Allahabad Court June 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.
Muhammad Bashir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1931
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.246
ORDERBajpai, J.1. Two persons Muhammad Bashir and Bassan alias Bashir were convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 60(a) of the United Provinces Excise Act and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal their convictions were maintained by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore. They have applied in revision, to this Court and their case has been presented before me by Mr. Kapil Deo Malaviya and he has asked me to consider the cases of the two applicants separately.2. It appears that Muhammad Bashir is the occupant of the house which was raided at 6 P.M. on the 8th of December, 1930. Some cocaine was found in his house at three, or four different places. It is quite clear that the Excise Inspector went to the house with his peon without having taken a warrant from a Magistrate and without having taken a couple of respectable witnesses of the locality. These were irregularities and a great deal has been made by the defence put of these irregula...
Jagannath Prasad Vs. Mt. Jamuna Bai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All263
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder from an order passed by the execution Court allowing the objection of Mt. Jamuna Bai.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from this order as she was not a judgment-debtor.3. Hazari Lai was the plaintiff's debtor and after his death the plaintiff filed a suit against his daughter's son Achheylal alleging that ho was the sole legatee of the deceased under a will executed by him. He did not implead his daughter Mt. Jamuna Bai or any other relation. A money decree was obtained against the assets of the deceased Hazari Lai which, if any, may be in the hands of Achhey Lai.4. The decree-holder then tried to execute the decree by attachment and sale of some property in the hands of the deceased's daughter Mt. Jamuna Bai who at once objected and alleged that the property sought to be attached was her own property and no part of the deceased's assets at all. Her objection has been allowed and the decree-holder's appli...
Mt. Hamidan Bibi Vs. Nanhe Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All371
Sen, J.1. The facts of the case, which have led to this appeal, lie within a very narrow orbit. On 30th October 1919 Mt. Muniran, Mt. Hamidan and Suleiman executed a sale-deed of a house situate, in mohalla Sarai Harha in the city of Benares in favour of Nannhe Mal and Radhe Shiam for a sum of Rs. 2,700. It is admitted by the parties that the share of Mt. Muniran in the house was 11 annas 4 pies, that of Suleiman was 3 annas 1 /3 pies and that of Mt. Hamidan was one anna 6 2/3 pies. The proportionate price of Mt. Hamidan's share in the property was Rupees 253. It has been found by the Courts below that on the date of the execution of the sale-deed, Mt. Hamidan was a minor. The sale of her interest in the property was therefore void under Section 11, Contract Act. On 4th June 1927 Mt. Hamidan brought a suit in the Court of the city Munsif of Benares for the' avoidance of the sale-deed so far as it touched her interest in the property upon the ground that no title did or could pass to th...
Balkishan and anr. Vs. Mt. Bundia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All246; 136Ind.Cas.567
Smith, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit on a mortgage2. On 17th January 1917, Chhotey Lai deceased, the husband of Mt. Bundia, defendant 1 executed a simple mortgage in favour of Keshab Das, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, of three items of property, house No. 1, house No. 2 and some zamindari. Defendant 5 was impleaded simply as a donee of part of the zaminclari, and defendant 6 as having attached one of the houses in execution of a decree.3. On 5th September 1921, the mortgagor sold house No. 1 to Pt. Balal Prasad, defendant 2.4. There is an allegation in the suit, the truth of which has not yet been decided, that on 17th January 1927 one Khunnun, claiming to be the owner of the house No. 2 mortgaged it to one Hazari Lai, who is now defendant 4, Khunnun being represented by his son Jagannath. The plaintiffs directed their suit at the outset against both the houses Nos. 1 and 2, but after the written statements had been filed they proceeded through t...
Ganga Ram Chaudhari Vs. Mt. Mutesra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All510
Mukerji, J1. This appeal has been referred to a Bench of two Judges because a plea was taken for the first time in the lower appellate Court that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The learned single Judge was not sure whether it was open to the defendant, the appellant before the lower appellate Court, to raise the plea. The facts are these : The plaintiff who is the appellant before us brought a suit for possession of a certain property. He asked for mesne profits up to the date of the institution of the suit, but did not ask for mesne profits for the period following the institution of the suit and till the recovery of possession. He brought a second suit for mesne profits for this period. The first Court decreed the suit. In the lower appellate Court, the defendant for the first time, took the plea that the suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The District Judge gave effect to the defendant's plea and dismissed the suit relying on the cas...
Ram Naresh Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All710
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The three applicants before me have been convicted of an offence under Section 215, I.P.C. It appears that on the night of the 23rd and 24th April the complainant Hari Ram lost two of his bullocks and therefore on 21th April 1930, he informed the police in the following terms:On Wednesday in the evening my four oxen wore fed and then tied to pegs. When everybody was asleep two of them began to fight with one another and broke the tying strings and strayed away.2. It is clear therefore that when the bullocks were lost to the complainant, they were lost not by reason of the com-mission of any offence but by sheer accident. About six days later, on the 1st May there was a transaction between the complainant and the accused by which the accused took Rs. 50 and restored the bullocks to the complainant. I must accept the finding of the Court below that the money was demanded and received by the accused, but that alone is not sufficient to bring the conduct of :the accused w...
(Pandit) Bhim Sen Vs. (Pendit) Tara Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All154
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the lower appellate Court upholding the order of the first Court filing an award which had been made out of Court. A registered agreement referring the disputes between the parties was executed on 31st May 1929 and under it five persons were appointed as arbitrators. A meeting' was convened and notices to all the arbitrators were given, but one of the arbitrators named Sumat Prasad was not present. Both the Courts below have found that the parties agreed that the remaining four arbitrators should proceed with the case and dispose of the matter. The statements of the parties were taken down and evidence was recorded and an award was delivered by the four arbitrators. It was unanimous.2. An application was then made in the Court of the Munsif by the plaintiff for the filing of the award. The defendant objected that the absence of one of the arbitrators was fatal to the award and made it invalid. He further pleaded t...
Jamna Prasad and ors. Vs. Mt. Durga Dei and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All138
Sen, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by Mt. Durga Dei, daughter of Babu Mahadeo Prasad, against Mt. Basanta Koer and Mt. Bhagwanta Koer, widows of Babu Mahadeo Prasad, defendants first party, and against the sons and grandsons of Babu Baldeo Prasad (the brother of Babu Mahadeo Prasad), defendants second party. The reliefs which the plaintiff claimed were for a declaration that the document, dated 31st May 1924, executed by Mts. Bhagwanta Koer, Basanta Koer and Jamuna Prasad, was null and void and that the defendants second party had not acquired any right under it to the estate of Mahadeo Prasad, for the appointment of a receiver of the entire property left by Mahadeo Prasad and for an order directing the defendants to deposit in Court or in some bank the amount in cash left by Babu Mahadeo Prasad or otherwise realized; and as an alternative to the relief regarding the appointment of a receiver the plaintiff prayed for a perpetual injunction against the...
(Lala) Nathu Lal Vs. Shri Mati Yashodha Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All136
Bajpai, J.1. This is headed as an execution first appeal. The facts which have led to this appeal may be stated as follows: A final mortgage decree for about Rs. 1,400 was passed on 25th February 1929. An application for execution of decree by sale of the hypothecated properties was submitted on 22nd April 1929, and on that application notices under Order 21, Rule 66, were issued to the judgment-debtor. After some adjournments, objections under Order 21, Rule 66, were filed by the judgment-debtor on 22nd July 1929. The effect of the objections was that the value of the properties as estimated by the decree-holder was inadequate and that the properties should be sold in separate lots. These objections came up for hearing on 26th October 1929 when the judgment-debtor's counsel was not present; nor was he himself present, and his witnesses were also absent. The Court therefore dismissed the objections for default, with costs, and the present appeal is directed against this order dismissin...
ShamsuddIn Vs. AllauddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All138
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption under the Mahomedan law. The suit was brought by three persons. It was alleged that the demands were made oh behalf of plaintiff 2 Wahabuddin by his brother. The defendants pleaded that the demands were not in accordance with the Mahomedan law and further alleged that they could not be dispossessed as they were in possession under a usufructuary mortgage deed. The Court of first instance decreed the claim holding that the demands had been made by the manager and a member of a joint family.'2. As the plaintiffs were Mahomedans the finding is not intelligible. The appellate Court seems to have acquiesced in this finding and treated the demand made on behalf of Wahabuddin as a good demand without any suggestion or finding that he had previously authorized his brother to make the demand. As even the first demand was made by the other brother and the father only it is most unlikely that he had been previ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »