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.
Girdhari Lal Vs. Ashfaq Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All448; 147Ind.Cas.773
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application for transfer of a civil suit which is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun. The suit is brought on an alleged loan of 1920 and the claim is for rupees 10,000. The defendants are two persons residents in Rampur State. It is set forth in the affidavit of the plaintiff that the learned Subordinate Judge during the pendency of the suit visited Rampur State and attended a party once in company with defendant 1, and that the Subordinate Judge urged the plaintiff to accept a compromise and stated that if the plaintiff proceeded to Rampur for the purpose he would guarantee the safety of the plaintiff.2. The learned Subordinate Judge in his explanation states that some relatives of his who live in Rampur State came with one or two State Officials and told him that defendant 1, Nawab Ashfaq Ali Khan, was a close relation and a personal friend of H.H. the Nawab of Rampur and that H.H. the Nawab was anxious to see the case compromised and...
Chatar Sen Vs. Mitter Sen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1933
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.653
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against a decree of the lower Appellate Court which modified the decree of the Court of first instance allowing certain sums to the plaintiff under Section 227 of Act III of 1926. There were two sets of co-sharers in the khewat in question, the plaintiff on the one hand and the two defendants on the other. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants for rendition of accounts and his share of profits The suit was for the years 1331 to 1334 Fasli. There were certain arrears collected in the years in dispute for the period prior to 1331 Fasli. The plaintiff claims in second appeal that because the defendant Mitter Sen is the sole collecting co-sharer, and has paid profits of previous years on the basis of collection, he was bound in law to, pay to the plaintiff his ratable share of the arrears of the past years realized during the years in question. The lower Appellate Court in regard to this claim states that the plaintiff in th...
Jagannath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All127
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision raising a point of the jurisdiction of criminal Courts on a charge under Section 408, Penal Code. The Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction to try the charge under that section and the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi has upheld that order. The complainant Jagannath resides in Jhansi District where he has a shop and he opened a branch in Calcutta and placed it under the charge of the accused, Mukhram. The other accused Debi Sahai is a nephew of Mukhram. The complaint sets forth that accounts of the Calcutta shop were to be rendered in Jhansi district. Apparently these accounts were to be rendered annually and the account is a statement of account and it was not intended that the account books were to be sent. As no accounts were rendered for the Sambat 1985-1986 the complainant suspected the accused and went to Calcutta and got the account-books of the shop and had them examined and found that the accounts were apparently falsi...
Habib Ullah and anr. Vs. Mahmood and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All267
ORDERMukerji and Bennet, JJ.1. This is a first appeal brought at the instance of the plaintiff's. The facts briefly are these : One Earn Chandra obtained a decree on the original side of the Calcutta High Court, being dacree No. 705 of 1926, on 10th November 1926. The decree was for money, and against on 3 Nanhen Mistri of Cawnpore. Before the decree could be transferred to Cawnpore for execution and indeed one day before the decree was passed, Nanhen sold on 9th November 1926, a house of his, which is now in dispute, to one Wali Muhammad, for a sum of Rs. 5,000. Earn Chandra having got his decree transferred to Cawnpore sought the attachment of the house of Nanhen, and attachment was made on 9th December 1926. Wali Muhammad objected to the attachment on the ground that the property belonged to him and did no longer belong to Nanhen Mistri, and therefore oould not be attached in execution of a decree against Nanhen. This objection was dismissed on 22nd January 1927, it being held that ...
Prem Ballabh Pant Vs. Mt. Shri Krishna Sundari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All292
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Kumaun. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiff, who is a Hindu widow, was entitled to 51 nalis of land out of 153 nalis.2. The widow-plaintiff is the widow of one of the three brothers. In 1925 one of the surviving brothers applied for partition in the Revenue Court. The plaintiff-widow objected and filed a regular suit for a declaration of her rights, Prem Ballabh, one of the brothers, contested the suit which ended in a compromise. That compromise recorded inter alia that if Prem Ballabh or Daya Ram, defendants, filed a partition suit against Shri Krishna the plaintiff-widow should have a right to file a regular suit. It further provided that the two brothers were to give 25 nalis each of land to the widow for her maintenance. The compromise ended:The plaintiff's claim may therefore be allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file it again.3. Another suit was brought by Prem Ballabh the ...
Shujaatmand Khan and ors. Vs. Govind Behari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All100a; 147Ind.Cas.633
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Farrukkabad, allowing an amendment to be made in a plaint and in a preliminary decree in a foreclosure suit. The facts are these: On 16th December 1897, eight of the zamindari properties now in suit were mortgaged for Rs. 5,000 in favour of one Laxmi Narain alias Munna Lal. In 1905 the same eight properties and also a house were mortgaged by the same mortgagors for Rs. 10,000, with interest at Rs. 60 per mensem compoundable annually, in favour of one Raj Kunwar and certain other persons. In 1914 the same mortgagors executed a mortgage by conditional sale for Rs. 12,000, with half yearly interest to the extent of Rs. 432 compoundable annually, in favour of the plaintiffs and their ancestors. The same eight zamindari properties and also the house and a grove were included in that mortgage. The description of the zamindari shares and the boundaries of each item of property in the mortgage deed of 1...
Mt. Kaulpati Kuar Vs. Kashi Prashad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All106; 147Ind.Cas.686
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application for the refund of court-fees paid in this Court and there is an oral prayer that the court fee paid in the lower appellate Court should be refunded.2. The trial Court dismissed the suit against defendants 4, 5 and 6, and decreed the claim against defendants 1, 2 and 3, The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge claiming that a decree should be passed in their favour against defendants 4, 5 and 6 also. They made defendants 1, 2 and 3 pro forma respondents. The District Judge dismissed the appeal. On second appeal to this Court the plaintiffs wanted a decree against defendants 4, 5 and 6 and also made defendants 1, 2 and 3 pro forma respondents. The appeal was in substance directed principally against defendants 4, 5 and 6. The High Court came to the conclusion that the case should be tried on the remaining issues against these defendants 4, 5 and 6 by the trial Court. It accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the lower appel...
Sukhala and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All141
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Bareilly, passed in the following circumstances. Four persons were charged before a First Class Magistrate with of fences under Section 326, I.P.C. Two of them were convicted under that section and sentenced to terms of imprisonment and the other two were acquitted because the Magistrate considered that the evidence against them fell short of absolute proof. The complainant in the case applied to the Sessions Judge for revision of the order of acquittal, and the two persons who had been convicted also appealed against their convictions and sentences, and in the order with which I am now concerned the Sessions Judge allowed the revision and ordered that the two present applicants Sukh Lal and Bhola should be committed to Sessions on a charge under Section 308, I.P.C. The Sessions Judge remarked:All the four accused persona are alleged to have assaulted Mindhai at one and the same time and thr...
Sukhlal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.999
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Bareilly parsed in the following circumstances. Four persons were charged before a first class Magistrate with offences under Section 328, Indian Penal Code. Two of them were convicted under that section and sentenced to terms of imprisonment and the other two were acquitted because the Magistrate considered that the evidence against them fell short of absolute proof. The complainant in the case applied to the Sessions Judge for revision of the order of acquittal, and the two persons who had been convicted also appealed against their convictions and sentences, and in the order with which I am now concerned the Sessions Judge allowed the revision and ordered that the two present applicants Sukh Lal and Bhola should be committed to Sessions on a charge under Section 308, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge remarked:All the four accused persons are alleged to have assaulted Mindhai at one and the ...
Deota DIn Singh Vs. Raj NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All75; 147Ind.Cas.715
Kendall, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents sued for the possession of an 18 ganda share in a zamindari property and the defendant-appellant contested their claim to that share. Both the Courts decided that as a result of a partition the plaintiffs were entitled to that share, and this is a decision of fact. The question that has complicated the proceedings however is one arising from a deed of compromise executed by the plaintiffs' father in 1920. It appears that there had been some dispute in the Revenue Courts between the plaintiffs' father and the defendant with the result that the parties agreed that the plaintiffs' father should admit the right of ownership of the defendant in respect of a i annas share in the mahal and in consideration of this admission, should continue to cultivate the sir plots appertaining to the said share. It was part of the defence that as the plaintiffs' father had admitted the right of ownership of the defendant in respect of a 'four, anna share, the son co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »