Allahabad Court July 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.
Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All621; 136Ind.Cas.572
King, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Bareilly confirming the order of a Magistrate of the first class refusing to allow the applicant to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses before the charge had been framed.2. The complaint was instituted on 26th January 1931 alleging that the accused had committed offences under Sections 420 and 467, I. P.C. When the complainant had been examined on 1st April 1931 an oral request was made to the Magistrate to permit his cross-examination at once. The Magistrate rejected this request. When the next witness had been examined the defence put in a written request that the Magistrate should permit the witness to be cross-examined before the framing of the charge. This request was rejected by the Magistrate in a written order. The Magistrate took the view that Section 256, Criminal P. 0., did not indicate that prosecution witnesses are to be cross-examined twice, and he could not find any justifi...
Shanti Lal and anr. Vs. Tara Chand Madan Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All158
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,578-10-6. from the defendants. The plaintiff had a commission agency shop at Agra in which he carried on the business of purchasing and selling grain and other goods for his constituents. In October 1924, a large quantity of grain purchased by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants was lying in the godown of the plaintiff. On 6th October 1924, this grain was damaged by an unexpected flood which came to Agra. The river Jumna rose in flood and the godown in which the grain was stored was submerged. Under the orders of the Health Officer a large quantity of grain had to be destroyed. The plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to recover from the defendants the price of the grain which he had to destroy under the order of the Health Officer. The defendants resisted the suit upon various grounds. They pleaded that the plaintiff had not acted with prudence in taking care of the goods bailed to him...
Bhagwati Pande Vs. Badri Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All574; 136Ind.Cas.357
ORDERSulaiman, Ag. C.J. 1. This case has been referred to-a Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court in view of the importance of the subject and a certain amount of conflict of opinion.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 182, principal and interest in the Court of the Munsif of Bansi who was invested with Small Cause Court powers. After be was transferred from the district another Munsif took over charge who was not invested with such powers. There was an additional Subordinate Judge at Bansi at that time who was invested with Small Cause Court powers. The additional District Judge on 1st July 1928 directed the new Munsif to transfer all the cases pending on the Small Cause Court side of the Munsif's Court to the regular side. His order was in the following terms:The Small Cause Court cases pending in the Court of the Munsif of Bansi will be tried by the present incumbent of the office as regular suits as he has not got the Small Cause Court powers. The atte...
Lila Vs. Mahange and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All632; 137Ind.Cas.634
ORDER1. This is a civil revision from an order of the District Judge of Shahjahanpur dismissing the applicant's objection to an order passed by him under Section 195, Succession Act. The learned Judge admits that in his order there was no mention of this points referred to in Section 193 of the Act and it also appears that there were no clear findings on the point as referred to in Section 193 and Section 195. The learned Judge is inclined to think that the very fact that he passed the order under Section 195 showed that he had satisfied himself of the necessary requisites.2. The applicant came up in revision to this High Court and urges that without the proper inquiry and without the necessary findings the order of the District Judge was without jurisdiction and that, in any case, it was illegal or at any rate there was a material irregularity in the procedure.3. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that no revision lies inasmuch as another remedy is open to t...
Ram Bharose Vs. Ganga Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All727; 136Ind.Cas.609
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Small Cause Court Judge, dated 19th October 1929, restoring a case which was decreed ex parts.2. The order of the Court below against which this revision is directed has not been placed upon my paper book, and I direct that a copy of the said order should be placed upon the paper book.3. It appears that on 31st July an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant. Attempts had been made to effect personal service, but they were evidently infructuous, and in the last instance service by publications in a local newspaper was ordered. Some time in 1929 the defendant applied to the Court below for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he had no notice whatsoever of the suit, and he came to know of the decree only four days back when execution was levied. The application was accompanied by an affidavit and by a surety bond. On 19th October 1929, when this application came for hearing, the learned J...
Nathu Lal Vs. Raghubir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All65
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council by one of the defendants in a suit for setting aside a sale and the decree on the ground of fraud. The ostensible sale consideration was about Rs. 8,000 but it was alleged that the property transferred was of considerable value and the valuation of the suit was fixed at Rs. 50,000. The allegations of fraud were denied by the defendants who pleaded the payment of sale consideration. The Court of first instance found that fraud had been established but that the passing of one part of the consideration amounting to Rs. 1,760 was proved. It accordingly passed a decree on condition of the payment of this amount by the plaintiffs.2. Nathu Lal, one of the defendants, appealed to this Court from this decree without impleading the other defendants. The others did not join him as appellants but the ground taken was common to them all. The plaintiffs did not file any separate appeal of their ow...
Mt. Munni Bibi and anr. Vs. Triloki Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All332
Mukerji, J.1. The present proceeding arise out of First Appeal No. 79 of 1922 of this Court from the decree in which an appeal was filed before their Lordships of the Privy Council as Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 1925. Their Lordships' of the Privy Council decided the appeal and reversed the judgment of this Court but left one point to be determined by this Court and that point is, whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs cannot recover possession of the property decreed to them except on payment of a sum of Rs. 7,200 and interest-thereon or any other sum2. The judgment has been reported in the local law journal, Munni Bibi v. Triloki Nath , and is of course also on the record. The facts are given there and we shall not state them in detail again.3. Two questions have been argued before us. The first is whether the claim on behalf of the descendants of Gokul Nath comes within the purview of Section 69, Contract Act; and secondly, if it does, whether the defendants can...
Jangi Singh Vs. Gudri Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All365; 140Ind.Cas.12
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for possession of a one-third share in a certain zamindari, which, at one time, belonged to one Sukhdeo Singh. Sukhdeo Singh died in 1924. Plaintiff alleged that Sukhdeo Singh left three heirs, namely, Bam Kumar Singh. Umrao Singh and Subaram Singh. Plaintiff purchased the one-third share of Ram Kumar Singh in the estate left by Sukhdeo Singh under the sale deed, dated 11th February 1927. Defendants contested the suit inter alia on the ground that no part of Sukhdeo Singh's estate devolved upon Ram Kumar Singh, the plaintiff's vendor, inasmuch as one Mahadeo, brother of Sukhdeo Singh, was alive at the date of the execution of the sale deed in controversy. It is not contested that Sukhdeo Singh had a brother Mahadeo. He has not been heard of for a number of years. The question is as to whether Mahadeo was (lead on 11th February 1927 when Ram Kumar executed the sale deed of the one-third of his property in favour of...
L. Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Pearey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All468
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order dated 8th November 1930, passed by the Munsif of Hathras in the execution department.2. Kedar Nath is a partner of a firm of which Lachmi Narain is the other partner. The interest of Kedar Nath in this firm was attached by the decree-holder and the Court passed an order under Order 21, Rule 49 charging the interest of the judgment-debtor partner in the partnership property and appointing a receiver of his share. It has to be admitted that no previous notice of the application, as required by Sub-rule (4), was issued to the other partner. This was undoubtedly irregular. The learned Munsif seems to suggest that this was cured by a subsequent notice dated 24th June 1930. But that notice related to the question whether the partners should not be prohibited from realizing any debts in future. The irregularity however is not now of any serious significance because the applicant does not object to the appointment of the rec...
Musammat Munni Bibi Alias Ambika Dei and anr. Vs. Tirloki Nath and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.66
1. The present proceedings arise out of First Appeal No. 79 of 1922 of this Court from the decree in which an appeal was filed before their Lordships of the Privy Council as Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 1925. Their Lordships of the Privy Council decided the appeal, reversed the judgment of this Court but left one point to be determined by this Court and that point] is, whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs cannot recover possession of the property decreed to them except on payment of a sum of Rs. 7,200 and interest thereon or any other sum?2. The judgment has been reported in the local law journal (1931) A.L.J. 453 Munni Lal v. Tirloki Nath and is of course also on the record. The facts are given there and we shall not state them in detail again.3. Two questions have been argued before us. The first is whether the claim on behalf of the descendants of Gokul Nath comes within the purview of Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act? and secondly, if it does, whether the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »