Allahabad Court June 1932 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.
Krishna Murari Lal Vs. Dixit Chaturbhuj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All214
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against a decree of the lower appellate Court awarding the plaintiff Rs. 200 damages for injuries caused to the Red Setter bitch of the plaintiff. It is common ground that the motor lorry driven by one of the defendants and owned by both the defendants collided with the bitch of the plaintiff and caused some injury to that bitch. The finding of fact of the Court of first instance was that the bitch had caused the accident by suddenly rushing across in front of defendants' lorry, and that it was not possible for the defendants to stop the lorry. The Munsif therefore dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court came to the opposite conclusion that the bitch did not rush across the road but that the bitch was standing on the road easing at the time that the lorry approached it, that the defendant did not consider it worth his while to stop the lorry for the bitch, that at a speed at which the lorry was going, 10 to 12...
Emperor Vs. Raja Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All581
King, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Mirzapur recommending that the commitment of two persons for trial under Section 395, I.P.C. be quashed.2. It appears that Poghai and others were charged with dacoity under Section 395, I.P.C. and the District Magistrate tendered a pardon of two of the accused, namely, Raja Ram and Tulshi, under Section 337, Criminal P.C. They were examined as witnesses in the Court of the committing Magistrate. The committing Magistrate has committed not merely the accused persons to the Court of Session but has also committed the two approvers Raja Ram and Tulshi after framing charges against them. The committing Magistrate was clearly under a misapprehension regarding the meaning of Sub-section (2-A), Section 337. The Magistrate interpreted Sub-section (2-A) to mean that he must commit the approvers for trial fro the Court of Session as well as the other persons who are accused in the case. The language of this sub-section has given ris...
Mt. Salona Bibi and anr. Vs. Bu Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All696a; 140Ind.Cas.479
Pullan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. One Shabbir' Ali Khan died on 25th June 1925. He had been a comparatively wealthy man, but he had, at the time of his death, disposed of all his property. He had made two deeds of gift on 22nd December 1914 and 30th January 1916 in favour of Bu Ali who was his wife's nephew, and he had made two sale deeds on 22nd December 1915 and 17th January 1925 in favour of Mt. Tahira Bibi who is Bu Ali's wife. All the rest of his property had been made on 30th January 1916 the subject of a wakf, and he himself had remained mutawalli until his death,' The office of mutawalli had descended in accordance with the deed of wakf on Bu Ali.2. The present suit has been brought by Mt. Salona Bibi, who claimed one-third share in the estate of Shabbir Ali, being one of his heirs under Shia law. She sought to set aside all the deeds of transfer made by Shabbir Ali ...
Mt. Saghir Fatma Bibi and anr. Vs. Brij Rai Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All586
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The sale deed was taken by the two defendants jointly and there was no specification of any share in the document itself. One of them is supposed by the lower appellate Court to be a cosharer and the other is a stranger. In fact the former is an exproprietary tenant. They led oral evidence to show that under a secret arrangemenb between themselves they had taken the property in equal shares and accordingly pleaded that the suit should not be decreed against both the purchasers. A second appeal has been preferred not by the tenant purchaser but by them jointly. He has again associated with him a stranger to the mahal and has made common cause with her. Strong reliance is based on behalf of the appellants on the case of Sheopujan v. Bishnath : AIR1930All706 . That was quite a different case. There an ostensible vendee after taking the sale deed disclosed in the Revenue Court that he had associated with hi...
B. Shahzad Singh Vs. Mt. Jiachha Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All452
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of a contract entered in an agreement dated 24th January 1874 between the predecessors of the parties. Two sets of persons agreed that in case of a contemplated transfer the property dealt with in the agreement was to be transfered to the other party for a proper price. On 30th July 1928 a deed of exchange was executed between the representatives of one of the parties and Mt. Jiachha Kunwar. The representatives of the other party brought a suit to enforce the previous agreement. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim. The lower appellate Court has distinctly found that Mt. Jiachha Kunwar had no notice of this deed of agreement when she took the property for valuable consideration. (Here the judgment considered facts and evidence, and holding that the finding that Mt.' Jiachha Kunwar had no notice of the deed must be accepted in second appeal, it proceeded). The learned advocate for the ...
Musammat Saghir Fatima Bibi and anr. Vs. Brij Raj Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.289
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising cut of a suit for pre-emption. The sale-deed was taken by the two defendants jointly and there was no specification of any share in the document itself. One of them is supposed by the lower Appellate Court to be a co-sharer and the other is a stranger. In fact the former is an exproprietary tenant. They led oral evidence to show that under a secret arrangement between themselves they had taken the property in equal shares and accordingly pleaded that the suit should not be decreed against both the purchasers.2. A second appeal has been preferred not by the tenant purchaser but by them jointly. He has again associated with him a stranger to the mahal and has made common cause with her. Strong reliance is based on behalf of the appellants on the case of Sheopujan Rai v. Bishnath Rai : AIR1930All706 . That was quite a different case. There an ostensible vendee after taking the sale-deed disclosed in the Revenue Court that he had associated with him ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›