Allahabad Court July 1925 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Bhima
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All167
Ashworth, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Muttra asking for the transfer of a certain case on the ground that no Court within his district has jurisdiction to try the same. The accused person is being tried for retention in Aligarh of a bullock stolen in Muttra and the Magistrate is of the opinion that the provisions of Section 181(3) Criminal P.C., as amended by Section 22, Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act. 1923, exclude the jurisdiction of the Muttra Court.2. The Magistrate has wrongly construed the provision referred to. Section 181(t3 Criminal P.C. as amended, means the) the offence of being in possession of stolen property may be inquired into either in the district where it was stolen or where it was found to be dishonestly possessed. This indeed is expressly stated in illustration (b) to Section 180. It must be conceded that the language of Section 181(3) as amended is open to objection. The context requires that the words 'such offence' in that section ...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All187
ORDERAshworth, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order dated 11th February 1925, of Thakur Sheora khan Singh, Magistrate, First Class, convicting the six applicants under Section 13, Act 3 of 1867 (the Public Gambling Act) and sentencing each of them to a fine of Rs. 5 or in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for a week. The case was tried summarily and the facts found by the Magistrate are that the applicants were playing a game of marbles on a public road at Mursan. Each player had contributed six pice to a pool and if a player succeeded in throwing his marble into a hole with the help of his finger he took the whole pool. The Magistrate was of opinion that the game of marbles was not a game of mere skill and that Section 13-A of the Public Gambling Act applied to a game of mare skill on it. The Magistrate was further of opinion that as the game played by the applicants was accompanied by betting and pice were actually found on the spot their act amount...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Prasad Vs. Makund Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All21; 90Ind.Cas.290
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the learned District Judge of Bulandshahr upholding a complaint of an offence under Section 471, I.P.C. made by the Munsif of Ghaziabad against; the applicant Dwarka Prasad. The learned District Judge in upholding the Munsif's order also added a charge under Section 193 and the applicant asks that his application be treated as an appeal. Three points have been urged:(1) That Section 476, Criminal P.C. is inapplicable to the offence under Section 471, I.P.C. because the alleged offence was not committed by a party to the suit but by a witness; (2) That the order should not have been passed without a preliminary inquiry; and (3) That the order under Section 193 is bad because the passages in the applicant's evidence alleged to be false are not quoted in the judgment. The first point is one on which there was a difference of opinion between the different High Courts prior to the amendment of the Code in the year 1923. The Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Jeut Koeri and anr. Vs. Mathura Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All171; 90Ind.Cas.787
1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. On 5th August 1899 the plaintiffs' predecessors borrowed a sum of Rs. 592-8-0 from the predecessors of the defendants and executed a single document for it. As found by the lower appellate Court, the probability is that the profits of the property sought to be mortgaged were not sufficient to cover the interest on the whole amount, and accordingly there was a provision in the document that the mortgagees were entitled to appropriate the profits of the property in lieu of interest on a sum of Rs. 392-8-0. As to the balance, it, was provided that the payment of this sum, along with interest at 2 per cent. per annum, shall be compulsory at the time of redemption.2. The plaintiffs offered to redeem the property on payment of Rs. 392-8-0, whereas the defendants claimed that they must pay Rs, 200 plus interest. The Court below has accepted the contention of the defendants and has passed a conditional decree for payment of the entire ...
Tag this Judgment!(Lal) Bahadur Lal and anr. Vs. Kamleshar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All624
1. On the question which had been referred to us by a Bench we are of opinion that in this particular case the sale should not be set aside but should be confirmed in favour of the purchaser. The consideration which is mentioned in the sale deed is Rs. 5,995, and it is found that for only a sum of Rs. 259-15-0 out of this sum, no legal necessity has been established. In our opinion this item is an insignificant sum which should be left out of consideration in deciding the question whether the sale should or should not stand. The sale was a sale of a two annas share out of a five annas 4 pies share, and we have no reason to suppose that the precise sum for which legal necessity existed could have been realised by a sale of any less share than that of 2 annas.2. We need not discuss the case law on the subject. The latest case to which we have been referred will be found in Daulat v. Sankatha : AIR1925All324 . That refers back to recent decisions which are to be found in Jainarain Pande v...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Dei Vs. G.i.P. Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All146; 90Ind.Cas.99
Daniels, J.1. The question raised in this revision is as to the correctness of an additional charge of Rs. 170 levied by the Great Indian Peninsula Railway from the applicant Mt. Gulab Dei on account of 315 maunds of waste paper consigned from Bombay to Agra and delivered to her at the latter place. The name of the person despatching the goods was Mangalji Ganesh. The Railway receipt was made out in his own name, hut was subsequently endorsed to the firm of Lachman Das Mul Chand. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff, namely, the present applicant, is the proprietor of that firm. The goods were charged at Bombay at the maund rate of 8 annas per maund applicable to waste paper under the 'station-to-station rate list' given on p. 111 of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Goods Tariff Part 1-B. The rate is given under No. 261 and the commodity is described as Paper, waste, O.R. W/300-L. The initials 'O R.' mean owner's risk; the words 'W/300 mean, as explained on p. 80 of the Goo...
Tag this Judgment!Bakhtawar Vs. Sunder Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All173; 90Ind.Cas.992
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. I think this is a fit case to be referred to a Bench of two Judges. The learned Judge begins his judgment by saying that this is rather a difficult case and he had to look up numerous rulings which were cited before him.2. The main question in the case was whether the compromise arrived at in 1909 between Mt. Kamli, the mother of the plaintiffs, and Bakhtawar, the defendant, was in the nature of a family settlement or not. The learned Judge has to my mind unnecessarily gone into the question whether the defendant has or has not proved in this case the validity of his adoption. There was no issue framed in the first Court and the defendant was not called upon to lead evidence on that point. The question of adoption was irrelevant, the main question being whether in 1909 there was a bona fide dispute about the alleged adoption and whether Mt. Kamli believed that she had a rival claimant to meet and thought it desirable to settle the dispute with him rather than to car...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Bahadur Lal and anr. Vs. Kamleshar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.988
1. On the question which has been referred to us by a Bench we are of opinion that in this particular case the sale should not be set aside but should be confirmed in favour of the purchaser. The consideration which is mentioned in the sale-deed is Rs. 5,995 and it is found that for only a sum of Rs. 259-15-0 out of this sum no legal necessity has been established. In our opinion this item is an insignificant sum which should be left out of consideration in deciding the question whether the sale should or should not stand. The sale was a sale of a 2 annas share out of a 5 annas 4 pies share and we have no reason to suppose that the precise sum for which legal necessity existed could have been realised by a sale of any less share than that of 2 annas.2. We need not discuss the case law on the subject. The latest case to which we have been referred will be found in Daulat v. Sankatha Prasad 86 Ind. Cas. 91 : 47 A 355 : 23 A.L.J. 55 : L.R. 6 A.167 Civ. : (1925) A.I.R. (A.) 324. That refer...
Tag this Judgment!Channu Dutta Vyas Vs. Swami Gyannandji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All130; 90Ind.Cas.976
Lindsay, J.1. In my opinion this appeal fails in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the Court below.2. The question for decision was whether the Hindu population of Benares, represented by the defendant-appellant, had acquired a customary right to use the property of the plaintiff for the celebration of the Ram Lila festival. It was alleged that the Hindus had a right to enter on these premises for a period of three days during the Ram Lila and to occupy them for the purpose of giving a dramatic representation of certain incidents in the life of Rama.3. The plaintiff in the suit purchased this property in the year 1922 from Gopal Das, Raghunandan Prasad and others in whose family it had been since the year 1854. This property consists of a garden enclosed by walls and inside the enclosure is a large garden-house consisting of a hall and some smaller rooms.4. The plaintiff alleged that there was no right on the part of the Hindu public to enter and occupy any portion of these pr...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Vs. Bismillah Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All156; 90Ind.Cas.72
1. This appeal is very easily disposed of. In execution of decree-No. 166 of 1921 passed by a Subordinate Judge of Agra certain properties were sold and were purchased by one Kedar Nath. At the instance of one of the judgment-debtors the sale was set aside and Kedar Nath filed the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, on 14th November 1923 Mt. Bibbo, who was one of the judgment-debtors made an application to this Court stating that she had purchased the property from Kedar Nath and praying that she might be made an appellant along with Kedar Nath. The application came before one of us and was opposed by Kedar Nath's Counsel. Kedar Nath, through his counsel denied the validity of the alleged title of the applicant and stated that he would have no objection if the applicant were made a respondent. It appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of Mt. Bibbo that Kedar Nath had declined to register the sale-deed which, it was alleged, was executed by him in favour of Mt. Bibbo,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »