Allahabad Court April 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.
Mangru Rai Vs. Shivanand Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All575; 77Ind.Cas.875
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage made by one Musammat Anarkali in 1898; Musammat Anarkali and Jupal Kishore, t he father of Raj Lachhan, the original plaintiff in, this case jointly held six occupancy holdings. Musammat Anarkali purported to mortgage a half share in three of these holdings and the whole of three more holdings which were mentioned in tie mortgage-deed, that is to say, she mortgaged a half share in three holdings and the whole of three other holdings, altogether six holdings. Musammat Anarkali died in 1907 end the plaint ff brought this suit for redemption of the mortgage made by her. The defendant who is the mortgagee disputed the plaintiffs right to maintain the suit. He also contended that there was further burden on the property under two other mortgages, one of which was made in 1903 by Musammat Anarkali and the other in 1907 by Musammat Rekha the daughter of Anarkali. One Ghurhu Lal was a party to the third mortgage mentioned above b...
Emperor Vs. Bhure Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All526
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the applicant for an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against the applicant was that' he took part in an unlawful procession which had been prohibited by an order lawfully passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The District Magistrate of Bareilly originally issued an order forbidding any procession whatever to pass down certain streets in Bareilly. This could only remain in force for two months, unless the period was extended by the Local Government under Sub-section (5). Before the expiry of the period of the order, the Local Government passed an order, which was duly notified in the Gazette, directing that the order should remain in force until cancelled by a notification in the United Provinces Gazette.2. Four grounds of revision have been urged, three of them attacking the legality of the order passed by the Local Government and the fourth alleging that, eve...
Emperor Vs. Maqsud HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All529
Ryves, J.1. Maqsud Husain and Musammat Allahbandi were convicted by a Magistrate of the first class, under Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code. Their appeal was rejected by the learned. Sessions Judge and they have come here in revision. The facts found are as follows:2. In muhalla Kal, in the town of Sambhal, there is a mosque, now somewhat dilapidated, which was built by the father of Khan Bahadur Khan, the chief witness in the case. On the night of the 11th of October last, which was the chehlum, there were illuminations in this muhalla. Khan Bahadur Khan was one of the persons who had organized these illuminations, and at about 11 o'clock that night he was about to enter the mosque to say his evening prayers when, in consequence of information given to him by some boys, he went back to the illuminations and fetched three other Muhammadans and entered the mosque. There they found Maqsud Husain and Musammat Allahbandi lying on a cot, having sexual connection. The witnesses ran up an...
Shauran Bibi and anr. Vs. Abdus Samad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All577; (1923)ILR45All548
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur dismissing the application made by the applicants for leave to sue as paupers. The claim was one for recovery of immovable property by right of inheritance. One of the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit and also denied that the plaintiffs were paupers. The court below took evidence upon the question of the plaintiffs' title, and after considering that evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. It also was of opinion that the plaintiffs' pauperism had not been established. On these grounds the application was rejected. The first contention before us is that the court in proceeding to try the question of the plaintiffs' title exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. In our opinion this contention is well-founded. Order XXXIII of the first schedule to the Code of Civil...
Kausilla Kuer Vs. Sukhdei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All579; 74Ind.Cas.761
1. This Is a clear case and we are bound to interfere in revision. The learned Judge, owing to a misunderstanding on the part of his Munsarim, has declined jurisdiction. The Munsarim seems to think that the earlier order requiring the security to be given, namely, the order made on the 6th of January, was the order under appeal and a copy of that order had been filed, but he says the copy of the subsequent order was filed against which no appeal had been brought. This is a mistake. There was a copy of the judgment in the case which led to the subsequent order of the 11th of March, filed in the Appellate Court. That judgment simply struck off the application for a certificate, because the widow had failed to give security. It is true that the appellants before the District Judge had failed to file a copy of the formal order, but as the formal order was a precise copy, so far as its operative words were concerned, of the judgment of the order which they did file, the failure mattered to ...
Panna Lal Vs. HusaIn Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All167; 75Ind.Cas.460
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of a house and in the alternative for damages. It appears that the defendant wanted to sell a house, and for this purpose Abdul Aziz, a common friend of the parties to the suit, was negotiating with prospective purchasers. Abdul Aziz wrote to the defendant saying that a certain person was offering Rs. 3,600 for the house and was enquiring if the defendant world agree to sell the house. On the 13th of December 1918 the defendant wrote back to Abdul Aziz saying that if the purchaser was willing to pay Rs. 4,000 for the house and the costs of transfer, he would sell the house. Abdul Aziz, thereupon, on the 21st of December 1918 wrote to the defendant saying that one Panna Lal had accepted the terms proposed, by the defendant ana was sending a money-order for Rs. 200 as earnest-money and the defendant was to send a formal receipt. It appears that the defendant received a money-order, for R...
Musammat Shauran Bibi and anr. Vs. Abdus Samad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.538
1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur dismissing the application made by the applicants for leave to sue as paupers. The claim was one for recovery of immoveable property by right of inheritance. One of the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit and also denied that the plaintiffs were paupers. The Court below took evidence upon the question of the plaintiffs' title, and after considering that evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. It also was of opinion that the plaintiffs' pauperism had not been established. On these grounds the application was rejected. The first contention before us is that the Court in proceeding to try the question of the plaintiffs' title exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. In our opinion this contention is well-founded. Order XXXIII of the First Sch. to the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the procedure to be follow...
Bhure Mal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All606; 73Ind.Cas.801
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the applicant for an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against the applicant was, that he took part in an unlawful procession which had been prohibited by an order lawfully passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate of Bareilly originally issued an order forbidding any procession whatever to pass down certain streets in Bareilly. This older could only remain in force for two months unless the period was extended by the Local Government under Sub-section (5). Before the expiry of the period of the order the Local Government passed ah order which was duly notified in the Gazette directing that the order should remain in force until cancelled by a Notification in the Unite! Provinces Gazette.2. Four grounds of revision have been urged, three of them attacking the legality of the order passed by the Local Government and the fourth alleging that, even...
Maqsud HusaIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All9; 73Ind.Cas.935
Ryves, J.1. Maqsud Hussain and Mule sammat Allahbandi were convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code. Their tappeal was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and they have come here in revision. The facts found are as follows:In Muhalla Kal, in the town of Sambhal, there is a mosque, somewhat dilapidated, which was built by the father of Khan Bahadur Khan, the chief witness in the case. On the night of 11th October last which was the chehlum, there were illuminations in this Muhalla. Khan Bahadur Khan was one of the Persons who lied organised these illuminations and at about 11 o'clock that night he was about to enter the mosque to say havening prayers when, in consequence of information given to him by some boys, he went back to the illuminations and fetched three other Muhammadans and entered the mosque. There they found. Maqsud Hussain and Musammat Allahbandi lying on a cot having sexual connection. The witnesses ran up and seized them ...
Jhagru and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All609; 73Ind.Cas.775
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision on behalf of ninteen persons who were tried jointly with one. Jhagru. Jhagru was given en appealable sentence and the applicant were given small sentnees of fine against which, they if had not been tried jointly with Jhagru, no appeal lay under the provisions of Section 413. The chief point raised by the revision is whether, if u person who is given a sentence which is ordinarily non-appealable is tried jointly with a person who is given a larger sentence, the former obtains a right of appeal which he would otherwise not have. Divergent views have been expressed on this subject but the latest published decisions of this Court, which are referred to by the learned judge, namely, Husain v. Emperor Khan 9 Ind. Cas. 690 : 39 A. 293 : 15 A.L.J 136 : 18 Cr. L.J. 546 and. Bhola v. Emperor 40 Ind. Cas.3320 : 39 A. 549 : 15 A.L.J 5574 : 18 Cr. L.J. 684, are against the contentions of the applicants. In the latter case Piggott, J., stated that the practice of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »