Allahabad Court August 1947 Judgments
Krishna Sahai Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All197
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of a Revenue Officer, which was confirmed by the District Judge of Farrukhabad on appeal ejecting him under Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, from two plots bearing plot Nos. 41 and 54 in Patti 1 of village Kampil, tahsil Qaimganj, in the district of Farrukhabad.2. The suit was brought against the appellant (defendant) by five cosharers in the mahal who are the respondents to this appeal. It is not disputed that the appellant is also a cosharer in the mahal. It appears that one Taja was ejected by the respondents from one of the two plots in dispute, viz., plot No. 41 in the year 1943. After that the appellant took possession of that plot as well as of plot No. 54 and the respondents sought to eject him as a trespasser under Section 180, Tenancy Act, and their suit has as I have sic said, been decreed by the Courts below.3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the respondents were not en-tit...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Nandan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All136
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The applicants, five in number, along with four others, were tried under Sections 147 and 452 and Section 323 read with Section 149, Penal Code. The learned Magistrate who tried the case passed an order convicting the applicants without specifying the sections of the Indian Penal Code under which he was convicting them and passed combined sentences upon them of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 each. This is illegal, and the judgment obviously does not comply with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 367, Criminal P.C., which requires that the judgment shall specify the offence of which and the section of the Indian Penal Code or other law under which the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced.2. The applicants went up in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge noted the error committed by the trial Court, but he confirmed the convictions of the applicants as well as the sentences, except in the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Swaroop Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All135
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. A criminal complaint was brought against the applicant Sardar Swarup Singh by a man called P.C. Sharma under Sections 352 and 506, Penal Code. An offence under Section 352 is a summons case offence, while the one under Section 506 is a warrant case offence. The Magistrate, however, followed the procedure prescribed for the trial of a warrant case and proceeded with the trial and some evidence was recorded. On 4-5-1946 the complainant absented himself and the learned Magistrate passed an order dismissing the complaint in default and 'directing that the accused person be released, tie also observed that the case appeared to be a case under Section 352, Penal Code, only. Soon afterwards a fresh complaint under the same two sections was brought by Sharma against the applicant who, however, contended that the complainant was, not entitled to bring a fresh complaint in view of the provisions of Section 403, Criminal P.C., The learned Magistrate overruled this conten...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Balak Dusadh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All103
Harish Chandra, J.1. Sheo Balak Dusadh, aged about 35 years, resident of Budhipur, police circle Ubhaon in the district of Ballia, has been convicted under Sections 802 and 457, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years respectively for the two offences. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Village Bishunpura adjoins village Budhipur and the prosecution story is that on the night of 3rd and 4th November 1945 sis or seven thieves came to the house of one Bansi, a resident of village Bishunpur and dug a hole in the western wall of his house. After completing the hole, they were trying to bore another in the second wall of the house when Mt. Motia, wife of Bansi's nephew Dhanai, who also lived in the same house, woke up on hearing the noise. According to the evidence it was three gharis to one pahar before sunrise. She roused Dhanai and Bansi from their sleep. Bansi is an old man of 80 years. Jita is another...
Tag this Judgment!John Roberts Vs. Joyee Roberts and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All161
Mootham, J.1. An application has been made to this Court under Section 17, Divorce Act, for confirmation of a decree of the District Judge of Gorakhpur, dated 4th November 1946, dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and respondent on the ground of the latter's adultery with the co-respondent; and the only question which we are now asked to decide is whether notice of this application must be served on the respondent and co-respondent. The respondent and co-respondent were duly served with notice of the petition in the trial Court; they chose not to appear, and it has been argued before us that on the authority of the decision of the Lahore High Court in Harris v. Harris ('21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 Lah. 310 notice of the present application need not issue to them.2. With the greatest respect I find myself unable to agree with the decision in Harris v. Harris ('21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 Lah. 310. In that case the Court based its decision on the earlier case of the Calcutta High Court in Hicks v. Hic...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Asrey Ahir Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1947
Reported in: 1949CriLJ136
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. Ram Asrey applicant was convicted by a learned Magistrate of Basti under Section 13, Public Gambling Act and was sentenced to a fine of us. 30.2. The only point which has been urged by learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant cannot, in view of the authorities, be held to have been gambling in a 'public place' within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. Reliance has been placed upon a number of authorities. . In the present case the applicant was found gambling in a grove belonging to a zamindar. It appears from the site plan that to the north and the south of the place where the gambling was going on, there are public pathways. From the evidence of the Head Constable, it appears that these pathways are at a distance of only one pace from the scene of the occurrence. Further towards the south at a short distance there is a kuchcha road running from Bansi to Tewaripur.3. The first case relied upon is Emperor v. Ajudhia Prasad, 1904 A. w. N. 9...
Tag this Judgment!Jai NaraIn Misra Vs. Phal NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All192
Sinha, J.1. The facts of this second appeal, which has been preferred by a vendee in a preemption suit, are slightly complicated. They are, however briefly these : On 30-9-1939, Brij Behari executed a sale deed in favour of Jai Narain Misra. A suit to pre-empt the sale was brought by Phal Narain on 30-9-1940. This was suit No. 350 of 1940.2. The vendee resisted the suit on a variety of allegations, but it was ultimately decreed by the learned Munsif on 22-9-1942.3. It is necessary to follow the fate of another sale of 19-1-1940. By it, some property in the same mahal, in which the property embraced by the earlier sale lay, was sold by the same vendor to the same vendee. The same pre-emptor preempted it, too. This was suit No. 139 of 1941. The vendee set up another sale of 34-11-1940, as a shield. He pleaded that this sale gave him the status of a cosharer, a part from the other two sales, and armed him with a right to resist preemption. The learned Munsif decreed the suit by his judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Latoor Mal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All137a
ORDERMootham, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 174, Penal Code, of the offence of failing to comply with a summons issued under Section 160, Criminal P.C. The relevant part of the summons was in these terms:Whereas your attendance is necessary at an inquiry being made into a charge under Rule 81, Defence of India Rules, you are hereby required to appear before me at thana Kosi Kalan on 19th day of February 1946. Herein fail not.and it is argued on behalf of the applicant that this is not a summons for the non-compliance with which he can be prosecuted as it does not specify the time at which his attendance at the police station Kosi Kalan is required.2. In other words, the argument is that the phrase 'place and time' appearing in Section 174 of the Code makes it necessary that the summons shall specify not merely the date but also the hour of the day at which the attendance of the person upon whom the summons is served is required. It is somewhat surprising that this...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Ji and ors. Vs. Roshan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1949All462
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondents that no appeal lies. An order in the present case was passed by the learned District Judge in an appeal arising out of a case under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The appeal was dismissed for default and an application for the setting aside of that order was dismissed. It is from that order of the learned District Judge that this appeal has been preferred.2. Counsel for the appellants contends that by virtue of Section 243, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable and as under the said Code an appeal lies from such an order passed by the District Judge, this appeal is maintainable. A careful examination of Section 243 will show that the entire Code of Civil Procedure has not been applied to the suits and proceedings under the U.P. Tenancy Act. There are three requisites for the application of any provision of the Code, namely (a) the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kripal Vs. Shri Krishna Deo Pratap Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All108
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal by a defendant-Yendee arising out of a pre-emption suit. The facts are as follows : On 25-3-1943, Kedar Nath, defendant 2, sold to Ram Kirpal, defendant 1, who is the appellant before us, the following properties for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 70 : (1) One-sixth share of a grove situated in plot No. 161 containing eight mango and one jamun trees. (2) One-third share of the scattered mango, mahua and jamun trees situated on plots Nos. 851, 802, 798 and 704. (3) One-third share of a tamarind, a banian and a nim tree situated on Abadi plot No. 755. All the above properties are situated in village Amrahin.2. The plaintiff brought a suit for pre-emption on 24-3-1944, that is to say, on the last day of limitation, alleging that there was a custom in the village according to which a ryot could not sell any grove or scattered trees to any one so long as the zamindar was willing to purchase it on a reasonable price. In support of this, he relied...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »