Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Joti Prasad Vs. Emperor

Joti Prasad vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 09, 1936
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/458933

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Joti Prasad

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1937All361

Excerpt

- orderallsop, j.1. this is a reference by the learned sessions judge of saharanpur that, a fine of rs. 4 inflicted upon jyoti prasad by a bench of honorary magistrates under section 185, municipal act, should be set aside. joti prasad is alleged to have made two doorways in his house opening upon a court-yard which was common to him and munni lal. the learned judge has suggested that the opening of a doorway is not a material alteration within the meaning of section 178, municipalities act. i think whether it is or is not is a question of fact because the opening of a very large doorway or something of that kind might prejudicially affect the support or safety of a building, but in the present case i agree with him that there is no reason for thinking that the opening of these doors was a matter with which the municipal board was really concerned. from the judgment of the honorary magistrates it appears that they were affected by the fact or allegation that these doorways invaded the privacy of munni lal. it is not part of the duty of a municipality to decide private disputes between citizens. in the circumstances of the present case i accept the reference and set aside the conviction and sentence. if the fine or any part of it has been paid the m0oney shall be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Allsop, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur that, a fine of Rs. 4 inflicted upon Jyoti Prasad by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates under Section 185, Municipal Act, should be set aside. Joti Prasad is alleged to have made two doorways in his house opening upon a court-yard which was common to him and Munni Lal. The learned Judge has suggested that the opening of a doorway is not a material alteration within the meaning of Section 178, Municipalities Act. I think whether it is or is not is a question of fact because the opening of a very large doorway or something of that kind might prejudicially affect the support or safety of a building, but in the present case I agree with him that there is no reason for thinking that the opening of these doors was a matter with which the Municipal Board was really concerned. From the judgment of the Honorary Magistrates it appears that they were affected by the fact or allegation that these doorways invaded the privacy of Munni Lal. It is not part of the duty of a Municipality to decide private disputes between citizens. In the circumstances of the present case I accept the reference and set aside the conviction and sentence. If the fine or any part of it has been paid the m0oney shall be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial