Allahabad Court May 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.
Karim Bux Vs. Debi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All511; 150Ind.Cas.460
ORDERYoung, J.1. This is an application in revision from the decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Bulandshahr. The plaintiff filed an action for damages for breach of contract under these circumstances. There was a decree against the plaintiff-judgment-debtor for Rupees. 100 odd. A small sum of Rs. 10 had been paid and this amount was struck off in part satisfaction of the decree. There was still over Rs. 100 owing to the decree-holder. The decree-holder executed his decree for the balance by arrest of the judgment-debtor-plaintiff. The judgment-debtor objected on the ground that the balance-had been paid. This the decree-holder denied, and as there was no amount certified as paid under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C. the objection of the plaintiff-judgment-debtor was dismissed. The plaintiff then filed this suit. He alleges that he had paid the amount due prior to the execution proceedings; that it was the duty of the decree-holder to certify the amount under Order 21, Rule 2; that ...
Raghunath and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All565; 145Ind.Cas.849
King, J.1. This is an appeal by Raghunath and six other persons who have been convicted under Section 304, Penal Code. Two of the appellants, Kishan Sarup and Bishan Sarup, have been sentenced to 8 years' rigorous imprisonment and the rest to six years.. The case for the prosecution, briefly, was that on 7th May 1932 Kishan Sarup and Bishan Sarup (who are zamindars and residents of Kanth) came with a number of men about 13 or 14 in all, to the village of Qasimpur, which is about 1 mile from Kanth, for the purpose of collecting subscriptions. They intended to collect subscriptions for the defence of one Raghunath, who was under trial before a Magistrate. The party came armed with spears and lathis. On arrival at Qasimpur they called for the Padhan named Girdhari, but he was not in the village. His brother Kanhaiya was then sent for and Kishan Sarup and Bishan Sarup demanded Rs. 15 from him as subscription towards Raghunath's defence fund. Kanhaiya Lal raised objections to paying the sub...
Mt. Het Kuar Vs. Tejpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All564
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Munsif of Tilhar under Section 267, Clause 2, Agra Tenancy Act. Mt. Het Kuar justituted a suit in the Revenue Co under Section 122, Agra Tenancy Act, to obtain a declaration that defendants 1 to 3 were not the tenants of the holding in suit and were not entitled to collect rent from the actual cultivators thereof treating them as sub-tenants. The learned Assistant Collector, who heard the case, came to the conclusion that a suit of this nature was not within the cognizance of the Revenue Court. Accordingly he returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction to try it. The plaintiff then filed her plaint, after some amendments, in the Court of the Munsif of Tilhar who was of opinion that the suit was within the cognizance of the Revenue Court and so he has made this reference.2. In order to decide the point in controversy it is necessary to examine the pleadings of the parties. There is no disp...
B. Madan Mohan Vs. B. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All601
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal against an order dated 25th July 1932, by which the Court below refused to set aside an ex parte decree. The facts of the case are that the suit was fixed for final hearing for 31st May 1932. On 23rd May 1932 the defendant's mother died and therefore the defendant on 25th May 1932 applied to the Court below for the adjournment of the case stating that as he had performed the funeral ceremonies of his mother he could not attend the Court for 13 days. On 26th May 1932 the Court passed an order to the effect that the plaintiff should take steps to bring the heirs of the deceased defendant on the record by 6th June 1932. It may be mentioned that the applicant's mother was also a defendant to the suit. It is true that the Court below did not make any definite order adjourning the case that was fixed for 31st May 1932, but the order that we have just mentioned might well be taken by any reasonable man as amounting to an order adjourning the case.2. The plaintif...
Moti Lal Vs. Radhey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All642; 147Ind.Cas.529
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for rendition of accounts. The defendants, second party, a firm styled Mithu Lal Gopal Dass purchased 1153 bags of wheat, 9 bags of arher and 4 bags of gram on different dates between 14th June and 9th July 1924 through the agency of the defendants, first party, a firm styled Gobind Ram Brij Lal, and carrying on business as commission agents. These goods were sold by the firm of Mithu Lal. The trial Court has found that in respect of this transaction, a sum of Rs. 1,771-13-6 remained due to the firm of Mithu Lal Gopal Dass from the firm Gobind Ram Brij Lal. This finding of the learned Subordinate Judge has been accepted by both the parties in this Court. Between the 5th of July and 15th of September 1924, the firm of Mithu Lal purchased 887 bags of wheat on the various dates through the agency of the firm of Gobind Ram Brij Lal. The dispute between the parties is mainly confined to this second transaction. Mithu La...
Siya Ram Vs. Kishori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All841; 147Ind.Cas.11
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by one Siya Ram against the order passed by the Court below dismissing his petition for insolvency. In his petition in the Insolvency Court the appellant stated that debts due by him. amounted to Rs. 1,829, and the value of his assets was only Rs. 20-8-6 One of his three creditors is Kishori Lal respondent, who holds a decree for Rs. 1,748-15-0 which he put in execution and prayed for the arrest of the appellant who thereupon applied for adjudication as an insolvent. Kishori Lal opposed the appellant's application and alleged that he (appellant) owned considelable property which he had not shown in his petition. The Court below found that this allegation of the contesting creditor was correct and so the application made by the petitioner was dismissed. The present appeal has been preferred against that order.2. The learned Judge of the Court below found that the following points were established: 1. That the petitioner, his five brothers and their...
Mt. Khatun Fatima Vs. Shib Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All917; 147Ind.Cas.840
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for declaration that a certain share of 5 biswas odd in village Mahnishora, mahal Abdur Rahman, in district Etah, is not liable to be sold in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by defendants 1 to 3. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit.2. The share in dispute belonged to one Abdur Rahman, who owned a much larger, share, namely, 2 biswas and 171/2 biswansis, in the aforesaid village. He mortgaged one biswa ten biswansis of his share to Baldeo Prasad. The remaining 1 biswa, 71/2 biswansis is not in dispute. It is common ground that the share which is in dispute in the present litigation is included in the 1 biswa and 10 biswani share which had been mortgaged to Baldeo. In the settlement of 1308 F. 2 biswas, 171/2 biswansis share was made a separate ma-hal of 20 biswas and the 1 biswa 10 biswani share mortgaged to Baldeo consequently became 10 biswas, 8 biswansis and 14 kackwansis. In l909 the sons of Ba...
Ram Peari Vs. B. Hari Dutt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All562
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a second appeal by one of the defendants from the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Agra confirming a. decree passed by a Munsif of that district in a suit brought by the plaintiff Hari Dutt for partition of certain house and shop property alleged to belong to a joint family coesisting of himself and his uncle Raghunandan Lal, defendant 1. The other two defendants in the suit are widows of deceased members of the family. The relative position of the parties will ap-Dear from the following pedigree: Ratan Lal=Mr. Ram Piari (dead) | defendant 2 | ___________________________ | | | Raghunandan Lal, Gopal Singh, Panna Lal, defendant 1. (dead) (dead) | | Krishna Ballabh, Hari Dutt, (dead) plaintiff. | Mt. Ram Kunwar, defendant 3.2. Mt. Ram Piari is the widow of the plaintiff's grandfather who was defendant l's father. It is in controversy between the parties as to whether Mt. Ram Piari was the plaintiff's father's own mother or a step-mother; but as ...
Satgur Dayal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All674a
ORDERKisch, J.1. The applicant, Satgur Dayal Avasthi, has been ordered by a First Class Magistrate to execute a personal bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each in the same amount to be of good behaviour for three years. As he did not give the security ordered the proceedings were laid before the Sessions Judge who affirmed the order of the Magistrate. Satgur Dayal has come up to this Court in revision. He challenges the validity of the order requiring him to give security for his good behaviour. He also contends that the amount of the bond demanded from him is excessive.2. The case against the applicant stationary party and is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. The validity of the order requiring the applicant to give security is contested on the ground that the evidence of police officers, on which the Courts below have mainly relied, is inadmissible, and that, even if admissible, it is insufficient in law to jus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›