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.
Hari Chand Vs. Inder Sen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All95; 150Ind.Cas.222
Niamatullah, J.1. These two connected revisions are directed against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, ordering that an award be made a rule of the Court. The circumstances under which the award was made are as follows : The plaintiff, Inder Sen, brought a suit for partition, inter alia, of a certain going concern. Mitter Sen, defendant 1, is the brother of the plaintiff Hari Chanel, defendant 2 and Sumer Chand, defendant 3, belong to the same family. Sumer Chand died during the pendency of the suit in the lower Court. Sumer Ghand's interest survived to Hari Chand and therefore no proceedings for substitution of names were taken. It is not necessary to mention in detail the controversy which arose between the parties to the case. The plaintiff and the three defendants agreed to refer their differences to an arbitration by Babu Mela Ram, a vakil. The Court accordingly made a reference. The proceedings before the arbitrator were long and remained pending fro...
Bhardul Kurmi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All136
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Ballia. A Magistrate of the First Class of that district took proceedings against a witness, Bhardul Kurmi, under Section 480, Cr. P.C., and convicted him of an effence under Section 179, Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 10. It appears that the witness, Bhardul Kurmi, was examined as a witness and gave certain prevaricating replies in cross-examination. The Magistrate before whom he was examined interpreted his answers as refusal to answer questions within the meaning of Section 179, I.P.C. The learned District Magistrate in whose Court Bhardul Kurmi made an application for revision has differed from the Magistrate and made the present reference. The following question and answer will disclose the nature of the offence of which Bhardul Kurmi was convicted:Q. You were asked in cross-examination what was the result of the case, Sheoshankar v. Gajadhar, in which you were a witness? Instead o...
Rani Amrit Kuar Vs. (Maharaja) Gur Charan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All226
Mukerji, J.1. This is a very sad case. The Story which has to be presently told is all the sadder, bacause it involves fiorsous vory highly placed in life. The following pedierao is important:Maharani Jagdish=Maharajh Ripu=MaharaniKunwar died Daman Singh Sarojini4-8-1927 alias Gurchran Devi (Ju-Singh nior M.R.)MarriedRani Amrit Kuar, Born 1907. 10.10.1918Married February 1925=Raja of Kalsia2. The plaintiff to the suit, who is the respondent before us, is one Mr. Gurcharan Singh who, till lately, was His Highness Maharaja Ripu Daman Singh of Nabha. Appellant 1, who was in the suit defendant 1, Hani Amrit Kuar, is the plaintiff's daughter by his Senior Maharani Jagdish Kunwar, who died on 4th August 1927. Appellant 2, who was defendant 2 in the suit, is one Gurdial. Singh Mann. He is the father of the late Senior Maharani Jagdish Kunwar, and therefore the maternal grand-father of Rani Amrit Kuar.3. It is common ground that the Maharajah of Nabha and the Maharajah of Patiala fell out on s...
Rani Amrit Kunwar and ors. Vs. His Highness Maharaja Gur Charan Singh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.591
1. This is a very sad case. The story which has to be presently told is all the sadder, because it involves persons very highly placed in life.The following pedigree is important.--Maharani - Maharajah - MaharaniJagdish Kunwar Ripu Daman SarojiniDeviDied August 4, Singh alias Junior M.R.1927. Gurcharan Married Octo-Singh ber 10, 1918.Rani Amrit Kuar Born 1907.Married February 1925.Raja of Kalsia.2. The plaintiff to the suit, who is the respondent before us, is one Mr. Gurcharan Singh who, till lately was His Highness Maharaja Ripu Daman Singh of Nabha. The appellant No. 1, who was in the suit the defendant No. 1, Rani Amrit Kuar, is the plaintiffs daughter by his Senior Maharani Jagdish Kanwar, who died on August 4, 1927. The appellant No. 2 who was the defendant No. 2 in the suit, is one Grurdial Singh Mann. He is the father of the late Senior Maharani Jagdish Kunwar, and, therefore, the maternal grand father of Rani Amrit Kuar.3. It is common ground that the Maharaja of Nabha and the...
Madan Mohan Garg Vs. Bohra Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All115; 153Ind.Cas.432
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of a decree and order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Agra decreeing the plaintiff's suit in part. Mr. Pandey has argued the case for the plaintiff. applicant on the legal ground that in the circumstances of this particular case the Court could not assess the damages, which were payable to the plaintiff as compensation for the use and occupation of some premises but was bound to allow the plaintiff the compensation which he demanded. As the facts are not given fully in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to set them forth at some length.2. The defendant occupied some premises owned by the plaintiff-applicant at the rate of Rs. 55 per mensem. There was a lease which is admitted to have been a legal lease terminable by a month's notice. Subsequently the defendant obtained some additional premises at an additional rent of Rs. 25 per mensem. The defendant is a timber merchant and it appears that there was a ri...
Ganesh Prasad Singh Vs. Bechu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All271; 147Ind.Cas.443
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree of the Small Cause-Court Judge. The first ground sets forth thatthe suit is based on an alleged promissory note which contains no promise to pay or anything else which would constitute it a pro-note. 2. There is nothing whatever in the reoord to support the allegations in this ground. The suit was not based on an alleged promissory note. Learned Counsel examined the plaint with the desire to prove his allegation, but the plaint does not support the allegation; on the contrary the plaint sets forth in para. 2 that according to the desire of the defendant the plaintiff paid the defendant, Rs. 500, and the defendant signed a stamped paper, and the plaint as amended states that this paper was to be used as a memorandum of the transaction, and further the plaint sets forth that the defendant orally said that he would get the money from his house and pay it back to the plaintiff.3. The plaint therefore was based not on any...
Gerald Thomas Cockman Vs. Mrs. Olga Myrtle Cockman and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All618; 150Ind.Cas.445
Young, J.1. This is an application to confirm a decree passed by the District Judge of Jhansi, dissolving the marriage between G.T. Cockman and Olga Myrtle, his wife, the co-respondent on the record being one L/Cpl. C.G. Baker of the Air Force. The petitioner alleged adultery with soldiers unknown and with L/Cpl. Baker. Evidence was called on the first issue as to adultery with soldiers unknown, but the learned Judge has found that there was not sufficient evidence on this point. We agree with him. As to the adultery with L/Cpl. Baker, there is on the record a letter from him to the petitioner in which he admits adultery with the respondent. That letter owing to Section 32, Clause (3), Evidence Act, is admissible as evidence in the case, as Baker is in England, and his admission of adultery would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution. There are also several letters from the wife to the petitioner, in which she clearly confesses a guilty affection for the co-respondent. She however...
Kalika Prasad and ors. Vs. Shiam Kishore Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All131
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a criminal reference out of a proceeding under Chap. 10, Criminal P. C., (Public Nuisances), which is going on in the Court of a Magistrate. The proceeding began with a report of the police more than a year ago, on 22nd August 1932, and on that the Magistrate issued notices under Section 133, Criminal P. C., against Kalika and others for having constructed a dam across a public channel. The applicants Kalika and others asserted that this was a private channel. Evidence was produced before the Magistrate under Section 139-A on this point as to whether the channel was public or private, and the Magistrate found that there was no reliable evidence in support of such denial. If he bad found that there was any reliable evidence, his duty would have been under Section 139-A(2) to stay the proceedings until the matter of the existence of the right had been decided by a competent civil Court. On finding that there was no such reliable evidence his duty was to proceed ...
Bir Chand Vs. John Bros
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All161
ORDERYoung, J.1. Seth Bir Chand applied to the liquidator for rectification of the share register of the company on the ground that he was the owner of 3,843 shares in the company. Messrs. John Brothers, on behalf of the debenture-holders, objected f that the said rectification could not take place, as the debenture-holders of the Agra United Mills Co., Ltd., were the true owners, and they asked for rectification of the share register in their favour. The two claims arose oat of the following facts: In 1923 the Agra United Mills Co. Ltd., who owned these shares in the company now in liquidation, executed a trust deed whereby these shares inter alia were charged to the debenture-holders. In 1927 the debenture, holders brought a suit for enforcement of the debentures, and in the same year the Court. appointed an interim receiver of the assets of the company. In 1928 Seth Bir Chand brought a suit against the Agra United Mills Co. Ltd., for money due to him. He was successful in this conne...
Kashi and ors. Vs. Jagoo Bai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All290
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendants against a decree of the lower appellate Court upholding the decree of the Court of first instance for Rs. 22-8-0 damages on account of one shisham tree and one mahua tree appropriated by the defendants. The plaintiff sued on the ground that he was the owner of the entire village and that the shisham tree had dried up and the defendants cut the timber down and took it away and that they had also cut the mahua tree. The defence was that these two trees stood on the land of which the defendants were tenants and that their ancestors had planted these two trees; that according to law and custom of the village the defendants were owners of the trees. The suit was filed in the Court of the Small Cause Court Judge, and the Small Cause Court Judge passed an order to the effect that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court as the suit was not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes in view of Section 23, Provincial Smal...