Allahabad Court May 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.
Tulshi Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.476
Boys, J.1. This Criminal Revision No. 210, and the other Criminal Revisions Nos. 205, 206, 209 and 211, deal with two incidents of satta gambling. The cases Nos. 206, 209, 210 and 211 are the cases of Tulshi Das, Lachmi Narain, Budha, Thakar Das and Nahal Chand. The case No. 205 is that of Ghisa, Pershadi, Manohar and Kallu.2. To deal now with the Case No. 210, this man, Tulshi Das was charged with a number of others with gambling in the satta form, i.e., with betting or taking bets on opium price figures in a public place--an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act III of 1867, as amended by the U.P. Act I of 1917. The section, as amended, reads: 'Any person found gambling in any public street, place or thoroughfare' and by the same Acts 'gaming' includes 'wagering'. The nine men, whose cases, are before me, were in their respective two groups, charged in effect with being book makers, i.e., with keeping premises for the purposes of betting and themselves taking bets therein. The...
Multan Singh and ors. Vs. Pudhan Man Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All854; 84Ind.Cas.74
1. After reciting the facts the judgment proceeded: It is argued that the words in Sub-rule 1(b), 'or for any other substantial cause' would justify the Appeal Court in entertaining an application of this character; and if a party can satisfy the Court that since the filing of the appeal he has discovered further evidence that was not known or available to him and could not have been discovered with due diligence during the pendency of the appeal even up to the date of the judgment, then the Court can entertain the application.2. In Kessowji Issur v. Great Indian Peninsula Railway 34 I.A. 115 : 31 B. 381 the provisions of Section 568 of the Code of 1882 were considered by their Lordships of the Privy Council. In that case, pending the appeal, the Trial Judge had refused an application of the defendants under Section 623 of C.P.C. for a new trial on the ground of discovery of new matter. An application was then made under Section 568 of C.P.C. and the Appellate Court ordered that furthe...
Gobind Ram Vs. Naubat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All762; 83Ind.Cas.719
Boys, J.1. This is a case of three accused, a father and his son and a joint tenant of the father against whom the present applicant asks for an order under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is an admitted fact that they were ejected from a certain holding for failure to pay arrears of rent and that on the 16th of April 1923, formal possession was given to the landlord. One of the landlord's karinda Shamlal filed a complaint under Sections 352 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code in which he alleged that when he had gone to plough the holding on the 8th of July 1923, he was resisted and an assault was committed upon him by these three accused. The main accused Naubat set up a defence which is, frequently, set up in these cases, but which I find it difficult to understand any Court listening to or allowing to be set up. Naubat's defence was 'though formal possession was given to the landlord, I, as a matter of fact, have never given up actual possession.' This is a state of ...
Mangan Lal Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All849; 83Ind.Cas.969
1. The plaintiff-appellant made over two parcels of goods to the G. I. P. Railway for despatch to Seoni. By mistake the goods were actually addressed to Samni, a station on the B. B. & C. I. Railway. The plaintiff brought two suits in the Court of Small Causes at Agra. The reliefs are -not very clearly stated in the plaint, tout they amount to a claim for damages for non-delivery calculated on the value of the goods despatched. Both suits were dismissed, the Court holding that the plaintiff was himself to blame for having written the address in Hindi and not in English with the result that the Booking Clerk made a mistake. It also held that the plaintiff ought to have joined the B. B. & C. I. Railway as defendants to the suits. The plaintiff then filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises in the Court of the Munsif of Agra. In it he joined together both the causes of action of his previous suits and so brought the valuation well above the 500 rupees limit. In this suit there...
Ram Jatan Tiwari Vs. Radha Kishun Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All15
Neave, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage of one plot (No. 128) of his occupancy tenancy executed in 1880 by one Bakhauri.2. It is admitted that Bakhauri's occupancy holding consisted of 6 plots and that he died about 25 years ago. It is further admitted that the appellants are in possession of the five other plots of the holding, but that the plots in suit are held by the defendants as mortgagees.3. The appellants' ease is that they are the heirs of Bakhauri and as such entitled to redeem this mortgage. The main defence raised was that the appellants were not the heirs of Bakhauri; the first Court found in the plaintiffs' favour, but the lower appellate Court dismissed their suit finding that though they were the collaterals of Bakhauri, they were not his heirs within the meaning of Section 22 of the Tenancy Act as they were not proved to have been joint with him in the cultivation of the holding at the time of his death.4. It has been ...
Madho Lal Vs. Banarsi Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All98
Neave, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the District Judge of Benares upholding the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge admitting a certificate for pleader's fee which was said to have bean Sled after the first day of hearing. The facts are that the certificate was filed on the 24th of April, 1922, the issues ware framed on that date, and the case was fixed for final disposal on the 12th of May. The rule governing the question is Rule 1 of Chapter 21 of the General Rules (civil). As it stood at the time, this rule prescribed that no fee to any legal practitioner should be included in any decree or order unless the Judge was satisfied that the fee was paid at or before the commencement of the hearing of the suit. An explanation appended to the rule ran By the word 'hearing' is meant the hearing referred to in Order 18, Rule 2(1)...but not the day to which such hearing is adjourned.' Order 18, Rule 2(1) provides that 'on the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or on any...
Muhammad Raza Khan and ors. Vs. Muhammmad Askari Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All470
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.1. In this case which raised a question of some importance, we regret that we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge. He says in his judgment that he can find no case in the official reports in which the principle contended for by the appellant has been affirmed, or applied, by the courts in India. In this, we think, he was misled. It appears that] the relevant authorities were not quoted to him. The suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground that no one except the Municipal Board, in any particular place in which a public way is obstructed, has any right to complain of the obstruction in a civil court. We think that this is incorrect, and lays down the true principle too narrowly. The case is important, for this reason, because Municipal Boards, at any rate in these Provinces, are young, untrained and apparently not too well-equipped for the discharge of the difficult duties which they have to perform. For ex...
Jagannath Vs. Gajadhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All775
Walsh, Acting C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench, having been amended during the argument, is as follows: 'Whether a time-barred debt can constitute a valid antecedent debt as consideration for a sale deed given by a father of a joint Hindu family alienating joint ancestral family property?'2. I entertain no doubt that that question ought to be answered in the affirmative and I do not propose to add to the reasons given by my brothers.Piggott, J.3. This question has been referred to a Full Bench by reason of a conflict in authority, understood to exist between the decision in Ram Kishan Rai v. Chhedi Rai (1922) I.L.R. 44 All. 628, and certain older decisions of this Court, more particularly Dalip Singh v. Kundan Lal (1913) I.L.R. 35 All. 207. In this latter case the learned Judges quoted with approval and purported to follow; an older decision of a Bench of this Court, of which I was myself a member, in the case of Indar Singh v. Sarju Singh (1911) 8 A.L.J. 1099. I apprehe...
Madho Lal Vs. Banarsi Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.73
Neave, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the District Judge of Benares upholding the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge admitting a certificate for Pleader's fee which was said to have been filed after the first day of hearing. The facts are that the certificate was filed on the 24th of April, 1922, the issues were framed on that date, and the case was fixed for final disposal on the 12th of May. The Rule governing the question is Rule 1 of Chapter 21 of the General Rules (Civil). As it stood at the time, this rule prescribed that no fee to any legal practitioner should be included in any decree or order unless the Judge was satisfied that the fee was paid at or before the commencement of the hearing of the suit. An explanation appended to the rule ran, 'By the word 'hearing' is meant the hearing referred to in Order XVIII, Rule 2(1)... but not the day to which such hearing is adjourned.' Order XVIII, Rule 2(1) provides that 'on the day fixed for the hearing of the suit...
Muhammad Raza Khan and ors. Vs. Muhammad Askari Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.304
1. In this case which raised a question of some importance, we regret that 'we find Ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge. He says in his judgment that he can find no case in the official reports in which the principle contended for by the appellant has been affirmed, or applied by the Courts in India. In this, we think he was misled. It appears that the relevant authorities were not quoted: to him. The suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on the ground that no one, except the Municipal Board, in any particular place in which a public way is obstructed, has any right to complain of the obstruction in a Civil Court. We think that this is incorrect, and lays down the true principle too narrowly. (sic) is important, for this reason, (sic) Boards, at any rate in these Provinces, are young, untrained and apparently not too well-equipped for the ' discharge of the difficult duties which they (sic) perform. For example; in the district (sic) which this case co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »