Allahabad Court February 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. Ganpat Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All537
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision in a case in which the learned Sessions Judge, acting under the provisions of Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, has set aside an order of discharge passed under Section 209 and directed the commitment of the accused to the court of session. The case was one under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, triable exclusively by the court of session, in which a patwari was accused of intentionally framing an incorrect record with a view to cause injury to the complainant. The Magistrate who heard the case came to the conclusion that on the evidence befere him there was absolutely no material on which he could hold that the patwari intentionally prepared a wrong record or that he did so with the intention of injuring the complainant. He was indeed so strongly satisfied that the prosecution was without foundation that he directed proceedings to be taken against the complainant under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Holding this...
Fateh Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All533
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal is confined to a 13 biswas and odd share in the village Chalautha which was held by Musammat Chetni, the widow of Kanhai Lal, and the question for consideration is whether she had made a valid suphal sankalp of the same in favour of Lachhman 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 life-time of his father Shib Dayal. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that Shib Dayal and Kantoai Lal lived separately, that the property in dispute was the separate property of Kanhai Lal, and that on his death it devolved on Musammat Chetni as a Hindu widow. They denied that any gift had been made or could have been validly made by Musammat Chetni in favour of Lachhman Prasad. Shib Dayal died in 1902. Musammat 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 claimed...
Govind Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Das Dusadh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All666; 81Ind.Cas.43
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur setting aside the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. It is not alleged that the reasons given for dismissing the complaint were insufficient but the learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that the District Magistrate who passed the order had no jurisdiction. The complaint was originally before a Deputy Magistrate. The Deputy Magistrate considered that there were reasons why he should not try it and sent the case to the District Magistrate with a view to the District Magistrate transferring it to another Court. Instead of transferring it to another Court the District Magistrate after examining the record came to the conclusion that the complaint was wholly without foundation and dismissed it. In my opinion the District Magistrate was sufficiently seised of the case and the order passed by him was not passed without jurisdiction.2. I accordingly acce...
Ganpat Lal Vs. Emperor Through Kausila Prasad Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.315
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision in a case in which the learned Sessions Judge acting under the provisions of Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, has set aside an order of discharge passed under Section 209 and directed the commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. The case was one under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, triable exclusively by the Court of Session, in which a patwari was accused of intentionally framing an incorrect recoijl with a view to cause injury to the complainant. The Magistrate who heard the case came to the conclusion that on the evidence before him there was absolutely no material on which he could hold that the patwari intentionally prepared a wrong record or that he did so with the intention of injuring the complainant. He was indeed so strongly satisfied that the prosecution was without foundation thai he directed proceedings to he taken against the complainant under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Holding this...
Superior Bank Limited Vs. Budh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.1028
1. Execution Second Appeal No. 682 of 1923 and Civil Revision No, 96 of 1923 have been connected and have been filed from the same order. The revision has been filed by way of a precaution in case it beheld that no, second appeal lies.2. A mortgage decree was in execution and the 17th of August 1922 was fixed for sale of the properties mortgaged. A day before the sale, namely, on the, 16th of, August two of the judgment debtors put in an application that one of the houses should not be sold till the other two houses had been put up for sale and the decree had not been satisfied. This application was rejected on that very date by the Execution Court at Muzaffarnagar. That Court was subordinate to the Court of the District Judge at Meerut. On the 17th of August 1922 an appeal was preferred before the District Judge from, the order dismissing the judgment-debtors' application and on the same date an application for stay of execution was also filed. On that date the learned District Judge ...
Bhagwana Vs. Shib Sametri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All199
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in suit for ejectment from two shops belonging to the temple of Savitriji of which the plaintiff is the manager. Most of the questions in dispute in the Courts below are now concluded by findings of fact. This appeal has been urged before me on three grounds.2. That the notice to quit given by the plaintiff was invalid on the ground that it did not terminate on the expiry of a, month of the tenancy as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. That the notice was invalid under the Full Bench ruling in 7 All. 899, because it gave the defendant an option to pay enhanced rent.4. That the notice was invalid because-it was not signed by the plaintiff but by his general attorney and because the heading of the notice does not state that the plaintiff was giving notice in his capacity as manager.5. There is no force in any of these pleas. The first point was not raised anywhere in either of the two Courts below, and the appellant...
Gaya Prasad and anr. Vs. Firm Mathu Lal Budha Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All202
1. We think that the learned Judge went a little too far in cancelling the order of the 15th of July 1922. We think we understand what his intention was, but it has left the matter in somewhat of a muddle, because, if the order of the 15th of July is cancelled, the application ceases to exist, and the notice to the parties and the arbitrators is no longer effective. On the other hand the parties before us are agreed that the application has not been disposed of and is still pending. All we can do, therefore, is while suggesting that the arbitrators-shall not go on with their arbitration while the application to revoke the submission is pending, to cancel the order of Mr. Holme of the 13th of August 1923, and 3 to send the matter book in order that the application for revocation be heard and determined at a very early date. If the District Court of Cawnpore possesses a copy of the last edition of Russell on Arbitration, namely the 10th edition, 1919, edited by Mr. Hudson, it will find i...
Jagarnath Pande Vs. Sanmukh Pande and anr. and Ram Baran Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All531
Sulaiman and Mukerji, JJ.1. Second Appeal No. 1 of 1922 and Second Appeal No. 2 of 1922 arise out of two independent suits Nos. 416 and 440 of 1920, respectively, which were suits brought by Hindu sons to set aside a deed of sale, dated the 13th of December, 1915 in the first case and two mortgage deeds dated the 4th of September, 1905 and the 28th of June, 1912, in the second case. In these second appeals, we are not now concerned with the mortgage deed of the 28th of June, 1912.2. As regards the sale-deed both the courts below have come to the conclusion that out of the consideration of Rs. 1,000 for which it was executed by the plaintiff's father, Rs. 500 were paid in order to pay off the amount due on a previous usufructuary mortgage deed which has been held not to be an antecedent debt, and out of the balance of Rs. 500, Rs. 200 have not been proved to have been paid as recited in the deed.3. We may say at once that the view that the amount due on the previous mortgage deed was no...
Mahadei Vs. Bageshar Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All525
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises Musammat Mahadei claimed certain property as the daughter of one Ram Din Rai, alleged to have died as a separated Hindu. There were a number of defendants impleaded, but the suit was contested only by one defendant, viz., Bageshar Rai. He, we understand, was a half brother of Ram Din Rai, the two being the sons of one Jai Narain Rai, deceased, by different wives. In Bageshar Rai's written statement certain defences were set up which all the courts up to the, present stage have found to have been false defences. Musammat Mahadei was put to proof of the fact that she was the daughter of Ram Din Rai and the finding is that she has established this fact. It was also pleaded that Bageshar Rai was joint with Ram Din Rai at the time of the latter's death. The finding in favour of the plaintiff on this point is no longer challenged. It so happened, however, that as part of her evidence on the issue of joint...
Bageshar Rai Vs. Mst. Mahadei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All461; 79Ind.Cas.514
1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises Mst. Mahadei claimed certain property as the daughter of one Bam Din Rai, alleged to have died as a separated Hindu. There were a number of defendants impleaded but the suit was contested only by one defendant, viz., Bageshar Rai He, we understand, was a half brother of Earn Din Rai, the two being the sons of one Jai Narain Rai, deceased, by different wives. In Bageshar Rai's written statement certain defences were set up which all the Courts up to the present stage have found to have been (sic) defences. Musammat Mahadei wss put to proof of the fact that she was the daughter of Ram Din Rai and the finding is that she has established this fact. It was also pleaded that Bageshar Rai was joint with Ram Din Rai at the time of the latter's death. The finding in favour of the plaintiff on this point is no longer challenged. It so happened, however, that as part of her evidence on the issue of jointness or separation the plaintiff put in a certa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »