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.
Mt. Shahzadi Begam Vs. Alakh Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All308
ORDERKendall, J.1. The circumstances from which this case has arisen have been described in my note of 7th December 1932. An application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis under Order 44, Rule 1 was presented in Court on 2nd May 1932 and was listed on 10th May 1932 with an office note to the effect that the application was 58 days beyond time. The order passed by me was:As the application hag not been made within the period of limitation, it must be and is rejected.2. The period of limitation prescribed by Article 170, Schedule 1, Limitation Act, for the presentation of an application for leave to appeal as a pauper is 30 days and the application in this case was presented 88 days after the date of the decree appealed from. The question that I have to decide is whether what was rejected on 10th May 1932 was an application for leave to appeal as a pauper, or merely a motion to admit an application for leave to appeal as a pauper. It has been pointed out that as a single Judge I had n...
Chunni Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All399
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The facts of this case are that on the night between 13th and 14th July 1932, a theft was committed at the house of the prosecuting inspector at Etah. In the course of investigation the police recovered a large portion of the stolen property from the house of several Ahariyas. After completing the investigation 13 persons were challaned and placed on the trial before Ch. Raghuraj Singh. He committed them to the Court of Session. One Chunni Lal was subsequently examined as a prosecution witness and his statement was also sent to the Court of Session as a supplementary statement. After Chunni Lal had been examined as a prosecution witness Mr. K.N. Bhargava, the prosecuting inspector (it may be mentioned that this is not the prosecuting inspector at whose house the theft took place') presented a petition before Ch. Raghuraj Singh that after going through the' entire record it was obvious that Chunni Lal had either committed theft along with other accused or retained the ...
Makhan Lal and anr. Vs. Sujan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All655; 150Ind.Cas.315
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit was dismissed by both the lower Courts. The plaintiffs are cosharers in Tan agricultural village and they sued for the demolition of a nohra or cattle shed alleged in the plaint to have been for two months under construction by the defendants in front of another nohra built about a year before the plaint. The plaint also claimed damages for their share of a farash tree alleged to have been cut by the defendants. The defence was that the nohra was 50 or 60 years old and that the defendants were also cosharers in the village and the abadi had not been partitioned. The Munsif found that the defendants were also cosharers in the khewat numbers in which the plots in dispute lie, so the parties are joint owners of the land in question. He made a local inspection and found:I am further inclined to think that the entire building is not a new one. There are two apartments in it. The inner one appeared to me at the time of inspect...
Emperor Vs. Faujdar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All440
Bennet, J.1. This is is appeal by Government against the acquittal of three Doms, Faujdar, Sita and Balli,. of the offence of dacoity, and also-the appeal of four persons who have been convicted of the offence of dacoity Ishri Kurmi, Shiva Gobind Ahir, Damri Gond and Dudnath Dusadh. These four persons have been sentenced to six: years' rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur. A first report was made at 5 a. m. on 15th June 1931, at the police station, Ubhaon, in Ballia district, which stated that a road dacoity had taken place three miles away at 11 p. m. on the night of 14th or 15th June 1931. The report was made by Ramkishore Lal, the complainant, and he stated that he was going in a bullock cart along with women folk and his wife's brother Adya Prasad and three coolies from his house towards Azamgarh, and as he was passing along he met four men on the road with lathis and he spoke to then about a fire and they went on; but shortly afterwards when the cart was four fu...
Puran Vs. Mansukh Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All632
King, J.1. This appeal and Second Appeals Nos. 62 to 65 of 1930, arise out of certain suits instituted by the plaintiff who is a lessee from the Cantonment Authorities of Agra as against certain persons who were in occupation of portions of the leased property. On 1st April 1924 a lease was granted by the Cantonment Authorities to the plaintiff of a certain area of land within the Agra Cantonment. The terms of the lease were that all the rights of the lessor were transferred to the lessee for the purpose specified in the lease, with certain reservations, and it was further provided that the lessee should build a dwelling house upon the demised premises within the period of 12 months. The defendants are held to be owners and occupiers of certain houses within the demised premises. It is found that they have been in occupation of these houses for a long period of time--it may be for a hundred years and it is found that they have not been paying rent to the Cantonment Authorities. The pla...
Ganga Prasad Sahu Vs. Sarda Mahesh Prasad Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All779; 147Ind.Cas.793
ORDER1. This application is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur passed on a petition by the present applicant to be allowed to bring a suit in forma pauperis. The applicant sought permission to sue as a pauper the Raja of Barhar and one Bechanu Singh on the allegation that he had taken a lease of a certain jungle in Mirzapur from the Raja and that before the expiry of the lease the Raja had granted a lease of the same jungle to Bachanu Singh. He claimed one lac of rupees as damages and he alleged that he had no funds with which to prosecute his suit. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application as far as it concerned the Raja on the ground that the application did not disclose any cause of action against the Raja. He allowed the prayer to sue as a pauper the subsequent lessee. He however made this order conditional on the applicant furnishing satisfactory security for the court-fee legally leviable on his claim.2. The applicant has come up to this C...
Sifat Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Ali Mian and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All284
King, J 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the mutwallis and Imams of a certain mosque situated in Shahjahanpur City, and they have for more than 25 years been saying namaz as members of the Ahmadya community, and that the defendants and all other non-Ahmadis have on no account any right to offer their prayers in congregation led by some other Imam. The second relief was that a perpetual injunction be issued to the defendants and all other non-Ahmadis restraining them from doing any act which might cause interfunction in the offering of prayers and in the performance of other religious functions while the plaintiffs and others of their faith are saying namaz in the mosque. It appears that the mosque in suit was built long before the Ahmadya sect was founded. The sect was founded by one Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian in the Punjab about the year 1888. He proclaimed himself a Prophet and a sect of his followers was founded. The plaintiffs in the p...
Mathura and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All355
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The applicants before me were convicted by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates at Jaunpur under Sections 323 and 452, Penal Code. Their convictions were affirmed in appeal by a Magistrate of the First Class with appellate powers. A revision filed by them before the Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur was also dismissed. In revision before me it is argued that the conviction is illegal inasmuch as there was a defect in the constitution of the Bench. The facts are that there is a Bench of Honorary Magistrates of Jaunpur consisting of three members (1) B. Sundari Prasad (2) B. Lakshmi Shankar and (3) Maulvi Md. Abbas Khan. The present trial commenced before all the three Magistrates but at some of the subsequent hearings Maulvi Md. Abbas Khan was not present. The other two Magistrates however present at all the hearings including the first and last and it is these two Magistrates who delivered the judgment. It is contended before me that inasmuch as the trial commenced befo...
(Sahu) Manohari Saran Vs. (Sahu) Shambhu Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All622; 147Ind.Cas.916
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of similar facts and may be decided by one judgment. The appeals arise out of a suit for profits instituted by a cosharer against the lambardar. It appears that the family which consisted of an uncle and two nephews, namely, Kishan Lal and Nand Lal, nephews, and Behari Lal, uncle, each representing one of the three branches of the family, separated as a result of an award. The award is dated 1897. There were three properties, which were described as wakf property. One was handed over to one of the parties, namely, to Nand Lal Saran, and the other two villages were given, one-half each, to the other two parties, namely, Kishan Lal and Behari Lal. It was stated that each was to receive one-half of the profits and apply them himself, for purposes of the trust and Behari Lal was to be the lambardar. The learned District Judge found that this award had been acted upon and Behari Lal and after his death his son, Shambhu Nath, the defendant-resp...
b, an Advocate of Benares Vs. Judges of the High Court at Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All259
ORDER1. This is an application an behalf of B with two prayers. The first is that the order of suspension may be kept in abeyance till he has had an opportunity to place his case before the Privy Council in order to obtain special leave to appeal. The second is that the amount of security may be returned to him to enable him to proceed to the Privy Council. On the first point the case of Nanda Kishore Singh v. Ram Golam Sahu (1913) 40 Cal 955 has been cited. In that case however there was a difference of opinion and the opinion of the Senior Judge prevailed under Section 36, Letters Patent, of the Calcutta High Court. We do not think that that case is of much good to us. We however do think that we have an inherent jurisdiction to pass such orders as the justice of the case may require. In this case the applicant was suspended for three months and fifteen days of that period have already expired. Ordinarily it would take about three months' time within which the applicant can get an or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »