Allahabad Court February 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.
Jagat NaraIn Vs. NizamuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All385
ORDERSulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by Jagat Narain who was appointed a shahna or watchman by a Commissioner. The Commissioner had been appointed by the Court to attach certain moveable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor which were in a shop. He was ordered to keep them in his custody till the approval of the appointment of a custodian had been given. The Commissioner attached the goods, locked them up in the shop, put several locks on the shop with seals on them and kept the keys with himself. He however appointed the applicant and another person as joint watchmen on a remuneration of 8 annas per day to look after the shop and see that the locks were not tampared with. A list of the articles contained in the shop was also prepared before they were locked in. Subsequently the attachment was released and the goods had to be delivered to the judgment-debtor. When the articles in the shop were: compared with those on the list it was discovered that numerous a...
Udmi Ram-ram Sarup Vs. Ghasi Ram-sakhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All753
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Kashipur. One of the issues raised by the pleadings was whether the Court at Kashipur had jurisdiction to try the suit and an application was made by the defendant that this issue should be tried first. The application was rejected in the following words: 'It is not desirable that the case be decided piecemeal. The case will be taken up as a whole,' and it is against this order that the present application is made. A preliminary objection has been taken that this order of the Court does not amount to a 'case decided,' and it must be admitted that the decision of a single issue out of several has generally been held not to amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. Reliance on behalf of the opposite party is placed on the Full Bench decision in the case of Baddha Lal v. Mewa Ram AIR 1921 All 1. In that case the trial Court had considered a question of jurisdiction ...
Manian Vs. Lala
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All748; 147Ind.Cas.816
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The parties are Mahabrahmins entitled to offerings on the death of a client. There was a dispute between the parties which led to an apprehension of a breach of the peace with the result that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., were started on an application made before a Magistrate. During the course of the proceedings however the parties came to terms and their civil dispute was referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator under a written agreement: the proceedings under Section 107 were not pressed and were dropped.2. The arbitrator held; that the plaintiff was entitled to half of the offerings and directed that the defendant, who was in possession of the offerings in a particular case, should deliver half of the offerings to the plaintiff. The direction did not go on to provide in express terms for the payment of the value of half of the offerings in case the offerings thems...
Ram Swarup Vs. Joti and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All321
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is a stamp reference made by a learned Munsif through the District Judge of Bareilly under the following circumstances: The plaintiff before the learned Munsif in Suit No. 327 of 1932 in the Court of the Munsif of Pilibhit brought the. suit, out of which this reference has arisen, to recover a certain sum of money on foot of a bond which had been sold in his favour by defendant 2 in the suit on 6th September 1928, defendant 1, presumably being the executant of the bond. By this sale deed the plaintiff purchased not only the bond in suit but also 28 other bonds all sold to him by defendant 2. The sale consideration was Rs. 2,425 although at the date of the sale the total amount due on the several bonds sold was a much larger sum. The sale deed bore a stamp duty of Rs. 5. The question raised is whether the duty is sufficient. The learned Munsif himself thought that the stamp of Rs. 5 might be sufficient although be was not quite certain in his mind. He consulted ...
Mt. Bashiran Vs. B. Moti Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All431
Niamatulah, J.1. This purports to' be a second appeal from an order passed, by the learned District Judge of Cawnpore in the exercise of his appellate: jurisdiction as Judge of the Court of Insolvency. It was passed on appeal, from an order -of the Subordinate Judge-of that district exercising the powers, of an Insolvency Court. A preliminary question was raised by the learned advocate for the respondent that no second appeal lies. As this Court has. wide powers of revision in cases arising: under the Provincial Insolvency Act, the memorandum of appeal can be-treated as an application for revision,, assuming no second appeal lies. We-do not consider it necessary to decide-whether a second appeal is maintainable, as in view of the questions raised this Court has power to hear them, on revision. In these circumstances we prefer to dispose of the case on its merits.2. The appellant is the wife of one Slier Mohd Khan. By a deed, dated 31st March 1927, he transferred practically the whole o...
Mangu Lal Ganga Charan Vs. Munni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All311
Bajpai, J.1. Civil Revisions Nos. 195 of 1932, 196 of 1932 and 290 of 1932 are connected and I propose to deliver a consolidated judgment because the same points arise for consideration in all of them. Three suits were brought by the plaintiffs of the three cases against the firm Ajodhia Prasad Sheonarain. The suits have been decreed against certain persons but dismissed against Manni Lal and Sheo Narain, son of Chotey Lal. The questions that arise in these revisions are whether the suits should be decreed or not against Sheo Narain, son of Chotey Lal, and Manni Lal also on the ground that they too were partners of the firm Ajodhia Prasad Sheo Narain. It is conceded that so far as Manni Lal is concerned no personal decree can be passed against him because he is a minor; but what is claimed is that his share of the joint family property is liable for these debts.2. So far as Sheo Narain, son of Chotey Lal, is concerned there is a clear finding of fact to the effect that he was never a p...
Man Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All401
Young, J.1. Ten persons were charged in the Court of the Sessions Judge, of Muzaffar Nagar under Sections 147 and 304, read with Section 149, Penal Code. The charge was that they, on the morning of 18th February 1932, had formed an unlawful assembly and had caused grievous injuries to Ali Ahmad, which resulted in his death. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted six of the accused, convicted four under Section 304, Penal Code, and sentenced them to three years' rigorous imprisonment each. All the four convicted persons appeal to this Court. The accused Gumani had a field in the village of Wilayet Nagar. Adjacent to his field was the field of Ali Ahmad. There was a canal between the fields, from which water was obtained for irrigation. The prosecution alleged that when Husain Ahmad was engaged in taking water from the canal Gumani came up and objected. The result was a quarrel between the two men. Relations on both sides came' up to assist and a marpit took place. In that marpit Ali Ahmad...
Gur Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All370
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, upholding the Magistrate's order convicting the applicant of an offence under Section 64(c), Excise Act, 1910, but reducing the fine from Rs. 51 to Rs. 10. The application has been made on the ground that the conviction is wrong in law, and it has also been pointed out by Mr. Ramnama Prasad for the applicant that although the fine is a trivial one the fact of the applicant's having been found guilty of. an offence-tinder the Act will be a serious matter to him, as he will not only be disqualified from holding a licence again but must lose the security of Rs. 550 supplied by him to the Excise Department. He has been convicted under Clause (c), Section 64 of the Act, viz., of willfully doing or omitting to do something in breach of one of the conditions of the licence. When his shop was inspected it was found that he had not in stock certain of the packets of drugs which are detaile...
Kushalpal Singh Vs. Gulzari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All603
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, upholding the decree of a Munsif of that district, who dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit for recovery of possession of sites of two shops situate in village, Pharha in that district, and for demolition of certain constructions made thereon by the defendants-respondents.2. The plaintiff's claim as set out in his plaint is that he is the sole proprietor of village Pharha; that the sites of the shops in question belong to him as proprietor, and that one Bansidhar, who was his reaya, was the owner of one of the shops, Badri, being the owner of the other. It was further alleged that Bansidhar and the heir of Badri left the village leaving the shops unoccupied, which subsequently fell into ruins. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to possession of the sites in terms of the Wazibularz of the village, which according to him, records a custom under which the occupiers of houses in village, Ph...
Rikhi Ram and ors. Vs. Radhe Shiam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All608
ORDERKendall, J.1. This application is made on the ground that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 151, Civil P.C. which had the effect of enlarging a passage way in the house of the plaintiff-opposite-party. The facts found by the Munsif are that in a partition suit the parties had come to an agreement under which part of a house was allotted to the plaintiff, and the house was partitioned by metes and bounds in accordance with that compromise and the decree based upon it. It had not however been noticed by either of the parties at the time of making the compromise or by the Court in passing the decree that the map only allowed the plaintiff a passage of only 11 inches wide with the result that this decree 'would have made access to a big portion of the plaintiff's house impossible.' In these circumstances the Munsif passed an order which purports to be an order under Section 151, Penal Code, directing the defendants to give 13 inches of land to allow...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »