Allahabad Court April 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.
Ram NaraIn Vs. Emperor Through Shib Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All566; 83Ind.Cas.503
Daniels, J.1. The applicant if this case has been convicted of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that he published a pamphlet in Hindi defaming the complainant. Both in the heading and in the body of this pamphlet he describes the complainant as a sharif badmash, which has been aptly translated by the Court below as a 'gentleman scoundrel'. He says in the pamphlet that he has issued a previous pamphlet giving a summary of the complainant's evil doings and challenging a prosecution for defamation, and he describes him as one of a gang of badmashes who in the Sambat year 1966 established an unlawful Court in the market to the injury of the Government Courts and, as he further says in a portion of the pamphlet not re-produced in the charge, thereby inflicted great injustice on the public. There can be no doubt that the pamphlet was grossly defamatory in character and in view of the fact that the Chamber of Commerce which is described by the accused as a C...
Qalandar Singh Vs. Muhammad Raza Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All624; 83Ind.Cas.687
Boys, J.1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri recommending that the acquittal of one of the two parties in the cross riot cases be set aside on the ground that the finding that the persons acquitted had exercised a right of private defence was wrong. It is, I believe, not in accordance with the practice of this High Court to interfere on a reference by a Sessions Judge where the Government could have appealed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has not done so. I am confirmed in this view by the Government Advocate. In this case the acquittal was brought to the attention of the Sessions, Judge by an application in revision by a private complainant though he himself says further that even apart from such application he would have thought it desirable to refer the case to the High Court in consequence of the view that he had formed and expressed in trying the other appeal in the cross-case. It was similarly open to the, applicant to move the Distric...
Lala Sheo Ghulam Vs. Salik Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.158
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for profits under Section 164 of the Agra Tenancy Act against the defendant lambardar. The body of the plaint mentioned the year 1327 Fasli only but the account of the amount claimed attached to the plaint shows that the claim was one for arrears collected in respect of the years 1324, 1325 and 1326 Fasli and for the gross profits of 1327 Fasli, The Court of first instance found that the defendant had collected certain arrears for previous years and that he was grossly negligent in the year 1327 Fasli, having collected less than one-third of the gross rental for that year. Nevertheless in view of the ruling in the case of Chhabraji Kunwar v. Ganga Singh 60 Ind. Cas. 643 : 43 A. 29 : 2 U.P.L.R. (A.) 272 : 18 A.L.J., it felt bound to disallow the claim for the arrears of previous years and only granted a decree on the basis of the gross rental for the year 1327 Fasli. The learned District Judge when confronted by the same ...
Brij Bihari Lal and ors. Vs. Muhammad Nuh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All656
Mukerji and Dalal, JJ.1. It will be useful to give below a pedigree showing the relationship of the plaintiffs among themselves and with the transferors of the property in suit which is in dispute in this case:(sic) BAKHSH.|_____________________________________________________________| |Sarupa (wife) Dulati (wife)| |Ajudhia Prasad, son, Lalta Prasad, sondied 1870 |Badam Kunwar, wife, Brij Bhikan Lal, son.died 1896.|_____________________________________________________| | |Nannhi, daughter, Manni, pre-deceased Gaura, daughter,died 28-9-18. Badam Kunwar. died 1911.=Bindesri Prasad. =Raj Bahadur.| |___________________ ______________________| | | |Brij Bihari Fateh Bahadur Banke Bihari Lal Brijmohan Lal(Plaintiff (Plaintiff (Plaintiff (PlaintiffNo. 1) No. 2.) No. 3.) No. 4.)2. The plaintiffs are the sons of two daughters of one Ajudhia Prasad who died in 1870. At the time of his death he left a widow, Musammat Badam Kunwar and three daughters Musammat Nannhi, Musammat Manni and Musammat Ga...
Sheikh Muhammad Nuh Vs. Brij Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All939; 82Ind.Cas.5
1. It will be useful to give below a pedigree showing the relationship of the plaintiffs among themselves and with the transferors of the property in suit which is in dispute in this case: SITLA BAKHSH. ____________________________|_____________________ | | Sarupa, Dulari, (wife) (wife) | | Ajodhya Prasad, | son, died 1870. | Badam Kunwar, wife, | died 1896. | _______|_____________________________________ | | | | | Nanuhi, Manni, Gaura, | daughter, predeceased daughter | died 28th Badam Kunwar. died 1911 | September = Raj | 1918= Bahadur, | Bindesri Prasad, | | ______|___________________ | | | | | | Brij Bihari, Fateh Bahadur, | | (plaintiff (plaintiff | | No. 1.) No. 2.) | | __________________________| | _______________|_____________ | | | | Banke Bihari Lal, Brij Mohan LaL, | plaintiff No. 3. plaintiff No. 4. | _________________________________| | Lalta Prasad, son. | Brij Bhikna Lal son.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of two daughters of one Ajodhia Prasad who died in 1870. At the t...
Ambika Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Kishen Barnawar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All923; 84Ind.Cas.2
Neave, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The suit was for joint possession over certain plots of land belonging to the defendants and the plaintiffs jointly. Other reliefs were prayed for, but these were not granted and do not form the subject of the present appeal. The First Court granted the plaintiffs a decree for joint possession, but the lower Appellate Court, while holding in the plaintiffs favour that they were entitled as joint owners, granted a decree for joint possession in respect of certain plots only. In respect of others it found that the defendants had been in possession for a long time and held that it would, therefore, be improper to give actual joint possession to the plaintiffs. It accordingly modified the decree of the lower Court in respect of these plots.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants relies on a ruling of this Court in Jagarnath Ojha v. Ram Phal 13 Ind. Cas. 79 : 34 A. 150 : 8 A.L.J. 1312 in which it was held that a plaintiff who is entitled to posse...
Gauri Shankar Vs. Mithai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All750; 84Ind.Cas.264
Neave, J.1. These are two plaintiff's appeals arising out of suits for arrears of rent and recovery of possession of certain houses. The plaintiff-appellant is the same in both and the cases have been argued together. Both will be governed by this order.2. The plaintiff-appellant is the owner of the compound in which the two houses in suit are situated. His case was that the defendants were tenants from year to year and liable to ejectment. He' also alleged that they had not paid their rent, and sued for arrears. The defence was that the defendants were licensees who had obtained a license from the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant under which they had built the houses and were entitled to continue in possession of them. The First Court allowed the, plaintiffs claim and ordered the defendants to be ejected. The lower Appellate Court, however, accepted the defendants plea and held that it was proved that the land was leased to the defendants for building purposes though no writte...
Kashmiri Lal and ors. Vs. Musammat Kishen Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All563; 83Ind.Cas.650
Daniels, J.1. These are five applications for revision of an order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad giving sanction for the prosecution of the applicants under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, the sanction having been refused by the Subordinate Judge, The main ground in revision is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant the sanction inasmuch as the amended Code of Criminal Procedure had come into force on the date when it was given. The evidence alleged to be false had been given and the proceedings under Section 195 had been commenced long before the amended Code came into force. The Subordinate Judge's order was also passed under the old Code and the application to the Appellate Court was pending when the new Code came into force. The case is, therefore, governed by Section 6 (e) of the General Clauses Act. The applicants had incurred a liability to have their prosecution for false evidence sanctioned and the complainant on his application being dismissed...
Raghunandan Ram, Gopi Ram Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Compa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All692; (1924)ILR46All649
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a claim by the plaintiff against the G.I.P Railway for the value of two bales of cloth sent by that railway from Bombay to Rasra and not delivered. Three bales were consigned, of which only one was delivered. The railway pleaded in defence that they were protected by a risk-note in form B under which the goods were consigned. The plaintiff denied the execution of the risk-note. The trial court decreed the suit on a finding that execution of the risk-note was not proved. The risk-note form was signed on behalf of the plaintiff by one Shankar Balaji. It appears that this man signs a very large number of risk-notes and his evidence is that when the details are being agreed upon, he sometimes signs the printed form and leaves the details to be filled in by the railway clerk afterwards. These details include the number of the rail receipt, the nature of the goods and the stations from which and to which the goods are consigned. The trial co...
Thakur Sri Gat Ashram Narainji Vs. Jaishth Madho Acharia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All504; (1924)ILR46All651; 80Ind.Cas.406
Sulaiman and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the income derivable from the village, Khasrai Bhajanpura and the question for consideration is iwhether the right to receive an eight anna share of the said village belongs to the temple of Thakur Sri Gat Ashram Narainji at Muttra.2. The temple in question was constructed by Pandit Pran Nath Shastri, a learned divine, a long time ago. He died in 1830. The income derived from the temple and the endowments appertaining thereto used to be applied, after his death, to the maintenance of religious services at the temple and the support of the Acharis or heirs of the founder. For a considerable time the endowed property was under the management of Raja Pitambar Singh, the then proprietor of the Awah estate. Some time in 1850 disputes appear to have arisen between the heirs of the deceased founder and a reference was made to arbitration, which resulted in an award by which the proportion of the income to be applied to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »