Allahabad Court April 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.
Emperor Vs. Himayatullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All592; 102Ind.Cas.503
1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the Local Government against an order of the Sessions Judge of Moradabad, setting aside an order of a Magistrate of the First Class directing the opposite party to execute a personal bond with two sureties to be of good behaviour under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Three points have been urged by the learned Government Advocate in support of this revision. The first point urged is that the words 'to conceal his presence within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction' in Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are words defining the tribunal which has jurisdiction to try the case. In the case of Emperor v. Bhairon. : AIR1927All59 it is laid down that the words 'within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction' are part of the predicate 'to conceal his presence.' We have no doubt whatever that the meaning of those words was rightly given in that case. It is clear from the provisions of Section...
Madhuri Saran Vs. Bishambhar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All561
Banerji, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal. Certain property was advertised for sale and the estimated value of that property as entered in the sale proclamation by the Court was Rs. 8,000. On the 20th of April 1926, the property was actually sold for Rs. 14,000 and the decree-holder purchased the property at the auction, The amount, which was due to the decree-holder as entered in the sale proclamation, was Rs. 13,671-6-4. On the 17th of May 1926, the judgment-debtors executed a mortgage in favour of Ram Kumar and others of the share sold at auction on the 20th of April 1926, for a sum of Rs. 10,000. On the 18th of May 1926, two applications were presented to the Subordinate Judge. One was by Ram Kumar and others as mortgagees, who tendered and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 and in their application stated that if the judgment-debtor did not deposit the balance payable and if the sale was not set aside, this sum might be returned to Ram Kumar. The judgment-debtors in their applic...
Chandi Prasad Vs. Mt. Jumna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All74
1. This defendant's appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the decree in suit No. 185 of 1918 was not binding on the plaintiff, that the sale in execution of the house was also not binding on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is owner of the house.2. The plaintiff, at one stage of the suit No. 185 of 1918, was made a party to the execution proceedings, but was later exempted. A lengthy written statement was filed, but briefly the case as put before us for the appellant was that the plaintiff was not a necessary party, that the decree was obtained against the person who was the legal representative of the mortgagor and the plaintiff had no right in the house at all.3. The facts are intricate, and, in order to appreciate the points that we have to decide, it will be necessary to set them out in considerable detail. They will be more easily understood if we set them out in chronological order. Parbhu Lal was the original owner of the house. His wife was Mt. Sabo, and they had...
Firm Ajodhia Prasad Ram Lal Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All574
1. This is an appeal from an order by the execution Court in Cawnpore which appears to us in substance to have denied the jurisdiction of the Court. The decree-holders obtained a decree against four persons who were in partnership, but in respect of whose liabilities special rights were established by such a decree. All other judgment debtors were jointly and severally liable for Rs. 18,000 odd, while Chhote Lal, one of the four, was responsible, in his individual capacity for the balance of Rs. 30,000 odd, the total decree being for Rs. 48,000 odd. The judgment-debtor, either jointly as a whole, or severally in different shares-and that is the substantial matter which has to be decided had a large quantity, amounting to nearly 500 bags, of a valuable substance called catechu in Bahraich. One of the decree-holders, Ram Lal was appointed Receiver under an order of attachment of these bags and a large number of the bags, that is to say, all except 27, were sold and the proceeds, amountin...
Nand Kishore Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.557
Lindsay, J.1. I have heard Mr. Damodar Das at length in support of this application for revision. The applicant, Nand Kishore, was fined by a Magistrate for using language which brought him within the scope of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Application for revision was made to the Sessions Judge who dismissed it agreeing with the Court of first instance that an offence under Section 506 had been committed. It is argued here again that no offence under this section is proved. I agree with the Courts below. It seems to me that Nand Kishore, the applicant, was clearly guilty of an offence under Section 506. Nand Kishore is a Municipal Commissioner in the town of Lalitpur. The complaint against him was made by one Hafiz Ullah, a butcher. It appears that on the 20th of October last Hafiz Ullah bought a cow from a man named Man Singh and was going with Man Singh to the Municipal Board's Office to have the sale of the animal registered. Nand Kishore, for what reason does not appear, in...
Nari Rawat Vs. Daulat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All524; 101Ind.Cas.695
Banerji, J.1. This is a reference from the Local Government under Section 17 of the rules and orders relating to Kumaun division for a ruling on the following point:Whether the Commissioner was right in upsetting the finding of fact of appellate Court in second appeal in face of the provisions of Sections 100, 101 and 102 of the Civil P.C.2. The facts, briefly stated, are that a suit was instituted against one Daulat Ram, who was the petitioner before the Local Government, for recovery of Rs. 318-5-0 due on a promissory note. The Court of first instance, namely the Assistant Collector of Landsdowne, decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had proved his case. On appeal by Daulat Ram the Deputy Commissioner of Garhwal dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff appealed against the decree of the Deputy Commissioner to the Court of the Commissioner of Kumaun. The learned Commissioner, under the rules framed under Section 6 of the Scheduled Districts Act (1874), exercises the powers an...
Jagdeo Misir and ors. Vs. Mahabir Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All803
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was commenced in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur, the value of the subject-matter of the suit being said to be Rs. 4,000. The suit was one for a declaration that a certain deed of gift in favour of the defendants was not binding on the plaintiff after the death of a lady by name Mt. Rekha. The defendants succeeded in the trial Court and in the lower appellate Court that decision was reversed, and the suit decreed. In second appeal this Court confirmed the decree of the lower appellate Court. From that decision leave is sought by the defendants to appeal to His Majesty in Council. Affidavits have been filed with regard to the value of the property, and although the defendants have to admit that when the suit was originally instituted the value of the property was put by the plaintiff at Rs. 4000, and that they themselves in their appeal to this Court put the value at Rs. 4,000 nevertheless ...
Pitambar and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All567
Walsh, J.1. I have no materials before me in this appeal to enable me to differ from the finding of the Additional District Judge. The District Judge has come to a conclusion somewhat different from that of which the defendant himself took up in his defence. He appears to think that both parties have been misleading the Court as he is definitely of opinion that the thumb-impression is that of the defendant which the defendant denies. On the other hand, he has come clearly to the conclusion that the promissory note, then, though originally bearing the thumb impression of the defendant, has been materially altered. He does not appear to have made up his mind whether it is an entire fabrication or merely a subsequent alteration. Both those alternatives would amount to altering a forged document, but Mr. M(sic)shtaq Ahmad rightly points out on behalf of the appellant that the conclusion at which the learned Judge has arrived in his finding as to the existence of a prima facie complaint is ...
Bhairon Shankar Singh Vs. Shiam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All746
1. The facts briefly are these: There was a family of mortgagors whose pedigree is given at p. 5 of the paper book. The plaintiff Bhairon Shankar is the youngest person in the family. The family owned a four annas two cowry share and one-half of this was mortgaged in 1869 by all the four branches. Subsequently the three branches (excluding Ram Bali Singh) made four mortgages of their entire interest in the property, one mortgage being of 1871, two of 1873 and one of 1874. Ram Bali's interest in the property subject to the first mortgage was sold and was purchased by the mortgagee. We are, therefore, not concerned with him in this second appeal. The suit related to Ram Bali's share also, but because of the auction-sale mentioned, no point has been urged in support of this portion of the claim. The mortgagee who was the same person in all the five mortgages, brought the suit for sale in 1878 on the last four mortgages and he got a decree for sale. To this suit the three sons of Ram Abher...
Brijendra Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All828
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned District Judge, by which order he made a complaint against Brijendra Nath, appellant, under Section 182, I.P.C. The offence punishable under Section 182, I.P.C. is one of the offences enumerated in Section 195(1)(a), Criminal P.C. The right of appeal given by Section 476(b), Criminal P.C., is restricted to offences referred to in Section 195, Sub-section (1) Clause (b) or (c) Criminal P.C. and no right of appeal is given by Section 476(b), Criminal P.C. in respect of any offence referred to in Section 195, Sub-section (1) Clause (a), Criminal P.C. As such no appeal lies against the order of the learned District Judge. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that by Sub-section 5, Section 195, Criminal P. C, any authority to which a public servant who has made a complaint under Sub-section (1), Clause (a) of that section is subordinate may order the withdrawal of that complain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »