Allahabad Court August 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.
Har NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All239; 84Ind.Cas.706
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by one Har Narain who has been convicted of an offence under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Oode under proceedings taken under Section 480 of the Criminal Procedure Oode. The sentence inflicted is a fine of Rs. 200, in default one month's simple imprisonment. There is also an application in revision on behalf of Har Narain. This was filed against the contingency that no appeal lay. There can be no doubt that an appeal lies and therefore the application in revision is rejected.2. The facts given in the judgment by which the appellant was convicted are more or less summary, but they do indicate what really happened. To understand the whole circumstance it would be necessary to know the facts of the case which were before the Sessions Judge.3. It appears that six persons were charged with murder and the learned Sessions Judge was hearing the case against those men. The person murdered was one Misri. Badri Praaad was his brother. Badri Prasad said, among ot...
Sita Ram and anr. Vs. Beni Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All221; 84Ind.Cas.790
1. This is a second appeal in insolvency proceedings. One Bam Prasad was declared an insolvent on 18th May, 1914, and a Receiver was appointed on 3rd June, 1914. At that time the insolvent's father, Basanti Lal, was dead, while his grandfather Girdhari Lal and three brothers, Shambhu Nath and others of his father Basanti Lal were alive. The receiver desired to take possession of a portion of the property in the possession of Girdhari Lal on the ground that it was joint ancestral property and that Ram Prasad had a share therein. Girdhari Lal objected and the insolvent Court held, on 10th September, 1915, that the property was the self-acquired property of Girdhari Lal in which Ram Prasad had no share. After the death of Girdhari Lal, the Receiver claimed ownership by right of succession of the insolvent to a one-fourth of the property left by Girdhari Lal, whereupon he was stopped by Shambhu Nath and others who claimed the entire property as beneficiaries under a will of Girdhari Lal. T...
Moti Lal Vs. Yar Muhammed
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All275; 85Ind.Cas.756
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree of the Small Cause Court, Cawnpore, dismissing a suit for rent of a shop. It appears that the ownership of the shop is in dispute between the plaintiff Moti Lal and one Kanhaiya Lal. The plaintiff gave a lease to the defendant, who entered into occupation of the shop. Shortly afterwards the defendant was ejected by Kanhaiya Lal. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has dismissed the suit holding (1) that the prima facie title to the shop is in Kanhaiya Lal, and (2) that the plaintiff failed to secure to the defendant possession over the property. By the second finding the learned Judge evidently means to find that there has been a breach of the covenant implied by Section 108(a)(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, for he finds earlier in the judgment that the defendant was ejected after entering inte occupation of the property.2. As to the first of these findings, the applicant rightly objects that under Section 11...
Emperor Vs. Ram Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All292; 85Ind.Cas.942
Boys, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Jalaun asking this Court to set aside the conviction of one Earn Din under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and ordering his retrial solely with the idea that he may be given a more severe sentence, the desirability of which is indicated by the fact that it has since been discovered that the accused has no less than six previous convictions. This in effect amounts to asking this Court to set aside the conviction because the Crown has since discovered further evidence which would be relevant on the question of sentence. It is certain that, ordinarily speaking, I do not say never, this Court would not set aside a conviction at the instance of the accused on the ground that he had not led evidence in his defence which it was possible for him to have led if he had exercised proper diligence. How much more so would it be improper under similar circumstances to set aside a conviction at the instance of the Crown. The police rep...
Dulli and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All305; 85Ind.Cas.714
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal filed by four appellants. The first three have been convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each, and the fourth under Sections 397 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to eight years' rigorous imprisonment. It has also been ordered that the sentences of the first two appellants should run concurrently with previous sentences passed on them in other dacoity cases.2. Quite irrespective of the question of fact involved, the order on the face of it is defective in several particulars. In the first place, Section 897 of the Indian Penal Code does not contain any 'substantive offence, but merely prescribes the minimum punishment which can be passed if robbery or dacoity is attended with certain circumstances mentioned therein. It follows that a conviction merely under Section 397 has no meaning. The conviction in the case of a dacoity should be under Section 395 read with Section 397 o...
Parbhu Dayal Singh and anr. Vs. Tirbhuwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All425; 85Ind.Cas.788
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of out for 1326 to 1328 F.A. previous suit was brought for arrears of rent for the same period against the present defendants. One of the defendants, Tirbhuwan Singh, attended on the date fixed for its hearing but he filed no defence and was not examined the plaintiffs and the other defendants were absent. The suit was therefore dismissed for default.2. The sole question for consideration in this case is whether the present suit is maintainable in respect of the same cause of action under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Courts below have dismissed the claim, holding that the plaintiff was precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action, because one of the contesting defendants had attended, when the suit was dismissed for default. Order IX, Rule 3 lays down that where neither party appears, when a suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that she suit be di...
Lallu Singh and ors. Vs. Raghunandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All794; 85Ind.Cas.690
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raised somewhat important questions of law. The plaintiffs are the Respondents Nos. 1-4. The remaining respondents were more or less fro forma defendants in the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen. The principal defendants are the appellants. Plaintiff sued for redemption of a mortgage made in 1889, which was supplemented by a mortgage of 24th July 1895. The total mortgage-money for the two mortgages is a sum of Rs. 100. The original mortgagors were two persons Sahai and Jokhu. Sahai's line is extinct. The plaintiffs are the son and grandson of Jokhu. The mortgage was made in favour of one Shiv Kumar, whose son and grandsons are the defendants Nos. 1 to 3.2. Various defences were raised. It has been found by the Court below that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem, but the appellants are entitled to cut away the trees that they have planted after the, mortgage. The defendants contended that they being the zamindars, the tenancy which was mortgaged has ...
Phool Singh Vs. Mussammat Gobind Koer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.399
1. This is an unfortunate case, on the facts found. The plaintiff was the minor son of one Gitam Singh, During his minority his father granted a perpetual lease of certain agricultural land on terms highly favourable to the lessee and unfavourable to himself. It seems to have been also found by two Courts that undue influence was used by two of the defendants in obtaining this lease from the plaintiff's father. After the death of his father the plaintiff, acting through his next friend, endeavoured to obtain from the Revenue Court the ejectment of the defendants, admitting them to be his tenants but claiming that they had no higher right than those of tenants at will. When this lease was set up the attempt at ejectment in the Revenue Court failed. The plaintiff then brought the present suit asking for a declaration that the lease is not binding upon him, either on the ground that it was obtained by undue influence exercised upon his father, or, even if that plea should fail, on the gro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›