Allahabad Court March 1930 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.
Lakhmi Chand and ors. Vs. Madho Rao and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All681
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendants Lakhmi Chand, Parshotam Das and Parbhu Lal against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Agra and a cross-objection by the plaintiff Madho Rao, minor. The suit of the plaintiff Madho Rao, aged 10 years, is brought for a declaration that the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra in suit No. 18 of 1914 is null and void and that the muafi rights specified in list A and the ancestral property specified in list B are not saleable in execution of the aforesaid decree. The Subordinate Judge has granted the relief in regard to the muafi rights in list A and has dismissed the suit in regard to the ancestral property in list B. The pedigree of the plaintiff is as follows:Manaji|Bogaji|Abaji_______________________________|___________________________ || |Shankar Rao alies Bhau Sahib Umaji Rao alias Tentia| SahibMadho Rao I |Mt Chaubai | || Gobind Rao Lachhman RaoAba Sahib, defendant 4 |(adopted son) | Umaji RaoMadho Rao, p...
S. Safdar Ali Vs. Ambika Prasad Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All678
Niamatullah, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by Pandit Ambika Prasad Dubey for ejectment of one Safdar Ali, who has since died and is now represented by one of his sons, the appellant in Appeal No. 1263 of 1927. The respondents in Appeal No. 6 of 1929 are all of his heirs, including the appellant in Appeal No. 1263 of 1927. The land in dispute was occupied by Safdar Ali, who had a stock of wood and some residential quarters on it. Originally it belonged to two brothers, Dwarka Prasad and Jwala Prasad. By a certain partition in the family the land in its entirety has fallen to the share of the plaintiff, who is the son of Dwarka Prasad. As the names of certain persons occur in the documents, which we shall have occasion to refer to, it is necessary to state at the outset what position they occupy in relation to this matter. The following, pedigree will elucidate the facts:Kashi Ram-Mt. Lalmati|Mt. Ram Dulari|Ram KishenMt. Ketki Kunwar || _________|______Bishen Kunw...
Jhandu Mal and Sons Vs. Official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun Mussoori ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All778
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of the learned Company Judge, dismissing the claim of the appellant applicant Messrs. Jhandoo Mal and Sons through Lala Bool Chand. The appellant put in a petition on 3rd August 1928 to the learned Company Judge containing certain items of Claim Nos. 1 to 9 amounting in all to Rs. 6,490-7-0. Of these items the order of the Company Judge deals with items 1 to 4, which are claims by the appellant on two promissory notes of 7th November 1921 and 21st November 1924. These promissory notes are signed by Mr. T.B. Gilani, and below his signature there appear on one promissory note the words:Managing Agent, Dehra, Dun Electric Tramway Company Limited.2. On the other promissory note below the signature of Mr. Gilani the words written are:Agent, Dahra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Company Limited.3. The learned Company Judge has held that the Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Company Limited, now in liquidation, are not rendered li...
Mt. Chuman Vs. Nanhe Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All795
Mukerji, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court and arises in the following circumstances. The respondent Nanhe Singh brought a suit for ejectment of the appellant Mt. Chuman and for recovery of two plots of land, namely 602 and 683. The defendant pleaded that she was an ex-proprietary tenant of these plots. On these pleadings the obvious duty of the Court of first instance was to refer to the revenue Court under Section 202, Tenancy Act, 1901, to obtain a declaration as to her status. Instead of doing that, the learned Munsif took it upon himself to decide the case on the merits and he decreed it.2. On an appeal by the defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge discussed the merits of the case. He thought that there were two conflicting judgments of the revenue Court and the later judgment should prevail, viz: the one in which it was held that the defendant was an ex-proprietary tenant, and the revenue papers which recorded her as an ex-...
Benarsi Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.503
Barjor Jamshedji Dala, J.1. This application must succeed on both the grounds raised on be half of the applicant. The applicant has been convicted of an offence under Section 4 of the United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act VI of 1912 (Local). There is, a mandatory injunction in Section 15(2) of the Act that every summons issued in a prosecution under Section 4 and Section 10 shall specify particulars of the offence charged and the name of the prosecutor besides other information. In the summons no particulars were given; nor was the name of the prosecutor given. The particulars were essential in this case because even now I have not understood the exact reason or rather the exact charge on which the applicant has been convicted. If the particulars had been stated in the charge a Court of revision would have had an opportunity to test the particulars and discover whether they amounted to an offence under Section 4. What the learned Judge says, I am afraid, I am unable to unders...
Ram Das Vs. Dwarka Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All875; 128Ind.Cas.763
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,000 odd comprised of several items. The claim was disputed, but has been decreed in part. The defendant has accordingly appealed, but the plaintiff has submitted to the decree so far as it dismissed a part of his claim. It will be convenient to take up each of the items separately. The first item claimed was the balance of Rs. 1,575 out of Rs. 5,100 which had been fixed as the value of the share of the plaintiffs deceased father in a certain partnership business. After the dissolution of the partnership, written agreements were executed by the deceased and the defendant and they are to be found at pages 58 and 59 of the paper-book. There cannot be the least doubt that the deceased transferred his entire interest in this partnership in lieu of Rs. 5,100 and ceased to have any further concern with this business. The defendant has taken the plea that there was some sort of an oral understanding that the defendant ...
Emperor Vs. Nawal Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All489
Boys, J.1. Nawal Behari Lal was put on trial upon charges under Sections 193, 471 and 467/109, I.P.C. The jury convicted him under Section 193, I.P. C, but acquitted him by a majority of three to two on the other two charges. The learned Judge proceeded to accept the finding of guilty as regards Section 193, and to convict and sentence him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. Disagreeing with the jury's verdict on the other two charges he has referred the matter to this Court under Section 307. In the first place we must point out an error into which the learned Judge has fallen. When he refers a case by virtue of the powers given by Section 307, Criminal P. C, he must refer the whole of the case against the particular accused, and not merely those charges on which there happens to be a finding with which he disagrees. In this particular case he should have referred the whole of the case against Nawal Behari Lal instead of merely referring the case so far as the ...
Hamid Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.731
Shah Mohammad Sulaiman, J.1. On a report made by this office this appeal was returned by a learned Judge of this Court for presentation to the Sessions Judge. When it was presented before him he also returned it for presentation to the High Court. The appeal is still within time, but even if it had been out of time there would have been good cause for extension of the period of limitation.2. The appeal is from an order of an Assistant Sessions Judge convicting the accused under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code at one trial and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run consecutively.3. The sentence for each offence is of less than four years but the aggregate of the two exceeds that term. If the two sentences had to run concurrently there would be no doubt that under Section 408, Criminal Procedure Code, the appeal would lie to the Sessions Judge, but as they have to run consecutively the sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge is re...
Hari Ram and ors. Vs. Gokul Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All624
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 12th September 1907 for Rs. 8,000 executed by defendants 1, 2 and 3 in favour of Mathura Prasad. Defendants 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of the mortgagors. The plaintiffs are members of Mathura Prasad's family, who has died since, and are his heirs under the Hindu law. The defence of the mortgagors was that the amount had been advanced not by Mathura Prasad in his personal capacity but as a trustee of an endowment, and the present plaintiffs who were heirs to his personal estate were not entitled to recover this amount; that there was no right given to the mortgagee to recover interest, his only remedy being to enter into possession; that there was no stipulation to pay interest after the fixed period of seven years; and lastly that the claim for foreclosure was barred by Section 10, Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act, (Act 2 of 1903). The other defendants denied the execution of ...
Abdul Jalil Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All746
Boys, J.1. This is an appeal of six men from convictions under Section 396, I.P.C., and in the case of Abdul Jalil Khan and Abdul Shakur alias Shakuri, sentences of death and, in the case of Dilawar, Kundan, Chhida and Hemraj, sentences of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, including three months' solitary confinement. The printed paper-book of the case runs to just over 300 pages. This is partly due to the fact that the learned Additional Judge has admitted on to the record the whole of previous statements made by witnesses. Previous statements of witnesses are only ordinarily admissible to corroborate or contradict the witnesses who have made statements at the trial, or by virtue of Section 288, Criminal P.C. The latter section should only be employed when there is reason to believe that a witness at the trial is deliberately departing from the evidence which he gave before the Magistrate and where it is considered by the trial Judge desirable to bring the whole statement made before t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »