Allahabad Court January 1933 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.
Mt. Govindi Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All955; 147Ind.Cas.1256
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the District Judge Aligarh. The plaintiff brought a (sic) or a declaration that a certain compromise in connection with a house was not binding upon her. The learned Judge in the Court below found as a fact that her vakil had been authorised by his vakalatnama to do all things for the lady as if she had done them personally; that he was authorised to enter into a compromise; that he had, in fact, entered into a compromise and that having done so with full knowledge and consent and authority of the lady, her action could not lie. The compromise itself, the Judge finds--and I see no reason to disagree with him--is an eminently fair and reasonable one. On the face of it no suggestion could possibly be made that the plaintiff, even though she was a woman, had been in any way taken advantage of or defrauded. This is not one of those cases where the compromise itself is some evidence of fraud. It is agreed by counsel for the appellant ...
Joti Prasad Upadhiya Vs. Amba Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All358
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question of law that arises in the present appeal is whether a civil Court has jurisdiction to try a suit challenging the validity of the election of a chairman of a District Board. Such a suit is undoubtedly a suit of a civil nature and, unless the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try a suit is expressly or impliedly barred by any provision of law, the suit is, in view of the provisions of Section 9, Civil P.C., triable by the civil Court. It is admitted that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not expressly barred by any enactment having the force of law, but it is contended on behalf of the defendant-respondent that Section 35(3), District Boards Act (Act 10 of 1922) passed by the local legislature impliedly bars the cognizance of such a suit by a civil Court. If this contention is well founded, this appeal must fail and the decision of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant must stand. Otherwise we shall have to d...
Ram Subhag Rai and ors. Vs. Sheo Sahai Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All376
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal against a decree of the Sub-Judge of Ghazipur dismissing their suit for possession of 199.34 acres of culturable land and 68.30 acres of unculturable land, total 267.74 acres of land, situated on a map attached to the plaint and designated by the letters ABCD, claimed as part of mauza Malsa Khas, and also for 56.38 acres of culturable land and 15 acres, also stated to be cultur-able land but probably intended to be unculturable land, total 71.38 acres of land, situated on the map and designated by the letters EFGH and claimed to be part of mauza Malsa Khurd. The plaintiffs are the zamindars of the two villages, Malsa Khas and Malsa Khurd, which lie on the east bank of the Ganges in the district of Ghazipur. The defendants are the owners of mauzas Jaitpura and Baipur, villages which lie on the west bank of the Ganges in the same district of Ghazipur and are opposite the two villages of the' plaintiff's. The plaint sets forth that all the four villages...
Emperor Vs. Niranjan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All369
ORDERYoung, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr against the applicants binding them over under Section 110 for one year. This is a somewhat unusual case under the above section. Both the applicants, Niranjan and Tikam were previously bound over in July 1928 under this section, Niranjan for two years and Tikam for one year. Both of these applicants went to jail, as they could not find sureties. Niranjan was released in July 1930, and Tikam in July 1929. In March 1932, fresh notices were served on both the applicants. Some 37 witnesses were examined for the prosecution, of whom 29 witnesses deposed to the general repute of the applicants that they were habitual thieves and house-breakers. The defence, on the other hand, called no less than 57 witnesses, many of whom live in the same patti as the applicants. They all gave evidence that these two men were of good character and there was no suspicion against them as being habitual thiev...
Niranjan Singh and Anot Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.227
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr against the applicants binding them over under Section 110 for one year.2. This is a somewhat unusual case under the above section. Both the applicants, Niranjan and Tikam, were previously-bound over in July, 1928, under this section, Niranjan for two years and Tikam for one year. Both of these applicants went to jail, as they could not find sureties. Niranjan was released in July, 1930, and Tikam in July, 1923. In March, 1932, fresh notices were served on both the applicants. Some 37 witnesses were examined for the prosecution, of whom 29 witnesses deposed to the general repute of the applicants that they were habitual thieves and house-breakers. The defence, on the other hand, called no less than 51 witnesses, many of whom live in the same patti as the applicants. They all gave evidence that these two men were of good character and there was no suspicion against them of being habitual th...
Shukul and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All314
1. The appellants in this case are 31 in number. They have been tried in the Sessions Judge's Court of Benares for offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 and 147, Penal Code. Gokul, Nazir Pancham, Sumer, Shukul and Tika have been convicted of rioting armed with a deadly weapon, of murder, and of attempted murder. Bechu, Babban, Baijnath, Bahoran, Bageshri, Buchnu, Damri, Gharbari, Harinandan, Hira Lal, Jeot Koeri, Kallu Chamar, Katholan, Kalicharan, Misri Lal, Mahesh, Morahu, Mauj Brahman, Panaru Kohar, Ram Kishen, Ramman, Sadho, Sheo Prasad, Saggam and Shukalu have been convicted of rioting, murder and attempted murder. Gokul, Pancham, Tika, Sumer, Shukul, Marahu and Saggam have been sentenced to death under Section 302, Penal Code, and to transportation for life under Section 307, Penal Code; Gokul, Sumer, Pancham, Shukul and Tika to three years' rigorous imprisonment and Marahu and Saggam to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, Penal Code. Nazir and Kutballi...
Gur Prasad Kapoor and ors. Vs. L. Rameshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All344
Niamatullah, J.1.This is an appeal from an order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cawnpore, in a pending suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents for certain reliefs to be presently mentioned. The suit was instituted by eight plaintiffs for themselves and for plaintiff 9, a limited liability company styled as Ramchand Gurshahiman Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., registered under the Companies Act, of which the first eight plaintiffs claimed to be the directors. Eight persons were impleaded as defendants. B. Panna Lal Burman, defendant 8, was the general manager of the company; but the plaintiffs allege that he was lawfully dismissed in July 1932. Defendants 1 to 7 claimed to be the directors of the company-a fact which is denied by the plaintiffs, according to whom most of the defendants had either never been appointed directors by any lawful authority or had ceased to be such prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs' case, as set forth in th...
B. Adya Prasad Singh Vs. Lal Girjish Bahadur Pal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All364
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a judgmeni-debtor's appeal and the only question to be considered is one of limitation. The decree-holder obtained a final decree for Rs. 33,330-4-0 on the basis of a mortgage. He put the decree into execution and realized the sum of Rs. 20,777. The final order on this application for execution was passed on 10th May 1928. The application for execution which has given rise to the present appeal was made on 31st July 1931, that is more than three years from the date of the final order on he previous application. The decree-holder however contended that limitation was saved by certain proceedings that took place in the execution Court on 5th September 1929. On that date the parties appeared before the Court. The judgment-debtor paid the sum of Rs. 12,000 to the decree-holder in Court and was granted a receipt for the amount. The decree-holder thereupon presented an application to the Court saying that the said payment be certified under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P...
Suraj Pal Singh Vs. Jawahar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All310; 145Ind.Cas.479
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference by the Collector of Aligarh under Section 267(2), Agra Tenancy Act, in the following circumstances: The plaintiff, Raja Suraj Pal Singh, brought a suit for recovery of certain wieghment dues from the defendant on the allegation that the defendant took a lease for the dues for 1335 Fasli in the village of Kailaura and failed to pay the said dues as agreed upon. The suit was filed in the first instance before the Munsif of Agra who returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, the learned Munsif being of opinion that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court inasmuch as the weighment dues were in the nature of a sayar income. The learned Assistant Collector who heard the suit decreed it in part. No question of jurisdiction was raised before the learned Assistant Collector. An appeal was filed before the Collector of Aligarh who, being of opinion that the claim did not fall within the definition of 'sayar income,' 'allowed the appeal,...
Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. Ram Chandar Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All959a
ORDER1. This is a revision against (sic) order dated 30th April 1932 by which the learned Subordinate Judge refused to decide the value of the properties sought to be sold and directed that the house property should be sold before the zamindari property.2. A preliminary objection is taken that there has been no case decided and therefore no revision is maintainable.3. We think that this objection is sound and must be allowed. The execution case is pending before the Court below and the order is an interlocutary one, and therefore no revision is maintainable.4. We accordingly dismiss the application in revision with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »