Allahabad Court May 1947 Judgments
Budha Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All115
ORDERMootham, J.1. This is an application in revision by three persons against an order passed by a Magistrate of First Class of Ballia under Section 133, Criminal P.C.2. A complaint was filed in the learned Magistrate's Court alleging that the applicants had obstructed a public path which lay to the south of the complainant's house, and on 24-8-1945, the learned Magistrate issued a conditional order under Section 133, Criminal P.C., directing the applicants to remove the obstruction within one month or, if they object so to do, to show cause on 19-9-1945, against that order. Oh that date the applicants appeared before the learned Magistrate, and on being questioned by him under Section 189A of the Code they denied the existence of any public right in respect of the path in question. At the same time they filed a written statement in which they asserted, inter alia, that the public path lay to the north, and not to the south, of the complainant's house. A few days later they applied un...
Tag this Judgment!Kripa Shankar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All26
ORDERMalik, J.1. This is an application for bail under Secion 498, Criminal P.C.2. The cse is pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad and the accused has been committed to that Court to stand his trial under Section 326 read with Section 114, Penal Code The learned Sessions Judge before whom tire application was made passed an order that in view of the observations made by this Court in Emperor v. Deonath Cri. Misc. Case No. 1298 of 1946, he could not grant bail to the accused.3. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that the observations made in Emperor v. Deonath Cri. Misc. Case No. 1298 of 1946 are opposed to the decision of the Pull Bench in K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor : AIR1931All504 . This Pull Bench decision was not cited before the learned single Judge who decided Emperor v. Deonath Cri. Misc. Case No. 1298 of 1946. The learned Single Judge has held that:Section 498, Criminal P.C. does not by any means govern or limit the provisions of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubans Kumari Ju Deo Vs. Raghuraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All81
Malik, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff is the daughter of Raja Raghunath Singh of Sikri Estate in the district of Jalaun who died on 27th October 1911. The Sikri Estate consists of properties in two taluqas, taluqa Khaksis, comprising eleven villages, details of which are given in Schedule A attached to the plaint, and taluqa Sikri comprising eight villages, details of which are given in Schedule B. It is admitted that it is an impartible estate and goes to a single owner. Raja Raghunath Singh, the last male owner, had got the property by inheritance from his father, Raja Daulat Singh, who had died on 25th January 1896. Raja Raghunath Singh remained the owner of the estate till his death on 27th October 1911. At the time of his death he had no son. He was survived by his third wife, Rani Harbans Kishori, and by his daughter by her, the present plaintiff. The plaintiff was a minor, aged about four or five years, at the time of the Raja's death. The estate had been taken...
Tag this Judgment!Ramzan Ali Vs. Mt. Satul Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All244
Malik, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. 1908 (Act V of 1908) by one Ramznn Ali, defendant 1, against whom an application of Mt. Satul Bibi for permission to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis was granted by the learned Civil Judge of Mirzapur.2. One Kallu was the owner of considerable property. He died on 15th November 1940. His heirs and legal representatives, according to Mahomedan law, were his widow, Mt. Bhagni, defendant 2, his son, Ramzan Ali, defendant 1, and his daughter, Mt. Khatun defendant 3 by Mt. Bhagni, as also his daughters, Mt Batul, defendant 4, and Mt. Satul by a predeceased wife.3. On 26th November 1940, a deed of relinquishment was executed by Mt. Satul, Mt. Batul and Mt. Khatun in favour of Ramzan Ali. Under this document, the executants purported to give away all their rights in their father's property in favour of their brother, Ramzan Ali.4. On 6th August 1941, an application was filed by Mt. Satul Bibi under order 33 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Jagendra Nath Singh Vs. Hira Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All252
Malik, J.1. The facts of this case are given in the referring order dated 15th April 1946.2. One Fateh Bahadur Singh had executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 1700 in favour of Nandan Sahu on 26th May 1911. The mortgagee filed a suit, No. 825 of 1923, against Fateh Bahadur Singh and obtained a preliminary decree on 7th April 1924. A final decree for sale was passed on 24th February 1925, for Rupees 37,525 odd. Jogendra Nath Singh, son of Pateh Bahadur Singh, then filed a suit, No. 77 of 1927, for a declaration that the property included in the mortgage was joint family property, that the mortgage was without legal necessity and that he joint family was not, therefore, bound by the decree or liable for payment of the mortgage debt. During the pendency of that suit the whole of the mortgaged property was sold in execution of the decree in suit No. 325 of 1923 and was purchased by the decree-bolder. The suit of Jogendra Nath Singh was dismissed by the trial Court on 10th April 1928, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All106
Malik, J.1. This application is by Moti Lal and Sri Ram under Section 561A, Criminal P.C., and Section 205, Government of India Act.2. Moti Lal and Sri Ram are proprietors of a firm, Messrs. Moti Lal and Sri Ram. They were 'tried for having contravened the provisions of Section 6, Clause (l), Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance (35 [xxxv] of 1943). They were both convicted by Mr. S.P. Watal, Magistrate, First Class and were sentenced to eighteen months' 'rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each. Moti Lal and Sri Ram filed a revision in this Court which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 748 of 1946. This Court reduced the sentence of Sri Ram and while setting aside the sentence of imprisonment, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000 was maintained. The sentence of imprisonment and of fine passed by the Magistrate on Moti Lal was maintained by this Court.3. A certificate is prayed for by the present application under Section 205, Government of India Act, on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Chotey Lal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All72
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Chhotey Lal and his nephew, Ram Sarup, appeal against their conviction under Section 866, Penal Code.2. Chhotey Lal filed a complaint under Section 498, Penal Code and obtained a warrant for the arrest of Mt. Katori as a witness. He alleged that Mt. Katori was his wife. The Tahsildar Magistrate issued the warrant Ex. P-3 under Section 90, Criminal P.C. The warrant empowers the police officer to arrest Mt. Katori and produce her in Court. It further said that after arrest she be delivered to a person approved by Chhotey Lal. In execution of this warrant Mt. Katori was arrested by Mehdi Husain, constable, at her father's place on 18-1.1945. He obtained a surety bond from Ram Sarup in the sum of Rs. 500 for the due appearance of Mt. Katori in Court on the appointed day. No personal bond was executed by Mt. Katori. She was in fact not re-quired to execute it. She did not want to go with Ram Sarup. Ram Sarup and Chhotey Lal accused forcibly took her away and kept her at...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdam Sahai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All12
Malik, J.1. In these four miscellaneous applications a common question of law of general importance has arisen and it has, therefore, keen referred to a Bench for decision.2. In the first Miscellaneous Application Order 437 of 1947, Jagdam Sahai who was a Chief Sorter in the Oudh and Tirhut Railway, was convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Eules, for having contravened the provisions of Clause 3, United Provinces Food-grains (Movement) Control Order, 1943. Jagdam Sahai was in charge of the mail van between Gorakhpur and Palheza Ghat. On 21-10-1943, it was found by the Railway Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhagwan Singh Kapoor, when the train reached Palheza Ghat, that several of the mail bags contained foodgrains which could not be exported Outside the Province without fulfilling the requirements of the Control Order referred to above. Besides Jagdam Sahai, there were three other sorters in the van, Jamuna Singh, K. Kumar and Munshi Ram. All the four were tried and convicted by a Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Ashfaqul Nabi Khan Vs. K.B. Syed Raza HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All62
Malik, J.1. This appeal has teen filed by Asbfaqul Nabi Khan, who bad objected to the execution of a decree on the ground that it was barred by limitation and on various other grounds, which are no longer pressed before us.2. On 5-9-1917 one Mohammad Saeed had executed a mortgage for Rs. 4,500 in favour of Zakir Husain. Zakir Husain died leaving a number of heirs and his widow, Mt. Sughra Begum, filed a Suit No. 18 of 1929, on her behalf and on behalf of the other heirs, whom she impleaded as pro forma defendants. The suit was decreed on 18-2-1930 and the final decree for sale was passed on 13-10-1933. The appellant was one of the defendants and he had been impleaded as a subsequent purchaser of a part of the mortgaged property. He contested the suit on the ground that he had purchased a portion of the mortgaged property in execution of a simple money decree No. 79 of 1922 and his share of the liability should, therefore, be apportioned and he should be liable to pay only his proportio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›