Allahabad Court July 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.
Subedar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.890
Walsh, J.1. This case six men have been convicted of the offence of making preparation for a dacoity and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment of some severity. The first two Subedar and Ram Chander have already been convicted of a dacoity and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, which conviction and sentence has been confirmed by me in the connected case. I have no doubt whatever as to the guilt of all the appellants. The same approver Narain who gave evidence in the connected case has also given evidence in this case.2. I should not, therefore, interfere, or say anything about the details of the case, if it were not for one unfortunate circumstance in the way in which, the learned Judge has dealt with one feature in the evidence. A technical point has teen argued on behalf of the applicants, and in my opinion it is a good one. With regard to some of the accused it happens to posses little or no importance. I will deal with the way in which it affects the care of the appellant...
Pandit Khub Chand Vs. Todar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All813; 78Ind.Cas.814
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a very clear case. One Sewa Ram, a mortgagee, left four sons who were entitled to his mortgagee rights on his death. These persons secured a decree for sale of the mortgaged property for a sum exceeding Rs. 1,200. This decree was put in exeoution in September 1916 by Khub Chand, defendant No. 6, alone. The learned District , Judge has found thab when Khub Chand applied for execution he expressly reserved the rights of his co-decree-holders, but for this reservation it is possible that the Court would have declined to execute the decree under Order XXI, Rule 15, Sub-clause, (2), Civil Procedure Code. The property of the judgment-debtors was put up for sale and was purchased for a sum of Rs. 5,562 in the name of the decree-holder Khub Chand. No money was paid in cash by him but the prioe was set off against part of the decretal amount. Khub Chand obtained a sale certificate as well as the delivery of possession and has admittedly remained in exclusive possession of...
Emperor Vs. Angnu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All41
Daniels, J.1. These are ten applications in revision by ten sweepers who have been convicted under Section 85(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment. That section renders a Municipal sweeper who resigns or abandons his employment without the permission of the Board liable to two months' imprisonment. The section is a very drastic one and requires to be very carefully worked. It was obviously enacted to meet the grave public danger which may arise from a sudden strike of sweepers in a town. In this case there is no question whatsoever that the action of the sweepers amounted to an offence under the section. It appears that on the 10th of April they had sent a notice to the Board demanding an increase of pay. Having received no reply to this, they, on the 20th of April, sent a further notice threatening to strike on the 1st of May unless their demands were granted. This notice appears to have been sent by almost the entire staff of the sweepe...
Emperor Vs. Bakhshi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All43
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Magistrate directing the trial court to proceed with the trial of the accused under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicant made a report to the Police which was alleged to be false, and sanction for his prosecution under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code was duly granted. The applicant was put on his trial before a Magistrate of the second class. This Magistrate being of opinion that the evidence disclosed an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, which he was incompetent to try, Sub-mitted the proceedings to the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This officer framed a charge under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, but, after the hearing of the case was complete, came to the conclusion that he could not try the accused on this charge for want of previous sanction by the court. He, therefore, sent a report to the Magistrate suggestin...
Thakur Gayan Singh Vs. Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All86; 79Ind.Cas.438
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption in respect of a sale-deed dated the 27th February 1919 executed by the delendant No.2 in favour of Babu Lai, defendant No.1. The plaintiff frankly confessed that he was neither a co-sharer in the village nor a relation of the vendor. Sis claim was based entirely on the ground that he was a resident (bashinda) of the village Mahwat in which the property sold was situated. It was alleged that there was a custom prevailing in this village under which, in case co-sharers refused to pre-empt, the right of preemption was given to residents of the village.2. In the written statement the defendant-vendee admitted paragraph 1 of the plaint which had stated that the plaintiff was a resident of the village in question. It was, however, disputed that there was any such custom in existence. The plaintiff's allegation as to the incorrect recital of the sale consideration was also challenged.3. The learned Subordinate Judge framed ...
Angnoo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All188; 81Ind.Cas.143
Daniels, J.1. These are ten applications in revision by ten sweepers who have been convicted under Section 85 (1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment. That section renders a Municipal sweeper who resigns or abandons his employment without the permission of the Board liable to two months' imprisonment. The section is a very drastic one and requires to be very carefully worked. It was obviously enacted to meet the grave public danger which may arise from a sudden strike of sweepers in a town. In this case there is no question whatsoever that the action of the sweepers amounted to an offence under the section. It appears that on the 10th of April they had sent a notice to the Board demanding an increase of pay. Having received no reply to this, they on the 20th of April, sent a further notice threatening to strike on the 1st of May unless their demands were granted. This notice appears to have been sent by almost the entire staff of the sweepe...
Bakshi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All187; 81Ind.Cas.217
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Magistrate directing the Trial Court to proceed with, the trial of the accused under, Section 182, Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicant made a report to the Police which was alleged to he false and sanction for his prosecution under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, was duly granted. The applicant was put on his trial before a Magistrate of the Second Class. This Magistrate being of opinion that the evidence disclosed an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, which he was incompetent to try, submitted the proceedings to the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 349, Criminal Procedure Code. This officer framed a charge under Section 211 Indian Penal Code, but, after but, after the hearing of the case was complete, came to the conclusion that he could not try the accused on this charge for want of previous sanction by the Court. He, therefore, sent a report'to the Magistrate suggesting that the...
Syed Ata HusaIn Vs. Ramman Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All710; 78Ind.Cas.539
Piggott, J.1. This appeal arisesfout of a suit for arrears of rent brought in the Revenue Court by the plaintiff Ata Husain against Ramman Lal, defendant, and others. The rent claimed was for the years 1324, 1325 and 1326 Fasli. The land in respect of which the rent was claimed formed the occupancy holding of one Musammat Katwari. The plaintiff alleges himself to be the mortgagee of the holding from Mt. Katwari, and he said in his plaint that the defendant was his sub-tenant and was, therefore, liable to pay him rent The defendant Ramman Lal denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and him. He asserted that he had taken the land from Mt. Katwari and that he bad paid the rent claimed to the latter. There can be no doubt that Mt. Katwari was incompetent to mortgage her occupancy holding and that the alleged mortgage in favour of the plaintiff is void in law. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to the land in suit.2. The lower Appellate Court hel...
Sidhari Ram Vs. Dr. Gargi Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1923
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.118
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a mortgage. The mortgage is said to have been made by one Sahai in favour of Gaya Prasad and in the plaint it was, stated that the mortgage had been made some time in 1870. Sabai's son was Kunji and the plaintiff claims to be the heir of Kunji. On the 28th of March 1908, Gaya Prasad, his brother and his son executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant, Dr. Gargidin, of mortgagee rights in the grove now in dispute. In that sale-deed they stated that they were mortgagees of the grove of Kunji who was, as we have said above, the son of Sahai and they purported to sell their rights as mortgagees to the defendant Gargidin for Es. 125. They stated in the eale-deed that they were in possession as mortgagees for a long time and that it was the mortgage under which they were in possession which they were transferring to Gargidin. The plaintiff in his plaint no doubt gave some particular of the mortgage, but in the fourth paragraph of ...
Joti Prasad Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.806
Daniels, J.1. This is an applicaticm for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri setting aside a sanction for the prosecution of Durga Prasad for perjury. durga Prasad vas arrested in possession of a battery said to have been stolen. He was the servant of Chaudhri Badan Sinyh, Honorary Magistrate. He had in his possession a letter which he said he had written at the dictation of Badan Singh showing for that he was being sent to return the battery to one Joti Prasad. Joti Prasad as put on his trial under Section 410, Indian Penal Code, but acquired, the Trying Magistrate being of opinion that the letter of Durga Prasad was not written at the dictation of Badan' Singh and that Durga Prasad had sworn falsely sin saying that it was so written. Badan Singh himself swore that the letter was genuine and this Court has already rejected an application for the prosecution of Badan Singh.2. As this matter has already been before two Courts under Section 105, Criminal Procedure Code...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »