Allahabad Court April 1931 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. Raja Kushal Pal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All443; 1931 Cri LJ 1105
Mukerji, J. 1. A point of law mixed with facts has been referred to a Bench of three Judges owing to a difference of opinion occurring between two learned Judges who heard the First Appeals Nos. 349 and 449 of 1925. The point that has been referred to us for decision is worded as follows:Whether Section 195 (1) (c) is applicable so as to render a complaint of a Court necessary before a prosecution for abetment of forgery can be lodged in respect of High Court Exs. 4 to 7 or any of them.2. As it would be necessary to know the nature of the exhibits in order to answer the question I will, very briefly, give a description and history of these exhibits.3. In these provinces there is a large landed property known as the Kotla Estate. It was owned by one Thakur Chaturbhuj Singh who died on 4th November 1844. He was succeeded by his widow Mt. Mahtab Kuer who died in 1889, When Thakur Chaturbhuj Singh died, a young man 'Dmrao Singh, who was probably one of his collaterals, was a minor. Umrao S...
Bankey Lal and ors. Vs. Durga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All512
ORDERMukerji and Bennet, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of insolvency proceedings and under the following circumstances. The facts will have to be gone into in some detail.2. The following pedigree will show the relationship that exists between the insolvent and the appellants.LACHHMAN PRASAD|----------------------------------| | | | Bankey Ashrafi Munna JwalaLal Lal Lal Prasad| | || Priyanath Appnt. || |---------------------------- || | | | |Dori Kishan Jainti Chhatrapat |Lal Lal Prasad Applnt. |Appnt. Appnt. Appnt. |--------------------|-----------------------------------| | |Totaram Baburam Hukam Singh Appellant Appellant Appellant3. The family was a joint family and possessed a large amount of property. We are told that Bankey Lal, one of the sons of Lachhman Prasad, was mentally weak, and we do not find him figuring in any of the transactions with which the several applications in insolvency deal. On 30th August 1923, Lachhman Prasad and his sons, other than Bankey Lal, presented a ...
Mangal Sen and anr. Vs. Prag Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All725
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a first appeal from an order filing an award. The parties who had referred their dispute to arbitration out of Court were Mt. Sarju Dei, the widow of Jawala Prasad, her sons Mangal Sen and Ram Bharose and a stepson Prag Das. The award was made on 14th September 1926. An application to file the award was filed on behalf of Mt. Sarju Dei only on 9th March 1927. She made the other parties to the reference as parties to the proceedings. Prag Das filed a written statement alleging that Mt. Sarju Dei had filed the application in collusion with her sons and that it was possible that she might not prosecute it with due diligence. This was followed by an application made on his behalf on 2nd November 1927 in which he prayed that his name may be transferred from the array of the opposite party to that of the applicants. On this Mangal Sen and Ram Bharose took a further objection that the application of Prag Das was barred by time. In their previous written statement ...
Allah Bakhsh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All555; 136Ind.Cas.281
ORDERPullan, J.1. This is an application in revision of an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut rejecting summarily an appeal received from the jail. The Court was doubtless acting under Section 421, Criminal P.C. which lays down that a Judge on receiving such a petition shall peruse the same, and if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering he may dismiss the appeal summarily. The same section lays down in clear words that the Court hearing such an appeal is not bound to call for the record in the case. I have been referred by the learned Counsel to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court passed three years before Act 5 of 1898 was enacted, Empress v. Nannhu [1895] 17 All. 241 which shows that at that time this Court thought that it was advisable for a Court rejecting an appeal summarily to give some reasons. But. that opinion of the Full Bench of this Court was not incorporated in the subsequent Criminal Procedure Code. The law, in my opini...
B.B. and C.i. Ry. Co. Vs. Mitthu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All659
Mukerji, J.1. These are two applications in revision in two different suits of a similar nature, which were heard together and decided by the learned Subordinate Judge on 25th February 1930.2. It appears that there was a railway accident and certain persons were hurt. Two suits were instituted for recovery of damages against the railway administration. The plaintiffs in the suits declared that they were paupers and unable to pay the courtfee stamp. An enquiry was started, after giving information to the Government Pleader and to the opposite party. The enquiry has resulted in a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to sue as paupers.3. The railway has come up in revision.4. The first question is whether a revision lies.5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that if a revision is not entertained the result will be that at no subsequent stage, either in the suit or in an appeal, his client will be entitled to question the validity of the order of the learned Subordina...
Sheotahal Dube Vs. Lal NaraIn Prasad Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All695a
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The plaintiff claimed to be one of the owners entitled to a number of plots, The other owners did not join in the suit. The defendant who was in possession claimed to have acquired these plots under a sale deed from the plaintiff's mother. He took the plea, of protection under Section 41, T P. Act, and also a denial of the right of one co-owner to got possession of the entire plots. The plea under Section 41 was not pressed in the Court below and has been disposed of by us in the connected appeal, it being found that it has no force.2. A sale-deed was executed by the plaintiff's mother not as his guardian but in her own right. The lower appellate Court has found that she was a mere benamidar and had no right to the land. In the absence of any question of estoppel a transfer by her would confer no right on the defendant. The lower appellate Court has found and this finding has been accepted by a lear...
Mt. Ketki Kunwar Vs. Sheo NaraIn Jafa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All706
Young, J.1. Notices have been issued to Sheo Narain Jafa, an advocate of Budaun, Ghasa Singh and Nathu Lal to show cause why a complaint should not be filed against them in a criminal Court charging them with having committed offences under Sections 193, 120 (b) and 209, read with Section 109, I.P.C. Notice was also issued to Makhan Singh to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120 (b) and 209, read with Section 109, I. P.C.2. These applications arose out of P. A. No. 147 of 1927, which was heard and decided by a Bench of this Court on 22nd January 1931. That Bench made very strong observations against all the four respondents. The Court found in the civil appeal that there had been a conspiracy by all of them to deprive one Manohar Singh of his property, and in accordance with that finding, avoided a deed of gift executed by Manohar Singh in favour of Nathu Lal and Makhan Singh, and also a sale deed executed by the same par...
Nait Ram Vs. Roshan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All62; 136Ind.Cas.624
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for sale on a mortgage of 12th August 1910 executed by Qadam Singh. On 18th January 1915 Qadam Singh executed another mortgage in favour of Shib Shankar. On 26th May 1920, Shib Shankar sued on his mortgage of 18th January 1915 and obtained a decree which was made final on 2nd February 1921. Shib Shankar then sold the decree to Roshan Lal respondent 1.2. On 21st February 1923, Net Ram the plaintiff-appellant, instituted a suit for sale against Qadam Singh, his sons and grandsons So enforce his mortgage of 12th August 1910. In this suit he did not implead either Shib Shankar or Roshan Lal. He unsuccessfully tried to implead the subsequent mortgagee or his representative in the execution proceedings but failed. On 26th June 1925 Roshan Lal, in execution of his decree on foot of the mortgage of 12th January 1915, purchased the property now in suit and obtained possession thereof on 11th November 1926.3. Nait Ram finding that he could not...
Musammat Ketki Kunwar Vs. B. Sheo NaraIn Jafa, and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.378
1. Notices have been issued to Sheo Narain Jafa, a Pleader of Budaun, Ghasa Singh and Nathu Lal to show cause why a complaint should not be filed against them in a Criminal Court charging them with having committed offences under Sections 193, 120 (b) and 209, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Notice was also issued to Makhan Singh to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120 (b) and 209, read with Section 109, of the Indian Penal Code.2. These applications arose out of F. A. No. 147 of 1927, which was heard and decided by a Bench of this Court on the 22nd January, 1931. That Bench made very strong observations against all the four respondents. The Court found in the civil appeal that there had been a conspiracy by all of them to deprive one Manohar Singh of his property, and, in accordance with that finding avoided a deed of gift executed by Manohar Singh in favour of Nathu Lal and Makhan Singh, and also a sale...
Emperor Vs. Ram AdhIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All439
Sen, J.1. Baldeo Koeri, Bisheshar, Sahadeo, Hemraj, Lurkhur, Ramdeo, Munnu, Deoraj, Sukhraj, Khurkhur, Jaisri, Jhullar, Girja Dasaundhi and Rama-dhar were committed to the Court of Session at Jaunpur to take their trial under Sections 307/149 and 148, I.P.C. Of the above persons Baldeo was also charged of an offence under Section 302, I. P.C.2. Twelve of these persons are residents of Pindri, they are koeris by caste and are related. Two of the accused, namely Girja and Ramadhar are Dasaundhis by caste. They have got no interest in mauza Pindri. They are residents of mauza Nageshra.3. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Baldeo under Section 302, I.P.C. He ac quitted all the accused persons of the offence under Sections 307/149, I. P.C. He also acquitted Baldeo, Jaisri, Jhullar, Girja and Ramadhar of the offence under Section 148, I. P. C, but convicted Bisheshar, Sahdeo, Hemraj alias Hannu, Lurkhur, Ramdeo, Munnu, Deoraj, Sukhraj and Khurkur under Section 148, I. P. 0., and sentence t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »