Allahabad Court November 1927 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.
Chaudhari Mohammad Shoaib Khan Vs. Zaib Jahan Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.581
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal and the connected First Appeal No. 388 of 1924 arise out of two suits for recovery of possession brought by two sets of rival claimants against Musammat Zaib Jahan Begam the defendant in possession. It appears that Bakhsh Ali Beg was the last full owner of the property in dispute and on his death he left a widow Musammat Hazurunnissa, a son Yusuf Beg and a daughter Musammat Hayatunnissa. The son and the daughter survived the widow. Thus they got two-thirds and one-third share respectively in the estate of Bakhsh Ali Beg. Yusuf Beg died in 1920 leaving Musammat Zaib Jahan Begam as his widow and his sister as two of his heirs. The remaining share in his estate would go to the residuaries, if any, and failing them to the distant kindred. It is an admitted fact that on the death of Yusuf Beg no claim was put forward either by any residuary or by distant kindred, and the names of Musammat Zaib Jahan Begam and Musammat Hayatunnissa were recorded on specific shares....
Manzur HusaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All55
ORDERDalal, J.1. The learned Judge has explained the law on the subject in his order of reference and I agree with him. The applicant Manzur Husain is a licensed gunmaker and a certain gun was made over to him by Mohan Singh a licensed holder to repair. Mohan Singh's direction was that after the gun was repaired, it may be made over either to Jagannath or to Partap Singh to bring over to Mohan Singh. The gun was repaired, and made over to both the persons authorized by the licensed holder. Jagannath was carrying the gun and Partap Singh following him when a police officer arrested Jagannath with the gun and learning that he had obtained it from the applicant Manzur Husain, prosecuted the applicant under Section 22, Arms Act. The trial Court of a Magistrate recorded a conviction. The learned Judge has quoted cases in support of his view that delivery into possession contemplated by Section 22, Arms Act, was such a delivery as to give the person into whose possession arm is delivered con...
Gur NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All191
Dalal, J.1. The applicant, a driver of a motor-lorry, was once convicted of an offence under Section 5, Motor Vehicles Act 8, 1914 for reckless driving. The reckless driving resulted in the lorry knocking against the chabutra on which one Kallu butcher was sitting and fracturing the bones of his left leg. He is now being prosecuted under Section 279 for rash driving and causing grievous hurt by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life and the personal safety of others.2. It is submitted here as it was in the Court of Session, that the applicant's further prosecution is barred under the provisions of Section 403 (1), Criminal P.C. A person, who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence, shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against h...
Tufail Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All60
ORDERDalal, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of a Magistrate of the first Class at Budaun. The applicant has been convicted under Section 265(c), Municipalities Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 for exposing fruits for sale so as to cause obstruction in a street belonging to the Municipal Board, Budaun. He occupied a shop abutting on the street and kept a wooden bench on the pavement in front of his shop. He was prosecuted for causing obstruction to the street and convicted. The evidence on the record satisfactorily proves that he was found keeping a bench on the pavement without the permission of the Municipal Board. But there is absolutely no evidence to show that he exposed any articles for sale or that the bench kept by him caused any obstruction in the street. The gist of the offence under Section 265 is the obstruction to the free passage of any street. There is no evidence to prove that he caused any obstruction by his act. No presumption against him can...
Salaik Chand and ors. Vs. Mt. Tamiz Bano and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All303
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed alleged to have been executed by Abdul Quyum, the predecessor of the defendants, on the 24th September 1913, and registered. The particulars of the mortgage were given in full in the plaint. The written statement of Mt. Tamiz Bano, one of the defendants, first of all merely stated that the allegations in the various paragraphs of the plaint with certain exceptions 'were not admitted.' It then went on to say in para. 9 that the execution, completion and the consideration of the document sued upon was not admitted by the contesting defendant. I may note here that the translation of this paragraph as printed is not accurate. The defendant meant not to admit either the execution, completion or the consideration. The Court below framed the first issue as follows:Is the hypothecation bond genuine and for consideration2. The parties led evidence on the question of execution as well as co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›