Allahabad Court January 1926 Judgments
Sheo Prasad Vs. Sheo Bans Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All211
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order refusing to file a complaint under Section 195 of the same Code. The question is whether limitation is sixty days under Article 155 or ninety days under Article 156 of the Limitation Act. When the exact terms of Article 155 are looked at the question raised does not admit of doubt. Article 155 applies to any appeal to the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure except appeals from a sentence of death or an order of acquittal. This is clearly an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure as the right of appeal is expressly conferred by Section 476-B of that Code. The article applicable is therefore 155 and the appeal is beyond time. As some misapprehension appears to have existed on this point and the counsel who presented the application states that he has himself been hitherto under the impression that limitation was ninety days, I allow him a week within which to file an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All700
Daniels, J.1. In this case the appellant Janki Prasad, a patwari was committed to the Court of Sessions on charges under Sections 218 and 471, I.P.C. The charge was that he knowingly prepared a wrong record, namely a jinsi bahi-khata, showing a tenant named Mendai as paying a grain-rent, whereas in fact he paid a cash rent, and that he produced this paper in Court to support a false defence put in by Mendai in a suit for arrears of rent. The revenue Court held that the defence was false and decreed the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff in that suit filed a complaint against the patwari which has resulted in the order under appeal. The learned Sessions Judge held on the merits that it was fully proved that Mendai had agreed to pay a cash rent and that the patwari knowingly prepared a false record. The patwari was under suspension and had given overcharge at the time when the bahi-khata was to (Sic) in evidence. The learned Sessions Judge held for some reason which is not clear to me that i...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Pat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All382
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge passed in appeal by which he confirmed the convictions and sentences passed on the applicants on a charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are stated to be this: One Malkhan Singh was adjudicated an insolvent and an official receiver took charge of his property. In order to realize the property he attached the same, which was some agricultural produce. The receiver sent his clerk to effect attachment and an attachment was formally effected on the 30th of March 1925. One Badlu was put in charge of the property as a guard. The applicants removed the property from the possession of Badlu on the 3rd of April 1925. They were charged with and were convicted of theft.2. Two points have been raised in this Court. The first is that the act of the applicants was done honestly although they had a knowledge of the fact that the property had been attached by the receiver. Secondly, it was urged ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlapat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.940
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge passed in appeal by which he confirmed the convictions and sentences passed on the applicants on a charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are stated to be this. One Mulkhan Singh was adjudicated an insolvent and an Official Receiver took charge of his property. In order to realise the property, he attached the same, which was some agricultural produce. The Receiver sent his clerk to effect attachment and an attachment was formally effected on the 30th of March 1925. One Badlu was put in charge of the property as a guard. The applicants removed the property from the possession of Badlu on the 3rd of April 1925. They were charged with and were convicted of theft.2. Two points have been raised in this Court. The first is that the act of the applicants was done honestly although they had a knowledge of the fact that the property had been attached by the Receiver. Secondly, it was urged...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. Rahat Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All376
Dalal, J.1. I agree with the opinion of the lower appellate Court on the point of law. It has been held that an application for execution dated the 6th January 1925 was beyond time on the ground that an intermediate application of 25th September 1924, made by the decree-holder for execution of the decree was not in accordance with law. It is admitted that the present application would be beyond time if the September application should be put out of consideration.2. In the September application certain details as required by Order 20, Rule 11 were wrongly given whereupon the executing Court directed the applicant to rectify those errors. Time was given repeatedly up to the 1st of November 1924 when the Court being tried of the disregard paid to its orders dismissed the application. It is clear that the decree-holder flouted the authority of the Court and if such conduct were held to be legal the executing Court would lose control of execution proceedings. An execution application is adm...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Singh Vs. Maharaj Raja Ramji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All387; 93Ind.Cas.376
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings. A decree was passed against the defendant-appellant on the 18th March 1920. In the suit the defendant-appellant was treated as a major. He did not appear and the decree was ex-parte. When the decree was put in execution the judgment-debtor filed an objection, urging that the decree was a nullity and binding on him inasmuch as he was in fact a minor on the data when it was passed.2. The Court of first instance went into the question of the alleged minority and came to the conclusion that the defendant was in fact a minor. Purporting to act on the execution side, it disallowed the application for execution and referred to the provisions of Order 32, Rule 5, Sub-clause 2. No express order discharging the previous decree was however passed by it. The decree-holder appealed to the District Judge who has allowed the appeal and ordered execution to proceed. The learned Judge is of opinion that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Ibadullah Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All350
1. On the 7th September 1923, the defendant; sold a certain house, situated in Orai, to the plaintiff. A sale deed was executed, in which a nim tree, said to be standing on waste land No. 29 Khasra of the village Shahpur, was also included in order to enable the parties to have the sale deed registered by the Sub-Registrar of Derapur, within whose jurisdiction the village Shahpur was situated. When the sale deed was presented for registration, the defendant refused to get it registered. The Sub-Registrar, however proceeded to register the deed, because one of the properties specified in the sale deed was stated to be a tree situated within his jurisdiction. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of the house in dispute, and the question for consideration was whether the registration of the sale deed by the Sub-Registrar of Derapur was valid. Both the Courts below found that the registration was inoperative.2. No attempt appears to have been made to d...
Tag this Judgment!Churya and ors. Vs. Baneshwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All217
Sulaiman, J.1. In a Letters Patent appeal which was disposed of last year two applications have been filed on behalf of the appellants, one praying that the appeal may be declared to have abated as against Baneshwar, deceased respondent, and the other praying that the appeal be restored to its original number and the names of his two sons be brought on the record in the array of the respondents.2. The suit was brought for ejectment by the plaintiffs against three defendants. Baneshwar was Defendant No. 3 and was not related to the other defendants. The plaintiffs' case was that they were occupancy tenants of the plots: that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were their sub-tenants and that Defendant No. 3 was the subtenant of the Defendants sub-tanants. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, but on appeal the District Judge decreed the claim on the 23rd of December 1921. A second appeal to the High Court was preferred by Baneshwar. Defendant No. 3 and a learned Judge of this Court allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Nandan Vs. Mt. Punia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All426
Daniels, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Benaras has made this reference recommending that an order of maintenance under Section 488, Criminal P.C., in favour of Mt. Punia against her husband Babu Nandan, be set aside. It is an admitted fact that Mt. Punia was the legally married wife of Babu Nandan. The learned Sessions Judge takes the view that because the parties are Kahars the marriage must be demand to have been dissolved because Mt. Punia contracted a sagai with her brother-in-law Kandhai alias Lakkhu some three years ago. (It is common ground that Mt. Punia is not now living with Lakkhu.) I agree with the trying Magistrate that this fact is not sufficient to constitute a dissolution of Mt. Punia's marriage under Hindu Law, more especially as there is no evidence that any caste panchayat was ever held for the purpose, of either dissolving or recognizing the dissolution of her marriage with the opposite party. I am unable to accept the reference, and I direct that the record be...
Tag this Judgment!Harnand Lal Vs. Chaturbhuj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All212
Boys, J.1. This is an application asking this Court to stay further proceedings in a suit pending in the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore until the decision of certain lunacy proceedings pending in the Court of the District Judge of Mainpuri. The plaintiff Harnand Lal sued Chaturbhuj (to whom we will refer in this judgment as Chaturbhuj defendant in distinction from his son-in-law to whom we will refer as Chaturbhuj junior) for specific performance of a contract. Cbaturbhuj junior applied to the Subordinate Judge under Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a guardian-ad-litem to be appointed for Chaturbhuj defendant, on the ground that the latter was of weak mind. Some evidence was taken, when on the 4th of September 1925 the vakil of Chaturbhuj defendant informed the Court that luancy proceedings were going on in the Court of the District Judge of Mainpuri in reference to the mental condition of the defendant. A week later the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »