Allahabad Court July 1926 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.
Ram Deo Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All767; 97Ind.Cas.652
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order binding over the applicants to keep the peace under Section 107, Criminal P.C. The order is assailed on two grounds:(1) That it was passed by a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction; (2) that no proper order under Section 112 was prepared. Nor was a copy of such order sent with the summons.2. Section 107 requires that, unless the proceedings are started by the District Magistrate, both the person informed against and the place where the breach of the peace is apprehended, shall be within the Magistrate's local jurisdiction. The place where the breach of the peace was apprehended was within the Magistrate's jurisdiction, but the applicant resided outside it. No question of jurisdiction was raised in the trial Court. It was raised before the Sessions Judge who held that as the applicants had a chhaoni in the village, to which the dispute relates, and sometimes resided there, this temporary residence was sufficient to give the...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All35; 97Ind.Cas.430
Pullan, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge, Aligarh, convicting one Mahabir Prasad of the offence of abetment of burglary. Mahabir Prasad, who is a Post Office clerk, was charged along with another person with committing burglary at the Aligarh Post Office and stealing a sum of about Rs. 14,000. Both were found guilty by the Assistant Sessions Judge and Mahabir Prasad appealed to the Sessions Judge. The latter found that it was not proved that Mahabir Prasad, took part in the burglary, but he convicted him of abetment of the offence. Put briefly, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is that Mahabir Prasad used his position in the Post Office to obtain the keys of the safe and strong room and had duplicates made which were used by the burglar or burglars to enter the office at night and remove this large sum of money.2. It was laid down by the Bombay High Court as far back as the year 1874 in the case of Reg. v. Chand Nur 11 B.H.C.R. 240, ...
Pearey Lal Vs. Sagar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All38; 97Ind.Cas.650
Pullan, J.1. This application for revision is based on two main grounds:It is argued that a Sessions Judge cannot take up at the instance of a private person any revision of a Magistrate's order of discharge in a case instituted under Section 476, Criminal P.C. 2. That a Sessions Judge cannot interfere with an order of discharge unless the order is manifestly foolish and perverse.2. Prosecution in this case was ordered by a Munsif as the result of certain proceedings in his Court under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Undoubtedly it is not the intention of the Legislature that a private person should be encouraged to conduct prosecutions in cases of this kind, but no consideration of that nature, applies to the present case. This prosecution has been duly started and the magistrate has passed an order of discharge which appears to the Sessions. Judge to be unwarranted by the evidence. The Session Judge is, therefore, empowered under Section 435 of the Criminal P.C. to call for the record and...
Banwari Lal Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All49
Sulaiman, J.1. In this case the Government revenue due from Banwari Lal was in arrears. A citation to the defaulter to appear on the 2nd of January 1926, in case the arrears of Government revenue were not paid soon, was issued by the Tahsildar under Section 147 of the Land Revenue Act. Banwari Lal neither paid the revenue nor appeared on the date fixed. He was in consequence prosecuted and convicted by a First Class Magistrate under Section 174 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 and in default to undergo ten days' simple imprisonment. Banwari Lal applied to the Sessions Judge in revision for setting aside the aforesaid order, who has referred this case to the High Court. The learned Judge has thought that the non-attendance before the Tahsildar after service of the citation did not make the applicant liable for criminal prosecution under Section 174 of the I.P.C. No further reasons are given.2. Section 146 of the Land Revenue Act provides for the recovery of arrear of ...
Sheobaran Pande and anr. Vs. Kishun Prasad Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All92
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to some landed property and the main question for consideration is whether a certain compromise filed by the parties to the present suit in a mutation proceeding operates as a bar to the present claim.2. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that Gajadhar Pande was the owner of the said property and that, on his death, which took place in Baisakh 1328, the plaintiffs alone were entitled to the estate. In the mutation proceeding which ensued on the death of Gajadhar Pande a petition of compromise was filed by the parties, were by each branch of the family to which Gajadhar Pande belonged, was allowed to remain in possession of a one-fourth share. The plaintiffs contended that the compromise was invalid and that it had been repudiated and cancelled by the parties themselves. The defendants, on the other hand, asserted that they were living jointly with Gajadhar Pande, and that they were entitled to the entire property left by him to th...
Gulab Vs. Dalip
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.550
Mukerji, J.1. This is an ex parte appeal. But Mr. Sandal has put the Court in possession of cases deciding both in favour of the view contended for by him and in favour of the view against his contention and I have, therefore, no difficulty in deciding the case.2. The facts established are these. The respondent obtained a written lease from an occupancy tenant oh the 1st of May, 1921, it having been agreed that he would be put in possession on the 1st of July, 1921. The occupancy tenant, however, did not put the respondent in possession, but, instead, put the appellant in possession. Thereupon the respondent brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, claiming possession and mesne profits.3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that it was cognizable by the Revenue Court alone and was, further, barred by six months' rule of limitation. The Appellate Court has decreed the suit, hence the appeal.4. The contention for the appellant is that the respondent ought...
Muhammad Zafar Vs. Zahur Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All741; 97Ind.Cas.82
1. This is a curious case although, we are afraid, it is also a typical case. It is however by no means an easy case to dispose of. The plaintiff sues upon a mortgage-bond in common form, and claims payment of the amount due, or sale of the hypothecated property. The bond is said to be lost. This loss has not been established to the satisfaction of either Court. We are not surprised. Without finding any facts we can only say that the allegation of the plaintiff, that it dropped out of his hand, or pocket, or folds of his dhoti, on his way to the Court to file a suit on it, though not impossible, is an extremely unlikely event. We will not discuss the probabilities of the plaintiff discovering this unfortunate accident by the use of his senses, and taking immediate steps to recover the document, or the suspicious conduct of the plaintiff in going straight off to the police station and making a formal report. If there had been a crowd of people through which he was pushing his way, or a ...
Pir Bakhsh Vs. Mt. Muhammad-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All100
Boys, J.1. The plaintiff, who was Mahomedan, sued for the dissolution of a marriage on the ground of her husband's impotency which she alleged had been existing, at any rate, from the commencement of the time of their married life. Both Courts have held that she was entitled to a decree. The marriage took place somewhere, as near as I can ascertain, about nine years prior to the date of the suit. It is urged here now that there is no finding that impotency existed all through the period of marriage and that it did not date from marriage and that it did not date from some date subsequent to the marriage. This is not a ground that the defendant can take now. His case was never that though he was impotent now, he had been capable during some period of the marriage and that there had been any change in his condition. His statement merely was that he was now and always had been capable. I do not think this ground, therefore, is open to him now. Next, it is urged that a period of a year ough...
Nanak Chand Vs. Chheda Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All41; 97Ind.Cas.467
1. One Amanul Haq was insured with the Standard Life Insurance Co., of Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 4,000. He owed a certain debt to the Alliance Bank of Simla, Ltd., and he owed certain other debts to Nanak Chand, Chheda Lal, Narotam Saran and Mangal Sen. He assigned his life policy to the Alliance Bank, Ltd., as security for the payments of its debt. On the death of Amanul Haq, Nanak Chand, Narotam Saran, Chheda Lal and Mangal Sen obtained decrees against his estate. In execution of his decree Nanak Chand got the life policy then held by the Alliance Bank, Ltd., attached, and got prohibitory orders issued to the Alliance Bank Ltd. not to receive, and to the Standard Insurance Co. not to pay, the amount due on that policy. Narotam Saran, Chheda Lal and Mangal Sen applied at the same time for a rateable distribution of the money due on that policy which may be realized in execution of the decree of Nanak Chand.2. The Standard Insurance Company, Ltd., offered to pay the money due on the po...
Raushan Lal and anr. Vs. Gappu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All53; 97Ind.Cas.587
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff as purchaser of a house under a sale-deed dated the 1st August 1919. The purchase price was Rs. 1,000. The vendors, that is to say, the defendants-appellants, agreed in the first part of the sale-deed to give the plaintiff Chunni Lal a clear title, subject only to his liability to pay off a previous mortgage, for which payment a sum of Rs. 366 out of the sale price was left with the vendee. The evidence shows that subsequently the plaintiff tendered to the mortgagees a smaller sum than the Rs. 366 which was refused. The mortgagees ultimately brought a suit on their mortgage and got a decree for a much larger sum than the Rs. 366. It was at this point that the present suit was brought by the plaintiff asking alternatively that his vendors should pay up the mortgagees and save the property from sale, or that if the mortgage was up for sale they should refund to him the purchase price. The property has since been sold and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »