Allahabad Court March 1928 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.
Mohammad Nazir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All321
Mears, C.J.1. One Mohammad Nazir was, on 9th October 1927, sentenced to six months' imprisonment under Sections 500 and 502, I.P.C., such sentences to run concurrently, and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under each section. He appealed to the Sessions Judge, who dismissed his appeal, and he applied in revision here. During the hearing of the revision it became obvious that the sentence of six months' imprisonment might reasonably be considered inadequate, and further that neither Courts had considered the circumstances of aggravation by which Mohammad Nazir had enhanced the seriousness of his original offence. A notice to show cause why sentence should not be enhanced was addressed to Mohammad Nazir, and he has appeared to-day represented by Mr. Mahommad Husain. This is the third case in the last few months which has come before this Bench in which the character of an innocent and harmless person has been rocklessly and grievously assailed. One of these cases was that of Emperor v. J...
Emperor Vs. Muhammad Siraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All400; 113Ind.Cas.742
King, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Meerut dated 10th December 1927, setting aside the conviction of Muhammad Siraj under Sections 500 and 501, I.P.C., and the sentence of fine of Rs. 50 passed in respect of each offence.2. The facts of the case were briefly as follows: On 24th June 1927 an article appeared in the Risalat which is a weekly newspaper published in Meerut containing imputations calculated to harm the reputation of Lala Har Swarup, a respectable landholder and banker of Mowana, in the Meerut District. He instituted criminal proceedings against the Editor and Printer of the Risalat charging them with defamation. The Magistrate found that the Editor, Mohammad Nazir and the declared Printer Muhammad Siraj, were guilty of defamation under Section 500, I.P.C., and further found them guilty of subsidiary offences under Sections 502 and 501, I.P.C., respectively.3. For the purpose of this application it is unnecessary to ...
Bhawani Prasad Vs. Joti Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All610; 114Ind.Cas.895
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises a nice point of law, but a point which, in my opinion, is not at all difficult to decide.2. The litigants are brothers. It appears that the good sense that once prevailed with them has left them, and they have been fighting for a small bit of land which is of great use to the defendant and of little use to the plaintiff.3. A partition of the village was pending in the revenue Court to which the brothers were parties. They referred the partition to the arbitration of (SIC)Daljit Singh. Before Daljit Singh (SIC)brothers made an application, a copy of which is on the record as 48C. In this application they said that the arbitrator was to divide the mahal, both cultivatable lands and lands forming the village site, and that in making this division the arbitrator might disregard the fact of possession on the part of any one of the two brothers. Being armed with this application, the arbitrator proceeded to make a division of the lands both cultivatable and f...
Muhammad Nazir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.355
1. One Muhammad Nazir was on the 19th of October, 1927, sentenced to six months' imprisonment under Sections 500 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, such sentences to run concurrently and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under each section. He appealed to the Sessions Judge who dismissed his appeal, and he applied in revision here. During the hearing of the revision it became obvious that the sentence of six months' imprisonment might reasonably be considered inadequate, and further that neither Courts had considered the circumstances of aggravation by which Muhammad Nazir had enhanced the seriousness of his original offence. A notice to show cause why sentence should not be enhanced was addressed to Muhammad Nazir, and he has appeared to-day represented by Mr. Muhammad Husain. This is the third case in the last few months which has come before this Bench in which the character of an innocent and harmless person has been recklessly and grievously assailed. One of these cases was that of ...
Somwar Gir Vs. Goswami Mayanand Gir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All392; 113Ind.Cas.171
Lindsay, J.1. This professes to be an execution first appeal on behalf of a decree-holder, Mahant Somwar Gir. Mr. Pande has appeared for the appellant; the opposite side is not represented. The first question we have to consider is whether an appeal lies. The facts of the case are as follows: The decree-holder appellant obtained a simple money decree against the judgment-debtor on 17th February 1926. Execution was applied for in May 1926, and as the result of this there were attached certain properties-zamindari, house property etc., as also certain decrees which had been obtained by the judgment-debtor against third parties.2. On 16th June 1926, the judgment-debtor put in an objection to the attachment of certain house property mentioned in list B. His plea was that this property was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree obtained against him, by Mahant Somwar Gir because it was not his personal property at all but was property belonging to a Math. In substance t...
Bhagwati Prasad Singh Vs. Hari Har Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All511
Sen, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Raja of Daiya in a suit for a declaration that Pancham Ram was the actual owner of the zamindari property in Bhagwanpur and Pura Ram Nath under a sale-deed dated 7th March 1922, that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property by virtue of their purchase from Pancham and that the sale deed dated 13th March 1923, in favour of Raja Drig Bijai Singh of Daiya and all the consequential mutation proceedings and the order of the revenue Court cancelling the sale-deed in favour of Pancham Ram aforesaid were ineffectual against the plaintiffs.2. The properties in suit are situate in the Meja Sub division of the district of Allahabad and are subject to the provisions of the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act (No. 2 of 1903).3. The properties were, owned by Lala Durga Prasad Singh, caste Kshatriya-Gaharwar. On 17th September 1919 he made a usufructuary mortgage from 1327-1346 FF in favour of Lala Ram Lal and Lala Raghunath Prasad for Rs. 1,600, O...
Mahadeo Singh and ors. Vs. Talib Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All345
ORDERLindsay and Iqbal Ahmad, JJ.1. There is a preliminary matter to be considered in connexion with the hearing of this appeal and until that has been decided we no not think the case ought to proceed any further, and in order to have this matter decided, for reasons which we are now about to state, we think it proper that the matter be referred for decision to a Full Bench.2. The appeal which is before us arises out of a suit for pre-emption brought by three plaintiffs, Babu Mahadeo Singh, Babu Mathura Singh and Babu Ranbaz Singh.3. The suit has been dismissed in the Court of first instance. At the time the decree of the lower Court was passed, and also at the time the appeal was filed in this Court, Babu Ranbaz Singh, the third plaintiff, was still alive. Since the appeal has been admitted, however. Babu Ranbaz has died, and it is admitted before us that his legal representatives have not been brought on the record either as appellants or respondents.4. We have been referred to a ru...
Mt. Muniran Bibi Vs. Amjad Ali Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All391
Banerji, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 17th May 1921, executed by the plaintiff-respondent in favour of the defendant may be declared to be null and void.2. The plaintiff Amjad Ali Shah is the brother of Mt. Muniran, the defendant-appellant. On 17th May 1921, Amjad Ali Shah executed a sale-deed with respect to certain property which had devolved on him upon the death of his brother Farzand Ali. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff alleged that as one Nanhu Mal was about to institute a suit for recovery of money against him he executed this sale-deed with intent to prevent Nanhu Mal from attaching this property in execution of any decree he may obtain. It appears that a decree for Rs. 225 was passed in favour of Nanhu Mal, who had instituted a suit for the recovery of money, and on 5th August 1921 Amjad Ali Shah paid this amount. The present suit was instituted on 18th July 1923. Mt. Muniran Bibi's defence w...
Sewak and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All417a; 113Ind.Cas.721
Dalal, J.1. Sewak and Sumer have applied in revision from their conviction under Section 216, I.P.C. It is not explained how they came to be tried jointly when distinct offences were alleged to have been committed by Sumer and Sewak. Sumer was charged with harbouring two absconding offenders Lallu and Nepal and Sewak with the same offence with respect to two different persons, Sobha and Ram Nath. It is laid down in Section 233, Criminal P.C. that there will be separate charges for distinct offences except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. It is also directed that every such charge shall be tried separately. Only Section 239 covers the case of more than one person tried together. There is no conspiracy alleged between Sumer and Sewak and they have not been accused of committing the same offence in the course of the same transaction. The present case is not covered by the provisions of Section 239. The learned Judge who heard the appeal admitted so far, but consid...
Muniran Bibi Vs. Amjad Ali Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.192
1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for a declaration that the sale deed dated 17th May, 1921 executed by the plaintiff respondent in favour of the defendant may be declared to be null and void.2. The plaintiff Amjad Ali Shah is the brother of Musammat Muniran, the defendant-appellant. On the 17th May, 1921, Amjad Ali Shah executed a sale-deed with respect to certain property which had devolved on him upon the death of his brother Farzand Ali. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff alleged that as one Nanhu Mal was about to institute a suit for recovery of money against him he executed this sale-deed with intent to prevent Nanhu Mal from attaching this property in execution of any decree he may obtain. It appears that a decree for Rs. 225 was passed in favour of Nanhu Mal who had instituted a suit for the recovery of money, and on the 5th August, 1921, Amjad Ali Shah paid this amount. The present suit was instituted on the 18th July, 1923. Musammat Muniran Bi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »