Allahabad Court January 1925 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.
Bahoru and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All769; 87Ind.Cas.842
Mukerji, J.1. Three persons, Bahoru, Naharya, and Kehri have applied in revision against their conviction and sentence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, which conviction was had in the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class and was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal.2. The story for the prosecution briefly is this : A minor girl of 12 was living with her father-in-law and was removed from her home at the instance of one Mt. Khizani. The appellants and one Sis Bam were waiting for the appearance of the girl and Mt. Khizani had joined their company when they came out. The evidence, if believed, would, no doubt, be sufficient for conviction. But the learned Sessions Judge has found that there were two witnesses on the point, and they were Dhara Singh and Tikam Singh. The learned Judge was not disposed to believe these witnesses because lie found that they wore relations of Sis Ram and were inclined to shield him. But what to the mind of the Judge clinched the matte...
Sat NaraIn Sahu Vs. Bindesri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All453; 87Ind.Cas.787
Mukerji, J.1. The sole question to be determined in this appeal is one of law and arises under the following circumstances. The property now in suit is a piece of land on which originally stood a house. The house and other properties belonged to one Gayadin. He was succeeded by his wife Mt. Parbati. Mt. Parbati died and her daughter Mt. Rajwanti succeeded to a life-estate, The appellant in this appeal is a male agnate of Gayadin and is the actual roversioner to his estate on the death of Mt. Rajwanti which happened before the institution of the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen. On the 20fch of September, 1915, Mt. Rajwanti and the appellant entered into an agreement by which Mt. Rajwanti was declared to be the absolute owner of the house and it was definitely stated that she could do anything she liked with the property. Mt. Rajwanti, before her death on the 16th of January, 1922 disposed of the house by way of sale in favour of the present respondent. The present respondent i...
Munshi Ram and anr. Vs. Bhagwant and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All697; 87Ind.Cas.782
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal involves a very short point and it is one of law. On the death of one Charan who was recorded as an ex-proprietary tenant of 21 and odd bighas of land, his brother's sons and his son's sons had a dispute about the division of the tenancy. They went to the Revenue Court and ultimately came to an agreement which took the shape of a document in writing registered. By this document plaintiffs, who are respondents in this Court, were allowed 7 bighas 1 biswa of land. They came to Court with the allegation that the defendants kept them out of possession of this 7 bighas and odd area and were liable to pay damages. The plaintiffs accordingly sued for recovery of possession and for recovery of Rs. 70 as damages.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit in toto. One of the plaintiffs Chet Ram, appealed, and he asked for damages only. The first ground of appeal was that the suit could not faillin its entirety. The learned District Judge was of opinion that the s...
Ranjit Singh Vs. Ramman Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All781; 87Ind.Cas.654
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one, the essential purpose of which, as rightly remarked by the learned District Judge before whom the suit came in first appeal, was to set aside an alienation of joint family property. This alienation had taken place by way of a sale in execution of a simple money decree obtained against the father alone. It is true that the son endeavoured to improve his position by bringing his case into Court in the form of a suit for partition of joint family property; but he asked the Court to treat the property sold at auction as part of the joint family property still capable of division between him and his father, and to assign the whole of it to the father's share. In effect this was asking the Court to hold that the auction-sale was void as against the son, or, at any rate, to the extent of the share which he would take on partition in the property sold. Now, it has been conceded before us in appeal that, on the principles laid down by their L...
Tej Singh and ors. Vs. Mitter Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All784; 87Ind.Cas.719
Daniels, J.1. The two points pressed in this appeal are both points of law, but as, in my opinion, the view of the Court below is correct, I propose to dismiss the appeal.2. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that it offends against Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act. The plaintiff claimed a fifth share of a grove in patti Tara Singh. He is a recorded co-sharer in that patti but the share which he now claims is not recorded in his name. An application was made by the respondent for imperfect partition of that patti. Notice was issued to the plaintiff and he applied to have his own share separated off. In that partition that share in dispute was allotted to the defendant. On the face of it this is a clear case for the application of Section 233(k). The pleas urged are:(1) That Section 233(k) does not apply to an imperfect partition.(2) That though the plaintiff is a recorded co-sharer in the patti he is not recorded in respect of the particular property which he claims.3. On ...
Daulat Ram Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All419; 87Ind.Cas.417
Ryves, J.1. These applications in criminal revision arise under tho following circumstances:The plaintiff in a suit in the Munsif's Court at Meerut applied to that Court under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Coda to prosecute the two defendants the learned Munsif rejected the application the plaintiff thereupon filed an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Meerut under Section 476(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the Munsif was passed on the 21st of May, 1924. The appeal was filed in the Court of the Sessions Judge on the 24th of July, 1924. The learned Sessions Judge held that the appeal was time-barred and declined to hear it. He says : 'In a case of this nature I hold that limitation begins to run from the date of the order appealed against.There was no need to file a copy of the final order in this matter. I, therefore, hold that the appeal is time-barred.'Article 154 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act applies to an appeal of this kind and unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›