Allahabad Court December 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.
Sadlu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All374; 155Ind.Cas.406
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision by one Sadlu, who was convicted by a, Magistrate let Class, Benares, of an offence under Section 14, Dangerous Drugs Act (No. 2 of 1930), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and a fine of Rs. 200. His appeal to the Sessions Judge, Benares, was dismissed. It has been found by both the Courts below that the applicant, who was once convicted of a similar offence and sentenced to six months' Rule I. in 1932, was in possession of two packets of a substance which has been declared by the Chemical Examiner to be cocaine. The circumstances which led to the discovery were described by the officer in charge of the Benares Kotwali. In consequence of an information received he proceeded to search the premises of the accused. There is a room on the second storey of the applicant's house, which was found to be locked. The Sub-Inspector asked the accused to furnish the key for opening that room. The applicant produced a key from h...
NaraIn Das Vs. Bhagwati Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All465
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of immovable property and for past mesne profits up to the date of the suit. The suit was filed on 14th September 1920, and it resulted in a decree on 17th May 1922. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession and granted him such a decree. He however remarked that the plaintiff had given no evidence about the amount of the mesne profits to which he was entitled, but that he was entitled to mesne profits, He then remarked:I shall therefore leave the matter to be determined in the execution department.2. The operative portion of the judgment was in the following words:That the plaintiffs claim for possession be decreed with costs. He is held to be entitled to recover mesne profits for three years preceding the suit, the amount of which shall be determined in execution.3. The decree which was prepared naturally reproduced the operative portion of the order ...
Sri Nathji and ors. Vs. Mt. Panna Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1935All239
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit to recover a sum of money. The facts which have given rise to this litigation between the parties may briefly be stated as follows : Mt. Panna Kunwar the plaintiff-respondent is the daughter of one Pandit Baldeo Narain Singh who died on 11th January 1912. He was the owner and in possession of considerable property. On 5th January 1912B. Baldeo Narain Singh executed a will in favour of one Keshab Deo alias Kabli Singh, his nephew. Under the terms of the aforesaid will he directed Keshab Deo to pay a sum of Rs. 500 yearly to Mt. Panna Kunwar and her son. On the death of Pandit Baldeo Narain Singh a dispute arose between the plaintiff on the one side and Keshab Deo on the other as regards the estate left by the deceased. The plaintiff Mt. Panna Kunwar instituted a suit to recover possession! over the entire estate left by the deceased on 11th July 1915 on the allegations that she was the sole heiress-of her father and...
Srinathji and ors. Vs. Musammat Panna Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.390
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit to recover a sum of money. The facts which have given rise to this litigation between the parties may briefly be stated as follows: Musammat Panna Kunwar, the plaintiff-respondent, is the daughter of one Pandit Baldeo Narain Singh who died on January 11, 1912. He was the owner and in possession of considerable property. On January 5, 19 : 2 B. Baldeo Narain Singh executed a will in favour of one Keshab Deo alias Kabli Singh, his nephew. Under the terms of the aforesaid will he directed Keshab Deo to' pay a sum of Rs. 500 yearly to Musammat Panna Kunwar and her son. On the death of Pandit Baldeo Narain Singh a dispute arose between the plaintiff on the one side and Keshab Deo on the other as regards the estate left by the deceased. The plaintiff Musammat Panna Kunwar instituted a suit to recover possession over the entire estate left by the deceased on July 11, 1912 on the allegations that she was the sole heiress o...
Rajdeo Singh Vs. Jagdeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All323
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff Rajdeo Singh in revision against an order of the Subordinate Judge passed under Order 33, Rule 9, declaring that he must pay the requisite court-fee on the plaint by a certain date. There was a proceeding by which the plaintiff applied to Hue as a pauper and his application was granted. Subsequently to that, on 7th. January, 1933, the certified guardian of the plaintiff hypothecated a fractional share of the plaintiff in certain property for Rs. 2,240, out of which Rs. 1,800 was deposited in Court to have a certain sale set aside, and the balance of the money remained with the plaintiff's guardian. The defendant then applied under Order 33, Rule 9 for the plaintiff to be dispaupered. The application has been allowed under Sub-rule (b) of that rule which states that a plaintiff should be dispaupered 'if it appears that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue-as a pauper.' The Court has found that the subesquent mo...
Misri Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All372; 147Ind.Cas.1197
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the learned Session Judge of Mainpuri. The applicant was charged under Sections 467 and 471, Penal Code, with forgery, and the trial is pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. When the proceeding were before the Magistrate, he asked the accused for a list of persons whom he (the accused) wished to be summoned to give evidence in his defence. At that particular stage the Grown had given notice that they meant to call a handwriting expert on the question of forgery. The accused could not tell what evidence the handwriting expert would give, As he was an expert called for the Crown, the accused had a right to presume the it his evidence would be unbiased and honest; his evidence might even be in the accused's favour on the question of the alleged forgery. It was therefore unnecessary at that stage for the accused to decide whether he would call a handwriting expert on his behalf or not. Such an expert wou...
Raja Gajendra Shah Vs. Kuar Sunder Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All549
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the District Judge of Farrukhabad reversing the decision of the Munsif who had held that the plaintiff's suit could lie in the district of Farrukhabad. The Munsif held that no part, of the cause of action arose within the district of Farrukhabad, but the learned District Judge has disagreed with him. The plaintiff is a vaid practising in Farrukhabad and he received a letter in January 1928 from Raja Gajendra Singh, of Kothar in the district of Shahjahanpur, asking him to hurry to Kothar to treat the Raja for diabetes. The plaintiff went to Kothar and treated the Raja there and also supplied medicines to him, and his-suit was based on the allegation that he had not been paid the full expenses. I am not, however concerned with the, merits of the case. I am only concerned with the question of whether any part of the plaintiffs cause of action arose within the district of Farrukhabad. It appears both from the ^statem...
Sital Prasad Vs. M. Md. Murauwat Yar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All972
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are as follows : The plaintiff obtained a simple mortgage from one Shamsher on 25th January 1916. He obtained a decree lot sale on 2,5th. November 1925. The property was sold in execution of the decree and was purchased by the plaintiff himself on 4th May 1928. Shamsher mortgaged some property which it has now been found by the lower appellate Court, was other than the property mortgaged to the plaintiff, on 12th August 1910. A decree was passed in favour of the mortgagee, Kayastha Bank, on 30th August 1923. The defendant, who is the appellant before me, purchased the decree on 12th November 1924 and brought the property mortgaged to him to sale on 17th October 1927. Before the sale however the appellant obtained an order amending the preliminary and final decrees passed in Kayastha Bank's suit, the result of which was that the property mortgaged to the plaintiff was added to the property mortgaged to Kayastha Bank. Th...
Ram Bharose Vs. Bishnath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All336; 153Ind.Cas.692
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal. The facts which have given rise to the litigation between the parties are set forth in our order of 2nd May 1933. We framed an issue:Whether Narain Prasad had a right of transfer either under a lease or under any other valid agreement with the landholder2. The case was sent back to the lower appellate Court with directions for a finding on this issue. The learned Judge has sent his finding which is that Narain Prasad had a right of transfer as a lessee of the plot on which the house stands. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that it is proved that the house was built over 50 years ago. This finding is binding in second appeal. Lachhmi Narain and Thekur Din ware the two sons of Narain Prasad. Lachhmi Narain sold his one-half share to Raj Narain under a sale deed dated 15th February 1928, while Thekur Din sold his share to the defendant-appellant on 11th July 1929. The plaintiff, Bishnath Prasad, instituted a suit for partiti...
S., an Advocate Vs. Judges of High Court of Judicature, Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All898
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of a Bench of this Court suspending the applicant who is an enrolled Advocate, for a period of three months. A preliminary objection is taken by the Government Advocate that no leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council can be given by this Court. It is urged that the suspension of the Advocate is in the exercise of the power especially conferred upon this Court by Clause (8), Letters Patent, and by the Bar Councils Act of 1926, and that when exercising such power the High Court is not exercising any jurisdiction, much less civil jurisdiction. It is therefore contended that Clause 30, Letters Patent, would not at all apply and there would be no appeal to the Privy Council. It is further contained that the case not being a civil case to which Sections 109 and 110, Civil P. C. can apply, no leave can be granted under those sections.2. Reliance is placed on the view which has been expressed in some o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »