Allahabad Court May 1923 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All671
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the applicants under Section 4 of the Gambling Act. The police made a raid on the house of one Soorja. Gaming was going on, the accused were found present and instruments of gaming were found. The warrant had been duly obtained, the presumption contained in Section 6 of the Gambling Act therefore applied. It has been suggested, on the authority of the case of Lachchi Ram v. Emperor (1922) 20 A.L.J. 218 that it was necessary for the police to give direct evidence that the gambling was being carried on for the profit of the keeper of the house. I have examined that judgment and find that it contains no reference to Section 6. Here the presumption contained in that section was clearly applicable and dispensed with the necessity of direct evidence that a commission was being taken by the keeper of the house. The revision accordingly fails and I dismiss it....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kashi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All676
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. We have before us four applications from persons in respect of whom the District Judge of Benares has passed an order under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act No. XVIII of 1879, that is to say, the names of each one of these four persons have bean put by the District Judge in a list of persons who are proved to his satisfaction, by evidence of general repute or otherwise, habitually to act as touts. The word 'tout,' we may note, is defined by Section 3 of the same Act. In the case of two of the persons concerned, namely, Kashi Nath and Sarju Dat, notice was ordered to issue and the learned Government Advocate has appeared to support the order of the District Judge. The other two applications, namely, those of Abdul Hamid and Sital Pande, were simply ordered to be laid before this Bench, to be dealt with in such manner as this Court might see fit after hearing arguments in the other two cases. The learned Government Advocate has raised the g...
Tag this Judgment!Reoti Ram Vs. Lallu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All679
Ryves, J.1. This is a civil revision from a decree of the court of Small Causes. The suit was based on a promissory-note executed by the defendant on the 16th of April, 1919. The suit was filed on the 28th of April, 1922. The defendant put in a written statement, the second paragraph of which runs as follows: 'The. plaintiff (who is a Jotshi) led the defendant to believe that he would perform adequate puja which would have the effect of saving the lives of his children and they would survive the age of one year, and for this, the defendant agreed to. pay Rs. 80 to the plaintiff, out of which Rs. 8 was paid in cash and the balance was payable after the child had survived the age of one year. It was on this understanding that the promissory note was written. The child died within a year of its birth and hence nothing was payable.' The other ground taken was that the suit was barred by limitation. It appears from the record that five witnesses on behalf of the defendant were present but, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All69; 74Ind.Cas.11; 79Ind.Cas.693
1. We have before us four applications from persons in respect of whom the District Judge of Benares, has passed an order under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners' Act No. XVIII of 1879, that is to say, the names of each one of these four persons have been put by the District Judge in a list of persons who are proved to his satisfaction, by evidence of general repute or otherwise habitually to act as touts. The word 'tout,' we may note, is defined by Section 3 of the same Act. In the case of two of the persons concerned, namely, Kashi Nath and Sarju Dat, notice was ordered to issue and the learned Government Advocate has appeared to support the order of the District Judge. The other two applications, namely, those of Abdul Hamid and Sital Pandey, were simply ordered to be laid before this Bench, to be dealt with in such manner as this Court might see fit after hearing arguments in the other two oases. The learned Government Advocate has raised the general question of the right of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Lal and anr. Vs. Babu Jagat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All927; 75Ind.Cas.108
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings. The appellant, Kundun Lal, held a mortgage of the year 1905 upon the same property. He brought a suit on this mortgage and obtained a decree for sale in 1917. He now seeks to put that decree in execution and the Court below, overruling the Trial Court, has held that he is precluded from doing so. The appellant, Kundun Lal, subsequently obtained a simple money decree against Rani Chandra, the owner of the property. In execut on of this decree he got the property proclaimed for sale subject to his mortgage decree of 1917 which was duly notified. The property was brought to sale and was purchased by the respondent; Babu Jagat Ram, on the 20th of January 1920. Between the date of the plaintiff's decree and the date of the purchase of Jagat Ram a puisne mortgagee, named Lachhman Singh, had brought a suit for sale of the property on the basis of his mortgage which was of December 1913. To that suit Kundan Lal was made a party in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Lallu Mal Vs. Pandit Reoti Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All70; 74Ind.Cas.353
Ryves, J.1. This is a civil revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The suit was based on a promissory-note executed by the defendant, on the 16th of April 1949. The suit was filed on the 28th of April 1922. The defendant put in a written statement, the second paragraph of which runs as follows:The plaintiff (who is a Jotshi) led the defeadant to believe that he would perform adequate puja which would have the effect of saving the lives of his children and they would survive the age of one year, and for this the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 30 to the plaintiff out of which Rs. 8 was paid in cash and the balance was payable after the child had survived the age of one year. It was on this under-standing that the promissory-note was written. The child died within a year of its birth and hence nothing was payable. The other ground taken was that the suit was barred by limitation. It appears from the record that five witnesses on behalf of the defendant were present but, as a ma...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All597; 75Ind.Cas.358
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision againt the conviction of the applicants under Section 4 of the Gambling Act. The Police made a raid on the house of one Surja, a gaming was going on, the accused, were found present and instruments of gaming were found. The warrant had been duly obtained, the presumtion contained in Section 6 of the Gambling Act, therefore, applied. It has been suggested, on the authority of the case of Lachchi Ram v. Emperor 65 Ind. Cas. 852 : 20 A.L.J. 218 : 23 Cr. L.J. 196 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 61, that it was necessary for the Police to give direct evidence that the gambling was being carried on for the profit of the keeper of the house. I have examined that judgment and find that it contains no reference to Section 6. Here the presumption contained in that section was clearly applicable and dispensed with the necessity of direct evidence that a commission was being taken by the keeper of the house. The revision accordingly fails and I dismiss it....
Tag this Judgment!Parbhu Lal and ors. Vs. Firm Sheo Dial Mal Ram Saran Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All457; 84Ind.Cas.640
1. The main objection to the award here is that the reference was not signed by one of the parties, but it was signed by his son and verified by his Pleader and he himself appeared before the arbitrator thereby ratifying the conduct of his Pleader. The judgment complained of is really an admirable one and cannot be improved upon, and this application must be dismissed with costs including fees on; the higher scale....
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Vs. Nanak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.486
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appeal filed in the Court below was filed within time. The order appealed against was passed on the 7th January 1921 but by a mistake of the office, no formal order was prepared. On the same day the plaintiff applied for a copy of the judgment and that copy became ready for delivery and was delivered to him on the 14th January 1921. He filed an appeal on the 4th February 1921 accompanied by a copy of the judgment, but without any copy of the decree, for no decree was then in existence. The Appellate Court brought to his notice that a copy of the decree should also have been filed. On the 10th February 1921, he applied for a copy of the decree. On 15th February 1921, the formal order was drawn up and a copy of that formal order became ready on the 17th February 1921 and was delivered to him two days later. The reason for the delay in delivery is not ascertainable. On the 23rd February 1921 he filed the copy...
Tag this Judgment!Sitla Prasad and ors. Vs. Musammat Chameli Bahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.316
1. The question in this appeal is whether Hindu sons can recover joint family property which has been sold in execution of a mortgage-decree against their father without showing that the mortgage-debt was for illegal or immoral purposes. The mortgage was executed by the common ancestor Parmeshar Dayal in 1908. A suit was brought for sale on the basis of the mortgage and a final decree obtained on the 29th of August 1917. The sale took place on the 20th of January 1917 and was confirmed shortly after the institution of the present suit. The auction-purchaser was a stranger to the suit. The suit was filed on 2nd April 1919 by the sons and grandsons of Parmeshar Dayal for a declaration that the sale was not binding on them on the ground that the mortgage-debt was incurred without any legal necessity.2. Court below has dismissed the suit on the rule laid down by Sir James Colvile in Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh 5 C. 148 : 6 I.A. 88 : 4 C.L.R. 226 : 4 sar. P.C.J. 1 : 3 suth. P.C.J....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »