Allahabad Court December 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.
Nathu Lal and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.418
1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a decree of this Court in a secoiid appeal, which reversed the decrees of the courts below and die-, missed the plaintiffs' suit. The application purports to be under Sections 109(c) and 110 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts which have given rise to this application lie within a narrow compass and are these: Ram Sahai, Jai Sukh Ram and Sita Rem were members of a joint Hindu family, which possessed considerable property. On the 17th of April, 1873, Sita Ram separated. Jai Sukh Ram died in 1891, leaving a widow Musammat Jamna and three daughters Musammat Naraini, Musammat Ram Dei and Musammat Mullo. A dispute arose between Musammat Jamna and Ram Sahai, the former claiming that her husband was separate from Ram Sahai and the latter asserting that he died as a member of a joint family with him. The dispute was referred to arbitration and an award was given on the 9th February, 1892, under ...
Babu Jag Mohan Lal Vs. Mt. Gomti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All153
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal has been filed from the order of the District Judge passed in an appeal airing out of insolvency matter. On the face of it a second appeal does not lie at all because it did not raise any question which would bring it within the purview of Section 4 of the Act. The appeal as such is incompetent. It has however to be seen whether the judgment of the District Judge can be said not to be according to law so as to empower me to interfere in revision. The appellant Jagmohan Lal has been declared an insolvent. The respondent Mt. Gomti holds a decree against him and she applied to the insolvency Court for attachment of Jagmohan Lal's pay. Unfortunately in the proceedings which were taken in the Courts below the receiver does not appear to have been made a party and he has also been left out from this appeal. When an Official Receiver has been appointed he represents the whole body of creditors and it is he who should move in the matter, though it is open to a credit...
Behari Pandey Vs. Ramanand Pandey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All157; 145Ind.Cas.591
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the mortgagee from a final decree passed in a redemption suit. The respondents brought a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the appellants. The Court passed a decree on 4th November 1925, which was prepared in terms of the following order:The suit is decreed conditional on the plaintiffs depositing Rs. 199-15-0 to the credit of the defendants in this Court within six months; prepare a preliminary decree for redemption under Order 34, Rule 7, Civil P.C. On compliance the plaintiffs shall get possession and costs of the suit; on failure their suit shall stand dismissed with costs. 2. The mortgagor did not deposit the mortgage money within six months, but after the expiry of that period he applied for extension of time, which was granted. He deposited the entire mortgage money on which the Court passed a final decree on 28th July 1927, directing delivery of possession to the mortgagor. At the time when the final decree was pa...
Ali HusaIn and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn Mahajan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All188; 140Ind.Cas.150
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad of an acquittal by a Magistrate of five persons who were charged under Section 186, I.P.C. The complaint was made by the Subordinate Judge. The Magistrate recorded no evidence, but he made an order on 8th August 1931 setting forth the facts of the case and stating that the contention on behalf of the defence was an argument of law. The facts set forth were as follows:The said Lachmi Narain has been declared an insolvent on 14th September 1927. In execution proceeding the request was to arrest Lachmi Narain. Lachmi Narain was arrested on 4th June 1931. On 5th June 1931 Lachmi Narain was put up before Court which had ordered the arrest. The Court ordered a peon to take Lachmi Narain to the latter's house and realise the decretal amount. The peon took Lachmi Narain to his (Lachmi Narain's) house. Lachmi Narain while going to his house got into the shop of Lalman and refused to accompany the process server. ...
Niaz Ahmed Vs. Phul Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All336
Sen, J.1. On 22nd August 1917, one Sirajuddin took a lease of certain zamindari property from Rani Phul Kunwar. A patta and a kabuliyat were executed in evidence of this transaction and the lessee agreed to pay to the lessor Rs. 2,500 in certain instalments. On the same date, Niaz Ahmed stood surety for the lessee and executed a surety bond in favour of Rani Phul Kunwar, whereby he agreed to pay her Rs. 2,500 together with interest at a certain rate in case of default on the part of the lessee and hypothecated his immovable property in her favour.2. The lessee did not pay the stipulated instalments and a right of suit accrued to Rani Phul Kunwar against the lessee and his surety. In 1924, the surety applied to the Bombay High Court to be declared an insolvent. It is said that notice of this application was issued to Rani Phul Kunwar. We do not know why this notice was given. A copy of this notice is not on the record and we do not know its contents.3. Niaz Ahmed was duly adjudicated an...
Mahadeo Pandey and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All322; 140Ind.Cas.99
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur recommending that the conviction of the three applicants under Section 336, I.P.C. and sentence of fines of Rs. 30 each should be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is under the impression that the acts found would not amount to the offence mentioned in Section 336, I.P.C. He does not consider whether they would amount to an offence under any other section. He does not definitely state an opinion as to whether he considered that the finding of fact of the Magistrate was correct or not. The circumstances of the case are that Joganand Pandey, complainant, made a report on 8th March at 8-30 a.m. that the four accused persons at about 9-30 p.m., including the three applicants,, had thrown bricks into his house from enmity, that several bricks had been thrown in, and that he had gone out of his house and had seen the accused standing with bricks in their hands outside his house, and that the accused had raise...
Raghunandan Chaube Vs. Bhuwal Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All340; 140Ind.Cas.178
ORDERPullan, J.1. The circumstances which give rise to this appeal and the application in revision are as follows:On 25th April 1927, the Munsif of Deoria passed a decree against certain persons in a suit for contribution based on a mortgage. In the decree the liability of each defendant was specified. The decree as against Raghunandan Ghaube was ex parte. The other defendants appealed against the decision, and their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Subordinate Judge on 5fch January 1928. In that appeal Raghunandan Chaube was made a party, but it has been found definitely by the Court below that he was not served with any notice. The plaintiff applied for a final decree on 6th June 1928, and Raghunandan Chaube applied on 26th October 1928 in the Court of the Munsif of Deoria to get the ex parte decree of the Munsif's Court set aside. The Munsif dismissed the application on the ground that no such application could be entertained by him. His decision is dated 5th March 1929. On 8t...
Emperor Vs. Sikhdar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All441
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Fatehpur asking that the conviction of one Sikhdar for illegal possession of a gun without a licence under Section 19(f), Arms Act, should be set aside. The facts found by the learned Sessions Judge are that the gun in question was found in the house of this accused, but the recommendation is made on the ground that not only the accused lives in this house but some other members of the joint family of which the accused is a member, and that the accused is not the managing member. The joint family in question consists of the father of the accused, who appeared as a witness and denied that there was a gun in the house, and he is an old man aged 60, and he stated that he cannot see distinctly. The Magistrate is apparently right in his conclusion that the father would have anything to do personally with this gun. Of the two brothers of the accused one Purna is said to live in another village called Nathkhera. Another br...
Ram Khelawan Vs. Sheo Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All191; 140Ind.Cas.122
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a recommendation by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur that a certain order of acquittal passed by a Bench should be set aside and a retrial ordered. The facts are very simple. The complainant produced his witnesses before the Bench and while his witnesses were making their examination-in-chief a member of the Bench, B. Sheo Shankar Singh, was absent. This Magistrate was present during the rest of the trial and 16 took part in the decision along with we other Magistrates who had been present during the whole trial. Of the two Magistrates present during the whole trial one was for acquittal and one was for conviction. B. Sheo Shankar Singh was for acquittal, and therefore the accused was acquitted on the decision of B. Sheo Shanker Singh and B. Tirloki Nath Singh, learned Counsel, first of all relied on the ruling reported in Emperor v. Mathura [1919] 41 All. 116, in which it was held that the provisions of Section 350, Criminal P.C., would apply to a somew...
Syed Ahmad Vs. H.E. Barlow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All223
ORDER1. This is an application in revision asking us to set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge of Etawah by which he discharged an order of injunction issued by the lower Court. The applicant is one Syed Ahmad, who was a, voter in the Chauni ward of the Etawah Municipality. A Municipal election was pending, and as Syed Ahmad had a vote in another ward in the constituency, and as he wished to stand as a candidate for election to the Board in that ward, he-applied that the entry of his name in the Chauni ward register should be struck out and entered in that of the other ward. His name was struck off the register of' the Chauni ward. Objection however was taken to his name being entered upon the electoral roll of the other ward. The objection was heard by a properly constituted revising committee, which upheld the objection. He then applied that his name should be entered on his original electoral roll. This application however was rejected. An appeal was preferred before the Distri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »