Allahabad Court October 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.
Mohammad Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All81; 147Ind.Cas.390
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Certain points in this case have been referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench, of which one of us was a member, because in the opinion of the Bench certain observations made in another case of this Court were not correct. The whole case has not been referred to us and we are called upon only to answer the questions put. The expression of our opinion would then be a guide to the Court in disposing of the case itself. It appears that in a criminal appeal the sole or main corroboration of the approver's evidence consisted of certain confessions said to have been made by the accused persons under Section 164, Criminal P.C. It is in respect of these confessions that the following questions have been formulated : (1) What weight, if any, ought to be given to a confession where the Magistrate has not put the necessary preliminary questions? (2) What weight ought to be attached to a confession where the accused had never been out of police custody? (3) Are mere certifie...
Lachhmi Lal Vs. Khairati Miyan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All109; 147Ind.Cas.623
ORDERMukerji, J.1. This revision arises out of an arbitration proceeding which has been confirmed by the Court below. The parties to the suit agreed that three gentlemen could be appointed arbitrators, and one of them should be appointed the 'Sarpanch' and they should decide the case. No provision was made for any difference of opinion. The arbitrators could not agree, and there was a majority of 2 to 1. The learned Munsif accepted the majority verdict and made a decree. It is argued before me on behalf of the defendant-applicant that there was no provision for the majority decision prevailing, and therefore the decree of the Court below is bad.2. The Court below held and Mr. Malaviya for the respondent has argued that the appointment of a 'Sarpanch' meant that the opinion of that arbitrator shall prevail with whom the Sarpanch shall agree. The argument is based on para. 4, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. In my opinion, this is not a correct reading of para. 4. That paragraph lays down that som...
Har Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Lal Nauratan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All358
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal on behalf of a defendant against the concurring deU33016crees of two lower Courts. The plaintiff as zamindar brought a suit for a declaration that the following two deeds are ineffectual and that the property in question consisting of certain plots within the zamindari of the plaintiff cannot be sold in execution of these decrees : (1) A mortgage-deed of 24th January 1920, by Baji Lal, defendant 5, in favour of Brij Lal, father of defendant 1. (2) A mortgage-deed of 13th May 1919 by Ram Sahai, father of defendant 5, in favour of defendant 1, Hardayal. The plaintiff states that his father Khushal Singh on the 12th December 1914, bought some zamindari property from Ram Sahai, father of defendant 5, and from defendant 5, Baji Lai. The vendors gave a deed of relinquishment of sir plots in favour of the vendee. On the same date the vendee executed a document granting certain rights in certain plots of the sir land to the vendors. The interpretation of th...
(Firm) Mangat Rai Hira Lal Vs. Mt. Sakina Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All441
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiff having failed in an objection under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., sued for a declaration that a certain house belonged to her and was not liable to be sold in execution of decree No. 303 of 1919 of a Court at Delhi which had been obtained by the defendant appellant against the plaintiff-respondent's husband the plaintiff pleaded that the house in question had been sold to her on 18th November 1921 in lieu of her dower debt, which amounted to Rs. 2,000. The defence was that the sale deed was fictitious, that it bad been executed with a, view to defraud the creditors of the plaintiff's husband and that the plaintiff was not owner of the said house.2. The trial Court (the Munsif of Aligarh) dismissed the suit finding that the marriage between the plaintiff and her alleged husband, defendant 2, was not proved, that no dower debt was proved and that the transfer was a fictitious and collusive transaction. The lower appellate Court...
Sheikh MoIn UddIn Vs. Maqbul Alam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All461
King, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1,625 by sale of certain mortgaged property. The plaintiff also claimed a personal decree for recovery of the same amount against defendant 1, Mt. Fasihunnisa.2. Mt. Fasihunnisa, defendant 1, is the daughter of Fatma Bibi. On 29th of October 1919, Mt. Fasihunnisa and some other persons mortgaged certain immovable property for a sum of Rs. 20,000 in favour of Madho Prasad and Manmohan Das. On 16th February 1920 Mt. Fasihunnisa sold a certain share of the mortgaged property to one Siddiq Ahmad. No portion of the sale consideration was left ; with the vendee for payment to the mortgagees. It was agreed that the vendor herself should pay Rs. 1,000 out of the sale consideration to the mortgagees in satisfaction of the mortgage debt so far as the property sold was concerned. On the same day Mt. Fatma Bibi executed security bond in favour of Siddiq Ahmad undertaking to indemnify him in case he lost any part ...
Kanshi Nath Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.368
1. The applicant in this case was called on by a Magistrate to provide bond and sureties on the ground that he had been taking precautions to conceal his presence with a view to committing an offence within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge upheld that order, and when the matter came up in revision before the High Court there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges who composed the Bench, the Hon'ble C.J., holding that the provisions of Section 109 (a) would cover the case, while Mr. Justice King held that they would not. So far as the facts of the case are concerned it is only necessary to state that the applicant Kashi Nath Singh is actually the son of a blind beggar of Benares, and that he represented to the Raja of Manda that he was Kashi Nath Singh, Maharaj Kumar of Toda, a person of influence who would be able to help the Raja of Manda to make a rich marriage and to arrange for loans at low rates of inte...
Mary P. Marshall Vs. Ram NaraIn Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All922
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages and an injunction on the ground that the plaintiff's copyright has been infringed. The plaintiff is the widow of the late Professor Marshall, whose Treatise 'Principles of Economics' is a well known textbook. The Edn. 4, of that book was published in 1898 and the Edn. 5, was brought out in 1907. In 1908 Rev. Dr. King, the Principal of a College brought out a treatise which he called 'A Digest of Marshall's Principles of Economics.' This was printed and published by a press in Ajmere. No objection appears to have been taken on behalf of any agent of Professor Marshall at that time. In 1912, the defendant, Ram Narain Lal, purchased the supposed copyright of this Digest from Dr. King. By now Professor Marshall's book has gone into several editions, there being an Edn. 8 of 1927, which was filed in this case. Ram Narain Lal, defendant, reprinted this Digest of 1908, and published it in 1926. It is in respect of...
Emperor Vs. Sripal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All17; 147Ind.Cas.1028
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur at Basti recommending that the order of the District Magistrate of Basti dated 16th April 1933, directing further enquiry into a criminal case, in which the accused were released by the Trial Magistrate under Section 249, Criminal P.C. be quashed. Certain persons were sent up for trial by the police under Section 13, Gambling Act. The Magistrate inspected the place, where the gambling was alleged to have taken place, and come to the conclusion that it was not a public thoroughfare. He, accordingly, re-fused to take further evidence and passed an order on 1st March 1933, releasing the accused under Section 249, Criminal P.C. The case was again put before the Magistrate on 10th March and, on that date, a report made by the Prosecuting Inspector was perused. The case was again taken up by the Magistrate on 17th March and, on that date, he adjourned the case to enable the Prosecuting Inspector ...
Bansgopal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All206; 147Ind.Cas.347
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Cawn-pore dated 12th July 1933 passed on an appeal which was Bled before him by an accused person from a conviction by a Magistrate under Section 225-B, Penal Code and a sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. The facts are as follows: After the oonviotion by the Magistrate an appeal was presented on behalf of the accused to the Sessions Judge on 1st June 1933. As there was no copy of the judgment, which is required hy Section 419, Criminal P.C., the learned Sessions Judge allowed 10 days for a copy of the judgment to be filed. On 16th June 1933 the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order:No steps have been taken to complete this appeal by filing a copy of the judgment I therefore dismiss the appeal. The appellant must now surrender to his ball. 2. Subsequently on 20th June 1933 an application was made on behalf of the accused stating that the appellant's cou...
Ganga Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Chait Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All98
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree passed by the learned Subordinate-Judge of Budaun upholding the decree passed by a Munsif of that district in a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that a sub-lease of an occupancy holding executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is void against the plaintiff and that certain crops standing on a part of that holding,, belonged to defendants 3 and 4 and were liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree obtained by the plaintiff against those defendants.2. Defendants 3 and 4 are admittedly occupancy tenants of the lands detailed at the foot of the plaint. They were indebted to the plaintiff and also to defendants 1 and 2. All of them obtained decrees against defendants 3 and 4. The latter executed a registered sub-lease in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for a period of five years in consideration of the debts due to defendants 1 and 2. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the suit which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »