Allahabad Court April 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.
Purshottam Lal Jaitly Vs. W.T. Henley's Telegraph Works, Ltd. and Anr. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All523; 145Ind.Cas.812
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Allahabad, in a regular suit pending before him. One of the questions arising in the case is whether the order is only an interlocutory order which cannot be questioned in revision, or whether it amounts to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. It is only if the aforesaid order can be considered to amount to a 'decision' of a 'case' that the merits of the order fall to be considered.2. It appears that the plaintiff, W. T. Henley Teleghaph Works Ltd., sued for recovery of a certain sum of money and impleaded the Gorakhpur Electric Supply Co., Ltd., as defendant 1 and P. L. Jaitly and Co., as defendant 2. The suit was contested by both the defendants, who filed separate written statements. The one filed on behalf of defendant 2 was signed by. Keshri Narain, who is one of the partners of the firm P.L. Jaitly and Co. It is not quite cl...
Mt. Kanizum Hani Vs. Syed Mohammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All556
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order by the Court below dismissing an application of Mt. Kuniz Umi Hani praying for permission to sue as a pauper. One Mirza Abid Ali Beg made a wakf under a registered deed on 3rd November 1887. After the creation of the-wakf certain transfers were made by some of the 'mutawallis.' The applicant, who is about seven months old,, claiming to be a beneficiary under the wakf asked permission to sue as a pauper in order to have the alienations made by the mutawallis set aside The application was opposed by the Government and also by the opposite party. The mother of the applicant was examined by the Court after the application had been presented. One Mohammad Muttaqi, who is the grandfather of the applicant, was also examined as a witness. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the applicant had failed to prove that she was a pauper, and therefore dismissed the application. The applicant has preferred' the present applic...
Emperor Vs. Basant Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All574
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal appeal by the Local Government against the order of Second Class Honorary Magistrate of acquittal of a number of persons of whom four are now before us in this appeal. The learned Government Advocate has withdrawn the case for the prosecution against Chhote Lal and Bhagwati Prasad because they cannot be found, and we allow this withdrawal, and an acquittal will be entered against them. The charge against Basant Rai is under Section 3, Gambling Act, (3 of 1867), that he kept a gaming house, and the charge against Mithu Lal, Charni and Jwala Prasad is under Section 4 that they were found gambling in that gaming house. The evidence of the Sub-Inspector and two witnesses shows that acting under warrant obtained on information supplied by an informer, the Sub-Inspector during the Diwali made a raid on this house which belongs to Basant Rai. He found the six persons whom he prosecuted along with Basant Rai in a room of the house., and there were some 10 or 12 ...
L. Mansa Vs. Mt. Ancho and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All521; 145Ind.Cas.802
ORDERSulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff sued on the strength of two bonds which were ostensibly executed after an interval of 14 months. The plaintiff beside examining himself, produced one witness whose demeanour did not impress the Court and he did not produce the other witness who was a patwari. The defendant is an ignorant widow and she denied the execution of the bonds and the receipt of consideration. The execution and consideration were not admitted in the written statement and on oath she emphatically denied them. The Court below has held that in such circumstances it lay heavily on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the bonds and the advance of consideration for them and has then held: 'In my opinion, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden.' I am not concerned with the reasons given by the Judge for not believing the plaintiff and his witness. The finding of fact must be accept...
Janki Pershad Vs. B. Lekhraj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All510
ORDERSulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by an auction-purchaser from an appellate order setting aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. The property was sold on 23rd June 1931, and an application under Order 21, Rule 89 was filed on 22nd July 1931. It contained the allegation that on that date he had paid the amount specified in the proclamation of sale to the decree-holder, and he deposited in Court an amount equal to 5 per cent of the purchase money. The learned Munsif held that a satisfaction or adjustment of the decree out of Court was insufficient and accordingly dismissed the application. On appeal the! learned Judge has pointed out that the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Nanhelal v. Umrao. Singh , laying down that a satisfaction or adjustment of the decree between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor subsequent to the sale is of no effect and cannot prejudice the rights of the auction-purchaser, did not apply to the facts...
Lala Ganeshi Lal and ors. Vs. Anwar Khan Mahboob Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1933
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.840
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This Is a second appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants arising out of a suit for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to rise 'Chand Tara' mark on biris (cigarettes) manufactured by them and the defendant was not entitled to refrain them from using this trade mark. They also claimed to recover Rs. 200 as damages.2. The suit was decreed by the first Court. The defendant preferred an appeal to the court of the Subordinate Judge. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have come up to this Court in second appeal.3. The plaintiffs carry on business of manufacturing 'biris' at Sihora in the jubbulpur District. They have an agency in Aligarh District for the sale of these 'biris'. Their 'biri' packets bear the trade mark of 'Chand Tara', that is crescent and star. The lower Appellate Court has found that the firm of the plaintiffs started then business some time in 1927 and since, they have, been using the abov...
Ram Ghulam and anr. Vs. Shyam Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All1
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, by two individuals, one of whom has died since the institution of this appeal. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that the appeal should fail because one of the two original appellants is dead, and Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down that at least two persons shall institute the suit under that section. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents at length on this point, but we are of opinion that on a simple reading of Section 92, Civil P.C., the hearing of this appeal cannot be barred. All that the section says is 'two or more persons...may institute a suit'. Where the suit has been properly instituted according to Section 92, Civil P.C., there is nothing in that section which says that the suit cannot be continued if one of the original plaintiffs who instituted the suit in the manner laid down by law happens to die. Although this is o...
Cantonment Board Vs. Kashi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All486
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of a Magistrate of Agra acquitting the opposite party Kashi Ram of an alleged offence under Section 187 read with Section 268 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. The applicant had applied to the Cantonment Authority under Section 179 for permission to build a room and a gate in the Cantonment, and eventually sanction was given under Section 181 in a letter dated 27th April 1931, in which it was remarked by the Executive Officer that the site on which the construction proposed to be built was claimed on behalf of the Government, but that there was no 'Municipal objection' to the construction except the gate which has been rejected. Later on in a letter of 4th July, it was explained that the plan was sanctioned' subject to your civil rights. Kashi Ram proceeded with the building but on 25th February 1932, the Municipal Board sent a registered notice under Section 187 of the Act requiring himto demolish the unauthorized constructi...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Mohammad Ishaq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All557
Niamatullah, J.1. Om Prasad and others, have preferred an appeal from an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Meerut refusing to allow attachment before judgment. They have also applied in revision in view of the contingency that the appeal be held to be incompetent. Om Prasad and others obtained a decree for sale under Order 34, Rules 4 and 5, Civil P.C. The proceedings for sale of the mortgaged property were pending in the lower Court when they made an application under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P.C., for attachment before judgment, on the allegation that the sale proceeds were likely to prove insufficient for the satisfaction of the mortgage-money and that a deficit of Rs. 38,000 was likely to occur. As the mortgaged property had not been sold, no application under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., was made before the application for attachment, before judgment, already referred to. The decree-holders filed an affidavit in support of their application to the effect that the ju...
Muhammad Khalilur Rahman Khan Vs. Mohammad Muzammilullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All468
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 20,000 which has been decreed by the trial Court. There is no dispute as regards the facts of the case, on 5th December 1922, Muhammad Abdul Jalil Khan, executed a mortgage-deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of village Pindaul in consideration of a sum of Rs. 20,000. Abdul Jalil Khan is dead and the defendant is his legal representative. The plaintiff admits that Abdul Jalil Khan was incompetent to mortgage the village at the time of the execution of the deed in suit. The plaintiff therefore sued for a simple money decree. On 3rd December 1928 the defendant executed a deed of acknowledgment admitting his liability for the payment of the aforesaid sum. The defendant resisted the claim. He pleaded that the deed set up by the plaintiff was invalid in toto and no simple money decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff. It was also urged that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »