Allahabad Court November 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.
Kanchan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All651
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a criminal revision filed by Kanchan and three others, who were convicted by a Magistrate, Third Class, of Etawah, for an offence under Section 323, Penal Code. Each of the accused was fined Rs. 35. There was a cross-ease by some of the applicants against the complainants, which was dismissed and the accused in that case acquitted. Both the cases were heard almost simultaneously. The Magistrate believed the evidence for the prosecution in the case against the applicants and disbelieved their evidence holding that the complaint of some of the applicants in the cross-case was untrue. Accordingly the applicants were convicted and sentenced, as already stated. An appeal to the District Magistrate was unsuccessful. Hence this revision.2. The learned advocate for the applicants has strongly contended that the trial of the applicants is vitiated by several errors of law committed by the Magistrate. It is pointed out that the evidence adduced in the cross-case ha...
(Firm) Har Prasad Kailash Chand Vs. L. Kedarnath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1935All350; 147Ind.Cas.334
ORDER1. This is an application to revise an order of the learned District Judge of Agra by which he directed that the suit instituted by the applicant before us, being suit No. 4050 of 1932, should be transferred from the Court of Small Causes at Agra to the Court of the Additional Munsif of that District. The first ground is that the learned District Judge did not issue notice to the applicant and therefore he was without jurisdiction, in his order of transfer. Supposing that this contention is right, we need not interfere unless we are satisfied that, the transfer of this suit will prejudice the plaintiff.2. This takes us to the merits of the application. It appears that the defendants to the applicant's suit are also defendants in another suit instituted by a firm styled Firm Moti Lal Raghubar Dayal, in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Agra. The defendants in both the suits pleaded that the hundis and other transactions on which the two suits had been brought formed parts of the ...
Fazal HusaIn Vs. Muhammad Kazim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All193; 150Ind.Cas.81
Niamatullah, J.1. These are two connected appeals from a decrea passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur upholding the claim of the plaintiff-respondent, Muhammad Kazim, to a Hi out of 216 sihams representing the entire property, originally belonging to one Syed Ali Hasan, whose relationship with the ' plaintiff and other defendants will appear from the following pedigree: Syed Ali Husain=Mt. Sughra Bibi | _________________________________________ | |Syed Ahmad Husain Mt. Khatun Bibi(predeceased his mother, (survived herbut survived his father parents) | _______________________________ | | Syed Amir Hasan Mt. Habiba Bibi (died 1906 (defendant 1). or 1907)=Syed Jawad Husain (defendant 3). | _______________________________________ | | Syed Mohammad Kazim Mt. Murtazai Bibi (plaintiff) (defendant 2).2. The defendants to the suit were eight in number, out of-whom five are transferees claiming under deeds executed by defendant 1, Syed Amir Hasan, who died during the pendency of th...
Gauri Shankar and ors. Vs. B. Kashi Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All367
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 4 days in filing an application for review of judgment. The judgment was delivered by a Bench of this Court on 12th February 1932. The applicant applied for a copy of the judgment on the same date. The copy was ready on 26th February 1932 and delivery of the copy was actually taken on 4th March 1932. The period of limitation for filing an application for review of judgment would ordinarily have expired on 11th May 1932. The applicant did not make this application until 30th May 1932.2. The first question is whether the applicant is entitled under Section 12, Sub-section (2), Limitation Act, to exclude time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment in question. It has been argued for the opposite party that in making an application for review of judgment there is no necessity for filing a copy of the judgment, and therefore the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 12, Sub-secti...
Secy. of State Vs. Shiva Datt and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All438; 147Ind.Cas.751
Mukerji, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the Secretary of State for India and has arisen in the following circumstances:Suit No. 21 of 1929 was instituted by one Abid Husain against one Abdus Sattar in Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muttra. Abid Huaain sued as a pauper. His suit succeeded and he got a decree against Abdua Sattar for payment of little over Rs. 10,000. The decree that was passed stated that the amount of court-fee, namely, Rs. 490 and the amount of Government Pleader's fees amounting to Rs. 49 should be paid by the defendant in the suit. The decree was sold by Abid Husain to the respondents before us, Shiv Dutt and Baijnath. Shiv Dutt and Baijnatb obtained an order of transfer of the decree to the Lucknow Court, and there a house of the judgment debtor was brought to sale. It was sold for a thousand rupees and was purchased, by the decree-holders, Shiv Dutt and Baijnath.2. Shiv Dutt and Baijnath instead of paying the sale consideration in cash they certified...
B. Kashi Nath and anr. Vs. Gauri Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.290
1. This is an application under Clause 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 4 days in filing art application for review of judgment.2. The judgment was delivered by a Bench of this Court on February 12, 1932. The applicant applied for a copy of the judgment on the same date. The copy was ready on February 26, 1932 and delivery of the copy was actually taken on March 4, 1932. The period of limitation for filing an application for review of judgment would ordinarily have expired on May 11, 1932. The applicant did not make this application until May 30, 1932.3. The first question is whether the applicant is entitled under Section 12, Sub-section (2) of the Limitation Act to exclude time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment in question.4. It has been argued for the opposite party that in making an application for review of judgment there is no necessity for filing a copy of the judgment,' and therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 12 Sub-...
Jumma Vs. P. Ram Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All137; 147Ind.Cas.776
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Munsif of Bulandshar allowing the plaintiff, who is the opposite party, to withdraw his suit under Order 23, Rule 1 with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The circumstances are as follows: The plaintiff, who is the zamindar and lambardar of the village, sued for possession of a certain plot on the ground that the defendant had forcibly made some new constructions within the last few years, and the defence was that the defendant had done nothing, but repaired a house which had been in the possession of himself and his predecessors for over 50 years. Evidence was produced on both sides and at the conclusion of it, when the case was said to be ripe for arguments, the plaintiff made an application for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one on various grounds which I need not now consider, for the application was dismissed. Again on 7th April 1933 the plaintiff made another application ...
Mohammad Mustafa Ali Khan Vs. District Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All101
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application on behalf of an appellant plaintiff asking that defendants be restrained from enforcing a resolution of the District Board of Bareilly dated the 8th March 1933, and that proceedings relating to the handing over of charge be postponed until the disposal of a second appeal filed in this Court. The first defendant is the District Board of Bareilly. On the date in question there was a resolution dismissing the appellant from the post of Secretary of the Board. The case for the appellant is that that resolution was illegal because Section 48 of the District Boards Act requires that all business to be transacted by a special resolution must be notified to the members by a notice setting that business forth, and that this was not done in the present case. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The Board has advertised in the papers that the post of secretary is vacant, and has passed a further resolution on the 18th September 1...
B. Sanwal Das Vs. Sita Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All128
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for amendment of a decree. I have carefully examined the judgment in pursuance of which the decree has been prepared. It is strictly in accordance with the judgment. The applicant's grievance is that haq lambardari allowed by the judgment of this Court works out at 2 per cent, instead of 5 per cent, and that the village expenses likewise work out at only 3 per cent; in other words, his case is that 'lambardari haq' and village expenses should have been awarded at a higher rate. The sums awarded by this Court are those found under these heads by the trial Court, whose figures were not impugned in course of the argument in second appeal. It is possible that if it had been brought to my notice that the amounts of 'lambardari haq' and village expenses found by the trial Court were at the rates mentioned above, I would have enhanced them, but no such question was raised. It is not open to the applicant to raise these questions by an application ...
Man Singh and anr. Vs. Sanghi Dal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All163; 147Ind.Cas.1186
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore rejecting the application of the appellants for an order to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents against three defendants, including the appellants, who were defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant was the Collector of Cawnpore. The suit was one for recovery of Rs. 30,500 on foot of a receipt executed by Kailash Nath, whose estate was, on the date of the suit, represented by the Court of Wards. The defence put forward on behalf of the appellants, defendants 2 and 3, was that the money to which the claim related belonged to the defendants, who were entitled to recover the same from the debtor, namely the estate of Kailash Nath. The Collector did not deny the liability of Kailash Nath, but pleaded that themoney due from the estate of Kailash Nath belonged to defendants 2 and 3. The pleadings clearly show that the real controversy was whether the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »