Allahabad Court May 1931 Judgments
Puttu Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All629
ORDERSulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference against an order convicting the accused under Section 64 (c), Excise Act (Act 4 of 1910), for having broken one of the conditions of his license.2. When the Excise Inspector went to inspect his shop, he found it closed. When questioned later, the accused alleged that he had gone to a warehouse to bring four gallons of liquor which were entered in his register.3. The learned Magistrate infers that it was not a case of temporary absence, but of the closing of the shop on account of picketing. He accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50.4. The Sessions Judge has recommended that either the conviction be set aside or the fine be reduced to Rs. 5.5. The fourth general condition in the license applicable to all licensees is in the following terms:The hours for the opening and closing of the shops have been fixed as follows : It is necessary that shops should not be kept open at any other hour.6. It is note-worth...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sanehi Lal and anr. Vs. Janki Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All466
ORDERNiamatullah and Pullan, JJ.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Janki Prasad, the principal contesting respondent in S. A. No. 860 and the appellant in S. A. No. 890, for recovery of possession of a certain zamindari share. The circumstances which led to the present litigation are briefly as follows:2. Sital Prasad and Sanehi Lal executed a deed of simple mortgage on 6th October 1911 in favour of certain persons (it is not necessary to mention their names) in lieu of Rs. 2,500 hypothecating a two biswa odd share in patti No. 1 and a one biswa odd share in patti No. 6 both of village Bhaineroli, for a term of ten years, subject to the condition that if interest was not paid in any year the whole of the mortgage money would become immediately payable. One Behari, who is now represented by his sons Ram Sanehi Lal and Sia Ram, first two defendants and appellants in this Court in S. A. No. 860 of 1928, obtained the mortgagee rights under the deed above ment...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Prasad Vs. Kanhya Lal Bhargava and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All746
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. Abinash Chandra was the sole plaintiff in a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed. Under a compromise between the parties a preliminary decree for sale was passed on 13th September 1918. Abinash Chandra died some time about 1923 and his sons were substituted in his place as his heirs. They on one occasion applied for the preparation of the final decree, but , their application was dismissed for de-fault. Subsequently they transferred their rights to Kanhya Lal who filed a fresh application for the preparation of the final decree on 6th January 1926 against the mortgagors, Sita Ram and others. There was no objection taken and a final decree was passed on 1st July 1926 in favour of Kanhya Lal and against Sita Ram and others. It was after the passing of this final decree that the present appellant Thakur Prasad in execution of a simple money decree against the mortgagors got their supposed interest put up for sale, and he purchased it in 1927.2. When Kanhya La...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ahsan Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Syed Ibrar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All765
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal has been tiled by the dismissed trustees from an order of the District Judge approving of the appointment of another trustee to fill a vacancy in pursuance of a scheme settled by the High Court in a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C. Under the scheme that was settled it was provided that in the event of a vacancy occurring by death, retirement, resignation or removal a now mutawalli should be appointed by the committee with the approval of the District Judge. This was Ordered on 26th April 1916.2. A vacancy occurred on account of the resignation of the previous trustee. The committee considered various names and appointed one person as trustee. The learned Judge asked the committee to reconsider the claims of the various available candidates and finally approved of the appointment of Mr. Zaidi as the trustee.3. The learned advocate for the appellants contends that the order passed by the District Judge was an order in execution of the decree originally p...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Muhammadi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All110
Kendall, J.1. This is an application j for the revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Agra confirming the order of a Bench of Magistrates imposing a fine on Mt. Muhammad a prostitute under Section 299, U.P. Municipalities Act. The fine was imposed for the alleged infringement of a bye-law made by the Board, and the application for revision is made on the ground that the bye-law itself is ultra vires.2. Under Section 298-H(e), U.P. Municipalities Act, a Municipal Board by special resolution is empowered to make bye. lawsprohibiting in any specified streat or area, the residing of public prostitutes and the keeping of a brothel, or the letting or other disposal of a house or building to public prostitutes or for a brothel.3. In 1917 the Municipal Board of Agra passed a bye law under this section of the Act to the following effect:No public prostitute shall reside in any house or building or ply her trade within the municipal limits, excepting on both sides of the street be...
Tag this Judgment!Dehra Dun Mussorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jagmandar Da ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All141
King, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for sale upon the basis of a mortgage. The defendant is the Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co., Ltd. (in liquidation). This company was incorporated about the end of August 1921 having a registered office at Dehra Dun. The plaintiff's are the proprietors of a bank at Dehra Dun and the company had an account with that bank. On 19th January 1923 the plaintiff's allowed the company, at the request of their managing agent Mr. Beltie Shah Gilani, an overdraft of Rs. 25,000. The mortgage deed in suit was executed on 19th June 1923 by Mr. Beltie Shah on behalf of the company in favour of the plaintiffs to secure the overdraft. The defendants admit receipt of the consideration by the company. The overdraft of Rs. 25,000 was undoubtedly utilized for the necessary purposes of the company. The defendants have no objection to treating the plaintiffs as unsecured creditors but plead that the company is not bound by the mortgage dee...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Mohammadi Vs. Emperor Through Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.80
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Agra confirming the order of a Bench of Magistrates imposing a fine on Musammat Muhammadi, a prostitute, under Section 299 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The fine was imposed for the alleged infringement of a bye-law made by the Board, and the application for revision is made on the ground that the bye law itself is ultra vires2. Under Section 298-H(e) of the U.P. Municipalities Act a Municipal Board by special resolution is empowered to make bye lawsprohibiting, in any specified street or area, the residing of public prostitutes and the keeping of a brothel, or the letting or other disposal of a house or building to public prostitutes or for a brothel.3. In 1917, the Municipal Board of Agra passed a bye-law under this section of the Ant to the following effect:No public prostitute shall reside in any house or building or ply her trade within the municipal limits, excepting on both ...
Tag this Judgment!Deota Misir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All708
Boys, J.1. Deota Misir has upon a complaint by Bishnath Lal of an offence under Section 304, I. P.C. (causing death by doing a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide) been convicted and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 or in default six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The accused was the driver of a motor lorry, and was charged with having caused the death of a person, in that on the Gagha to Gorakhpur road he was driving his lorry fast as he was trying to outstrip another motor lorry, with the result that the lorry of the accused collided with a tree which stood on the right hand side of the road. The lorry overturned, one of the passengers was killed and some injured. The accused denied that he was driving fast or that he was trying to outstrip any other lorry or that he was guilty of any negligence. His case was that he saw two bullock carts coming towards him in the middle of the road, he intended to pass on his own left in th...
Tag this Judgment!L. Mahesh Prasad Vs. Jagannath Choube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All743a
King, J.1. The only point for deter-ruination in this appeal is whether an item of Rs. 85 out of the consideration for a mortgage executed by Sunder on 20th November 1916 is for legal necessity, or for the benefit of the joint Hindu family consisting of Sunder and defendant 3 who was a minor, so as to bind defendant 3.2. The mortgage was executed by Sunder, the manager of the joint family, as security for a loan of Rs. 128. Out of this amount the Court below has found that the payment of Rs. 43 has not been proved. The balance of Rs. 85 was recited in the mortgage dead to have been borrowed for purchasing a camel, and the plaintiff and a witness of his deposed that Sunder did in fact bay a camel with the money lent. The only question is whether Sunder was legally justified in creating the mortgage upon the joint family property for the purpose of buying the camel.3. This second appeal first came before a single Judge of this Court who stated that the facts found by the lower appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!(Khan) Ali Khan Vs. Masihuzzaman Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All152
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that the defendant, who is the lambardar of the village, is not entitled to collect rent in Patti Masihuzzaman Khan, now belonging to him, the plaintiff, exclusively and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to collect rent in that patti. It appears that the village was undivided till 1333 F., when by an imperfect partition-two pattis' were made, one being Patti Masihuzzaman Khan allotted to the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant, who was the lambardar of the village before the partition, continued as such thereafter He claimed a right to collect the rent of the whole village, including Patti Masihuzzaman Khan, by virtue of his office as lambardar. This was objected to by the plaintiff-respondent, who brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal.2. The defence was that, by virtue of his-office as lambardar and u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »