amount to this: By an appellate decree, the plaintiff, in two pre-emption cases, was given one month from the 27th of September, 1921, within which to deposit certain money, if he desired to obtain the benefit of the decrees in his favour. The civil courts closed for the vacation in that year on the 30th of September and reopened on the 4th of November. On that date the successful plaintiff made the deposit required by the decree. The courts below have held that it was too late, more than thirty days having elapsed since the 27th of September, 1921. There was authority of this Court for the view thus adopted. This is to be found in the case of Hirde Narain v. Alam Singh (1918) I.L.R. 41 All. 47. The attention of the courts below was not drawn to the fact that, since the decision above referred to, a Bench of this Cour...
Sardara and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All220; 81Ind.Cas.604
1. In this case Sardara, Bansi and Pokha, described as pasis by caste, residents of the same village, Mausa Meoli, in the Rampur State, were put on their trial on a charge framed under Section 396, Indian Penal Code, in respect of a dacoity committed on the 27th June 1922 at a village called Majhaula, in the Bahjoi Police Circle of the Moradabad District. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted all three accused, and the record is before us for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Court. The accused have submitted petitions of appeal and the case has been argued by Counsel on their behalf. The commission of a serious dacoity on the date and at the place specified in the charge is proved by abundant evidence and is not contested. The villagers seem to have expected succour from a fort belonging to a local Raja and as the dacoits, who were somewhere about thirty in number, were leaving the house which they had plundered, they found it necessary to fire on the ass...
M. Muhammad Jan Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1014
1. The facts out of which the two appeals before us arise are stated in the referring order of the 22nd June 1923. In substance they amount to this: by an appellate decree, the plaintiff in two pre-emption cases was given one month from the 27th of September 1921 within which to deposit certain money, if he desired to obtain the benefit of the decrees in his favour. The Civil Courts closed for the vacation in that year on the 30th of September and re-opened on the 4th of November. On that date the successful plaintiff made the deposit required by the decree. The Courts below have held that it was too late, more than thirty days having elapsed since the 27th of September 1921. There was authority of this Court for the view thus adopted. This is to be found in the case of Hirday Narain v. Alam Singh 48 Ind. Cas. 353 : 41 A.A. 471 : 16 A.L.J. 892. The attention of the Courts below was not drawn to the fact that since the decision above referred to a Bench of this Court, in the case of Reo...
Roshan Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.819
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. This application in revision is based on a misjoinder of charges which constitutes an illegality invalidating the entire trial under the Privy Council ruling in Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor 25 M. 61 : 11 M.L.J. 233 : Bom. L.R. 540 : 28 I.A. 257 : 5 C.W.N. 86 : 2 Weir 271 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 10 (P.C.). The six accused were tried at one trial for offences under Sections 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed on the 24th of January, and at the same time for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have committed on 25th January. This joint trial cannot be justified under Section 234 or 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The offences are not offences of the same kind, since the offence under Section 342 at any rate is an offence quite different from that under Section 325. Neither were the offences committed in the same transaction. It has been held in several cases that Sections 234 and 239 of the Cr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »