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.
Sm. Sundar Devi Vs. Dattatraya Narhar Rege and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All551
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit which she instituted against defendants, 1 and 2 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur and which has been dismissed. The plaintiff in this case is one Mt. Sundar Devi. Dattatraya Narhar Rege, defendant 1, is a solicitor practising in Bombay. According to the plaintiff, Permeshwar Din, defendant 2, is an agent of defendant 1.2. On 23rd November 1927, defendant 1 obtained a decree from the Bombay High Court for a sum of money against Mt. Sundar Devi, plaintiff. The plaintiff, who resides in Benares, instituted a suit against the two defendants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur to obtain a declaration to the effect that the aforesaid decree, for the reasons given in her plaint, was not binding upon her. After the issues had been settled in the case, a commission was issued for recording the evidence of the plaintiff and one Mt. Lakhpati at Benares. The statement of the plaintiff was recorded....
Town Area Mandha Vs. Mt. Manglo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All592; 147Ind.Cas.873
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against an order remanding a suit for decision on the merits. It was passed under the following circumstances: The Town Area of Moudaha in the district of Hamipur found that one Munna had built a shop without permission of the Town Area Committee and prosecuted him and subsequently served on him a notice to demolish the building. Thereupon his wife, Mt. Manglo, instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to obtain a declaration that the shop was her property having been sold to her in lieu of her dower as early as 1928 and that the shop was not liable to be demolished because it had been constructed before the sections which authorise the Town Area Committee to demolish unauthorised buildings came into force.2. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the suit was not maintainable in a civil Court. That plea found favour with the learned Munsif and he dismissed the suit without going into the other questions raised in the case. The learned ...
Rahat HusaIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All582
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal appeal by 30 appellants, of whom Nos. 1, 10 to 13 and 26, that is, 6 persons, have been sentenced to transportation for life under Sections 302 and 149, Penal Code, and have also been sentenced, in the case of No. 1 and Nos. 10 to 13, to two years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 395, Penal Code, and in the case of No. 26 to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 395, Penal Code, the' sentences under Section 395, Penal Code, being concurrent with the life sentences. One other appellant, No. 22, has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 398, Penal Code, and the remaining accused have all been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under that section. The case has had a curious history. The occurrence in question took place on 11th October 1930, in a village called Ganeshpur, some 6 miles from Basti town. This village is inhabited partly by Brahman Chaubes, and the complainant, Deotadin Chau-be, lives in Moh...
HusaIn Baksh Vs. Mr. Briggen Shaw (W.J.)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All597
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Jhansi, under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The learned Judge has not formulated the question on which the opinion of this Court is desired. Order 46, Rule 1, requires the Court making the reference to:draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained.2. We gather from the order of reference that one Hussain Bux obtained on 9th June 1932, a decree for Rs. 33-8-0 against Mr. Briggen Shaw No. 14, A.T. Cavalry, C.P. Mule, Quetta, Baluchistan. The decree-holder applied on 24th June 1932, for execution of his decree by attachment of the judgment-debtor's salary which was mentioned to be Rs. 300 a month approximately. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Jhansi, who had passed the decree and to whom the application for execution was made, issued a notice to the judgment-debtor to: show cause on or before the 5th August 1932 why the amount of Rs,. 39-1-0 (which i...
Secretary of State Vs. Raghubar Dayal-babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All595
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council through the Agent of the East Indian Railway, Calcutta, against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. The plaintiffs are merchants in Cawnpore, and there was a consignment of 200 bundles of steel rods despatched from Kidderpore Dock station on 22nd August 1929, for the plaintiffs as consignees to Lucknow. The consignment reached Lucknow on 30th August 1929, and at the instance of the plaintiffs the consignment was re-booked for Cawnpore on 11th September 1929, and reached Cawnpore on 15th September 1929. When the consignment arrived at Cawnpore the plaintiffs refused to take delivery of the consignment because they alleged that 9 bundles out of the 200 bundles of steel rods had been changed and did not bear the marks which were on the invoices of the shippers from Europe. There was also difference in the weight of some 12 maunds, 13 seers and 8 chhataks short. Now the plaintiffs in cons...
Tripathi Bishambhar Nath Tewari and anr. Vs. Jag Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All455
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the lower appellate Court refusing to grant interest to the plaintiffs, although the Court upheld a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,000 in favour of the plaintiffs as compensation. The plaintiffs sued under the following circumstances: Defendants 1 and2 executed a sale-deed of certain zamindary property to the plaintiffs on 28th November 1916. On the same date defendants 1 and 2 executed a deed of security in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing that if defendants 1 and 2 were held not to be absolute proprietors of the property specified in the sale-deed, or if they were not found to be the lawful heirs of the estate of their deceased brother Gaya Prasad, or if any defect in title was found in the property sold, then in all those cases the defendants would be liable for all damages and costs of the plaintiffs. This deed of security was executed on account of a suit, No. 233 of 1917, which was then pending between defen...
Ujagar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All834
1. Fourteen persons were committed to the Court of Session of Cawnpore charged under Sections 302, 396, 436 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Against four of them further charges were under Section 307, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted no less than eleven but convicted Ujagar, Narain and Bandi Din; the first two under Sections 147 and 436, I.P.C. and the latter under Sections 147, 436, 307 and 302, I.P.C. Ujagar and Narain were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 147, I.P.C., and for ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 436, I.P.C. Bandi Din was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, I.P.C., ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 436,. I.P.C., and ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, I.P.C. Under Section 302, I.P.C., he was sentenced to transportation for life; the sentences in all cases to run concurrently.2. On 24th March 1931, the well-known-murderous riots in Cawnpore commenced. After r...
Ram Charan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All434a; 145Ind.Cas.130
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Banda recommending that the conviction of the applicant Ram Charan of an offence under Section 411, Penal Code, and sentence of fine of Rs. 50 be set aside. The facts established by the evidence and found by the Magistrate who tried the applicant are not in dispute. The complainant Midwa lost some property in course of a theft which took place in his house one night. He reported the theft at the police station expressing a suspicion that certain persons named by him including a son of the applicant were responsible for the theft. A search in the appellant's house resulted in the discovery of two silver ornaments found in a corn bin which, at that time, contained dried Mahwa flowers. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that in the house occupied by the applicant also reside his three grown-up sons one of whom was suspected by the complainant. The applicant's wife also lives in the same house. There may be oth...
Moti Ram Vs. Karim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All481
ORDERMukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Judge Small Cause Court. It appears that before the decree was passed in the suit the decree-holder Moti Ram who is the applicant before me asked for the attachment of a debt said to have been due by the respondent Karim to the judgment-debtors., and when the attachment was made Karim came forward and put forward four objections. One of these was that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction, and another was that Karim owed nothing to the judgment-debtors. The objections were dismissed, the Court holding that what had been was not an injunction but an order on attachment. Nothing was decided as to Karim's liability. When the decree was passed in favour of the decree-holder he proceeded to execute it and Karim thereupon contended that he owed nothing to the judgment-debtors and was not liable to pay anything in pursuance on the garnishee order. The learned Judge in the Court below held ...
Mt. Chhoti Vs. Har Dayal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All572
Niamatullah, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned advocate for the respondent that no valid appeal was filed within limitation. The facts on which the preliminary objection is based are as follows: The last day on which the appeal should have been filed was 12th February 1930. The appeal was presented on that day but on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 only. It is not disputed that ad valorm court-fee should have been paid on the memorandum of appeal. The office reported on 18th February 1930 that there was a deficiency in the court-fee to the extent of Rupees 260. The same was paid next day, i. e., on 19th February 1930. A learned Single Judge of this Court, before whom the office report was laid for orders, directed, on 21st February 1930: 'Let the deficiency be received.'2. The appeal was thenceforward treated as preferred on a properly stamped memorandum of appeal. It was laid before a Bench of this Court under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C. and was admitted on 31s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »