Allahabad Court January 1924 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.
Emperor Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All265
Stuart and Mukerji, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Benares under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitting a case in which a certain Panna Lal was unanimously acquitted by a jury on a charge of attempted rape Before we proceed to a consideration of the facts, we deem it advisable to state what powers are given to us under the law to deal with such references and the manner in which we consider those powers should be used. Under the provisions of Section 307 a High Court has very full powers to re-open all matters in connection with a verdict of acquittal of a jury with which the Sessions Judge has disagreed and which he has referred to the court under the provisions of that section. But it does not follow that because powers have been given to the court, the court should feel justified in using those powers to the full. There have been two schools of thought, both before and after the amendment of the law which took place in 1896, as to the correct le...
Kedar Nath Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All514; (1924)ILR46All303
Stuart, J.1. The learned District Judge decided the contentions which we are now considering upon one point. He wrote in his judgment:The main point for decision is one of law and may be stated in this form--'Is a registered kabuliat executed by the tenant and accepted by the landlord sufficient to create a tenancy?2. He decided that point only.3. The facts were as follows:--The plaintiff, who is here the appellant, is the owner of a shop with a shed attached which he leased to a certain Kundan Lal. Kundan Lal executed a kabuliat in plaintiff appellant's favour, dated the 19th of March, 1913, agreeing to occupy these premises on a monthly rental until 1918. It is not clear whether the plaintiff had executed a lease for this period of five years in favour of Kundan Lal. It is of no consequence whether he did or did not execute a lease, for it is admitted that he took no exception to Kundan Lal as a tenant during those five years. His relations with Kundan Lal appear to have been amicabl...
Musammat Rameshra and ors. Vs. Kalpo Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All538; 84Ind.Cas.84
1. After shearing arguments in the case and considering the recently pronounced decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Brij Narain Rai v. Mangla Prasad Rai 77 Ind. Cas. 479 : 31 A. 176 : 6 A.L.J. 934 : 46 M.L.J. 23 : 5 P.L.T. 1 : 28 C.W.N. 253 : (1924) M.W.N. 68 : 19 L.W. 72 : 2 P.L.R. 41 : 10 O. and A.L.R. 82 : (1924) A.I.R. (P.C.) 50 : 33 M.L.T. 457 : 46 A. 95 : 26 Bom. L.R. 500 : 11 O.L.J. 107 (P.C.) Privy Council Appeal No. 51 of 1922, Allahabad Appeal No. 4 of 1920, decided on 14th November 1923] we are of opinion that this case was rightly decided by the learned Judge of this Court. There is nothing in the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case above quoted to warrant the view that an uncle acting as Manager of a joint family is entitled to sell the share of his nephew in the joint family property in order to discharge a debt incurred by his own father, even though the said father be also the grandfather of the nephew who...
Sei Thakur Kishori Ramanji Maharaj and ors. Vs. Pandit Duley Ram and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All474; 78Ind.Cas.226
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court. It is based on a mortgage, dated the 21st of February 1910. It was executed by one Musammat Sohan Dei as the certificated guardian of her minor son Naunit Lal. Naunit Lal, at the date of the mortgage, was about 19 years old. Subsequently, on attaining majority, he repudiated the mortgage and transferred a portion of the property mortgaged to the plaintiffs-appellants, to several persons including the respondent Duley Earn. The present plaintiffs then brought a suit in 1914 against Naunit Lal, his mother and her agent to obtain a declaration that the mortgage of the 21st of February 1910 was binding on Naunit Lal. The suit sucoeeded. The mortgage in question was executed on an alleged sanction given by the District Judge for the transfer. On the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, being instituted, 16 persons were imp leaded as defendants. They were Naunit Lal, h...
Musammat Basanti Vs. Maqsud Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All528; 83Ind.Cas.730
Stuart, J.1. There is no force in this application. Under Section 247 of Local Act II of 1916 it is the Magistrate who takes cognizance of the offence upon information received. So the case is not one instituted upon a complaint within the meaning of the word 'complaint ' in Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application, I direct that proceedings continue and return the papers....