Allahabad Court February 1924 Judgments
YamIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.705
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal appeal by Yamin and Barkat from an order convicting them under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment each.2. There can be no doubt that on the 24th of August 1923 a very serious and deplorable communal riot took place at Saharanpur. It is neither necessary to go into the history of that riot nor to give any details of it. The present appellants were charged with having been concerned in the looting of the shop of the complainant Rupchand. Rupchand's statement is that at about 3 or 4 o'clock on that afternoon he was at his shop when a great gathering of Muhammadans took place in the bazar. They were taking out their akharas. He says that he saw a crowed of 50 or 60 Muhammadans coming from the Halwai's quarter crying ' Kafiron ko mar lo' When he saw them he naturally got frightened, locked his shop and went straight away to his home which is at some distance from the shop. He did not actually see his s...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Sartaj Singh Vs. Emperor Through Raja Sarda Mahesh Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.699
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application for transfer of a criminal case.2. A report was made by one Gopal Sonar against Shah Muhammad tinder Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Inspector Sartaj Singh challaned this case and sent it to the Court of the Tahsildar of Dudhi who is a Second Class Magistrate. On an application for transfer made to the District Magistrate the latter transferred that case to his own file. After having tried the case he discharged the accused Shah Muhammad under an order dated the 12th of January 1924. A perusal of that judgment will show at once that the learned District Magistrate formed a very adverse opinion of the conduct of Sartaj Singh He even was inclined to accept the view that the proceedings were a deliberate act of revenge engineered by Sartaj Singh with the connivance of Gopal Sonar and a. certain Janardan Singh constable. He suspected that the whole case had been deliberately intended to involve the accused in a complete ruin. He also comm...
Tag this Judgment!Chandar Sahai Vs. Durga Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All682; (1924)ILR46All538
Sulaiman, J.1. This civil revision arises under the following circumstances:A civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the court of the Munsif at Kasganj. The summons was served personally on the defendant and the 8th of November, 1921, was fixed for the settlement of issues. On that date, however, the defendant did not appear. The court then passed an order that the case should be proceeded with ex parte and fixed the 28th of November for final hearing. On the 28th of November, 1921, the defendant again did not appear and the suit was decreed ex parte. The defendant, however, did appear later on in the court and put in an application under Order IX, Rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. He filed an affidavit in support of the application, explaining why he was not able to appear on the former date and why he appeared late on that date. The court fixed the 14th of January, 1922, for the disposal of this application. On that date the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Sahai Vs. Durga Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.323
Sulaiman, J.1. This Civil Revision arises uuder the following circumstances:A civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif at Kasganj. The summons was served personally on the defendant and the 8th of November 1921 was fixed for the settlement of issues. On that date, however, the defendant did not appear. The Court then passed an order that the case should be proceeded with ex parte and fixed the 28th of November for final hearing, On the 28th of November 1921 the defendant again did not appear and the suit was decreed ex parte. The defendant, however, did appear later on in the Court and put in an application under Order IX, Rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. He filed an affidavit in support of this application explaining why he was not able to appear on the former date and why ho appeared late on that date. The Court fixed the 14th of January 1922 for the disposal of this application. On that date the defendant aga...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhri Har Sarup Vs. Brijnandan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All479; 79Ind.Cas.587
Sulaiman, J. 1. The only point raised in this case is that the present claim is bared by the principle of res judicata. The plaintiffs claimed to be the doblidars of the plot in dispute. Mr. Aziz admits that 'doblidar' is the local name for a rent-free grantee. Previous to this suit the plaintiffs had brought a suit in the Revenue Court against the defendant alleging that the defendant was their tenant. The Revenue Court held that the defendant was not the plaintiffs' tenant at all and directed that the plaintiffs should sue the defendant for possession in the Civil Court. The only point on which the judgment of the Revenue Court is conclusive is that no relation of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties. That judgment did not decide as to whether or not the plaintiffs were the rent free grantees.2. In the present civil suit the plaintiffs in no way tried to get round the finding of the Revenue Court that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. They...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Zaitun and anr. Vs. Shaikh Kommal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.907
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance and the defendants were three; the defendant No. 1 Musammat Zaitun was the alleged wife, the defendant No. 2 her paternal uncle and the defendant No. 3 her paternal grandfather. The father of the girl is dead. The plaintiffs case was that he married the girl on the 21st of September 1918, and went away to Calcutta. On coming back, he wanted that his wife should come and live with him but her uncle and grandfather prevented her from coming to him.2. The uncle of the girl did not enter appearance. The defendant No. 1 was described in the plaint as a major and her age was given as 19 years. It was objected to on he behalf that, she was a minor and thereupon, the plaintiff obtained the appointment of her grandfather as her guardian for this suit. Two written statements were filed, one on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and the other on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kantoo Singh and ors. Vs. Imdad Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.665
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit foe arrears of rent under a kabuliat. The plots in dispute are apparently ex proprietary land though there is some dispute about this. The Court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that the rent was not fixed in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act and Section 10 of the Tenancy Act. Two points have been urged in appeal,--(1) That the lease included the zemindari share as well as sir plots and, therefore, rent should have been decreed in respect of the former.(2) That the Court below has not found that the rent reserved under the lease is in excess of the rate payable by an ex-proprietary tenant and that the suit should not have been decided without a finding on this point.2. On the first point there is a definite finding of the Court below that the plaintiffs leased to the defendants the whole of the zemindari including sir at a rent of upwards of Rs. 90 per annum.3. On the latter point the Court belo...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Raja Fateh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.654
1. The dispute in this appeal is confined to a 13 bisteas and odd share in the village Ohalautha which was held by Mst. Chetni, the widow of Kanhai Lal, and the questions for consideration are whether she had made a valid Suyhal Sankalap of the same in favour of Laohman Prasad, a priest of Gaya, so as to bind the members of the family, to which her husband belonged or his reversionary heirs.2. Kanhai Lal had died in the lifetime of his father Shib Dayal. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that Shib Dayal and Kanhai Lal lived separately, that the property in dispute was the separate property of Kanhai Lal, and that on his death it devolved on Mst. Chetni as a Hindu widow. They denied that any gift had been made or could have been validly made by Mst. Chetni in favour of Laohman Prasad. Shib Dayal died in 1902, Mst. Chetni died in 1916. One of the plaintiffs, Ram Lal, claimed to be the son of one of the sisters of Kanhai Lal, and also olaimed to have acquired by purchase the shares of ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Sajid-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Sayed Hidayat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.896
Mukerji, J.1. An issue was remanded by this Court in the following language under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 25, Civil Procedure Code:Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any right of easement to flow water under the provisions of Clause (f), Section 13 of the Easements Act?2. The facts of the case are stated in my judgment ordering the remand and need nob be recapitulated. The learned Subordinate Judge has answered the issue in the affirmative and exception has been taken to this finding.3. It will be remembered that the case, as at first instituted, was based on acquisition of the right of easement by prescription. This case was changed, later on, and the right of easement was claimed under the provisions of Section 13, Clause (f) of the Easements Act. So the definite question, which I have to answer before me is, 'whether under the said provisions the plaintiffs are entitled to the casement?' This easement involves the flow of water through a permanent drain. The water is o...
Tag this Judgment!B. Bhagwan Das Vs. Allan Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All28
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on mortgage. The mortgage was executed in 1909 by Dalpat Rai arm his younger son Shadi Lal. The suit was contested by Dalpat Rai's elder son, the appellant Bhagwan Das, on the ground that it was executed without legal necessity.2. It has now been found that the property was joint family property. The plaintiff produced evidence which the learned 'Munsif accepted as proving the existence of legal necessity. The learned District Judge was unable to rely on this evidence?' because in his opinion it proved nothing more than a representation by the mortgagors of the existence of the necessity. This does not appear to be strictly accurate. The evidence of one of the witnesses as quoted by the learned Munsif shows the existence of actual necessity at the time. This witness who was an Honorary Magistrate gave evidence that the mortgagors at the time of execution of the deed were in straitened circumstances and in need of money for their s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »