Allahabad Court August 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.
L. Narayan Dass Vs. Mt. Taravali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All756; 145Ind.Cas.915
Young, J.1. This is an execution second appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Moradabad. The only point that arises in this case is the question of limitation. It appears that the decree-holder obtained a decree and made an application in execution on 11th August 1927. That application was dismissed for default. The application that I have to consider in the present appeal was made on 31st January 1931. It is clear that this application was out of time. The appellant however contends that because he applied on 10th February 1928 to the High Court for a copy of the decree in order that he might lodge it in the executing Court time begins to run from that date. He argues that this application to the High Court was a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182, Limitation Act. It is to be noted that the application to the High Court for a copy was not proceeded With and in fact no copy was obtained.2. It appears to me that mere application for a copy of ...
Baldewa Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All816; 147Ind.Cas.119
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Baldewa who has been convicted by the Bench Magistrates, Kandhla, district Muzaffarnagar, under Section 447. Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The Bench also passed certain orders regarding possession of the property for which trespass is said to have been committed. This conviction was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarnagar. In revision it has been argued before me that the trial is vitiated because the complainant was not examined under Section 244, Criminal P.C. and the Magistrate was bound to do so. Next it is contended that:In the absence of any evidence that the entry in the land was with a view to intimidate or insult or annoy the railway authorities the conviction under Section 447, I.P.O., is bad in Jaw.2. The third ground is the commen ground regarding the severity of sentence. No grievance has been made before me in connection with the order regarding poss...
Mt. Rajeshwari Bibi and ors. Vs. B. Hari Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All751; 145Ind.Cas.444
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order, dated 12th November 1932 passed by an Additional Subordinate Judge of Allahabad, dismissing the applicants' objection under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. There was a simple money decree in execution against Sat Narain Prasad. The applicants, who are his nephews and the nephew's mother, filed objections under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., to the attachment of certain property. The attachment took place on 17th October 1932, and the objections were filed on 11th November 1932. It however appears that the next date fixed for attachment was 25th October 1932, but that apparently was for the return of notices and the date for hearing fixed was 11th November 1932, on which date the objections were actually filed.2. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, without hearing the applicants or their counsel, through whom the objections were filed, and without asking for an explanation as to the apparent delay, dismissed the obje...
Raza Ali Khan Vs. Rahat HusaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All754; 145Ind.Cas.951
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by him against Rahat Husain, defendant 1, on foot of a promissory note. The plaintiff's case was that Rabat Husain had executed a promissory note for Rs. 900 in favour of Ali Ahmad, defendant 1, on 26th November 1928, that he was a holder in due course of that promissory note and therefore entitled to claim the amount due on it. The defendant 1 pleaded in defence that the promissory note in suit was without consideration and that the plaintiff was not its holder in due course. The trial Court decreed the suit. There was an appeal by defendant 1 with the result that the decision of the trial Court was reversed by the appellate Court and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff has come up to this Court insecond appeal. The most important question for determination is whether the plaintiff appellant is the 'holder of the promissory note in due course.' The learned Counsel for the appel...
B. Surendra NaraIn Singh Vs. Raja Lal Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All762; 147Ind.Cas.865
Niamatullah, J.1. This case has been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench in view of the importance of the question involved. The appellant filed his appeal, on 5th April 1933, from the order of an Assistant Collector at Jaunpore passed in execution proceedings under the Tenancy Act. The last day of limitation was 12th April 1933. With the memorandum of appeal he filed the order giving reasons for the decision of the case. No formal order was, however, filed. On the office report a learned Judge of this Court directed the appellant on 11th April 1933, to file within one week a copy of the formal order. The appellant applied for a copy of the formal order, but his application was returned with the remark that no formal order existed. On the case coming up before another learned Judge of this Court a direction was sent down to the Assistant Collector that a formal order be prepared. A formal order was prepared on 19th May 1933. The appellant made a fresh a...
Ganpat Kewat Vs. Raja Ram Gopal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All954
Collister, J.1. This was a suit under Section 48 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926). The plaintiff appellant is an occupancy tenant and the defendant respondent is his zamindar. From 1325-F up to 1333F the plaintiff appellant paid rent at the rate of Rs. 37 per annum. The amount entered in the column of legal demandin the Khatauni was Rs. 32 while Rs. 5 was entered each year in the column of extra demand.2. For 1333 and 1334F the plaintiff appellant paid Rs. 32 only. For the Rabi of 1335F he paid Rs. 16 but it is alleged that the defendant respondent credited Rs. 6 only on account of Rabi of 1335F and appropriated the remaining Rs. 10 on account of arrears for 1333-34F. The defendant respondent's case was that the legal rent was Rs. 37. He also pleaded limitation and estoppel, but these points are not in dispute now before me. The trial Court decreed the suit. It held that in the absence of a registered agreement or decree the rate of rent payable within the meaning of Section 47 ...
Dungar Singh and anr. Vs. Mt. Maid Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All822; 147Ind.Cas.220
1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Buland shahr decreeing their claim in part. The I plaintiffs brought a suit asking for a declaration that hypothecation bond, -dated 20th October 1923, executed by defendant 1, Mt. Maid Kunwar, wife of Sita Ram, in favour of defendant 2 Daulat Ram was null and void and 'ineffectual against the plaintiffs and that the amount could not be realised from the property in dispute. Four items of property were mentioned in the plaint. The Court of first instance has granted a decree that the hypothecation bond is without consideration, and, therefore null and void and ineffectual against the plaintiffs but only in regard to a portion of the property in dispute which is in area 22 bighas, 10 biswas and that the rest of the claim has been dismissed.2. The facts which gave rise to the present suit are as follows: The pedigree as stated in the plaint with certain additions is as follows: HARI RAM | ___...
Sahab Raj Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All819
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur recommending that the sentence passed on the accused under Section 323, Penal Code, be set aside. The facts appear to be that one Sarabjit had incurred the displeasure of certain persons who were on the look out to beat him. On 14th March 1932 he was going to Jaunpur in connection with a case and some of the accused in the present case threatened him by saying that they would beat him on his return from the Court. When -Sarabjit finished his work in Court he took care to start after the accused and their men had left Jaunpur. The accused however lay in ambush for him and when Sarabjit reached the culvert near Lahirpur he was assaulted by a number of persons. Seven of these persons were convicted by a Magistrate under Section 147, Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40 and under Section 323, Penal Code, read with Section 149, Penal Code. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. In revision befor...
Hari Das Sahu Vs. Musammat Naima Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.980
1. This is a revision arising out of a partition suit in the Court of an Assistant Collector. March 24, 1920, was fixed for filing objections under Section 110 of the Land Revenue Act. No objections were filed within the period allowed by law. The partition proceedings were then begun, and seven years later objections were put in by certain persons claiming proprietary right in a market. Order on those objections were passed by the partision officer on August 9, 1927. Appeals were filed and final orders were passed by the Board of Revenue on November 6, 1930. On July 5, 1930, the partition officer had allotted the whole of the above mentioned market to two persons, Musammat haima and Mehhdi Husain, and his order was upheld in appeal on December 8, 1930. On July 21, 1931, Hari Das, the present applicant, filed an objection before the partition officer in which he claimed a share in the said market. That objection was dismissed by the partition officer on September 7, 1931. Hari Das appe...
Emperor Through Sarabjit Upadhya Vs. Sahab Raj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.913
1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur recommending that the Sentence passed on the accused under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, be set aside.2. The facts appear to be that one Sarabjit had incurred the displeasure of certain persons who were on the look out to beat him. On March 14, 1932, he was going to Jaunpur in connection with a case and some of the accused in the present case threatened him by saying that they would beat him on his return from the court. When Sarabjit finished his work in court he took care co start after the accused and their men had left Jaunpur. The accused, however, laid in ambush for him and when Sarabjit reached the culvert near Lahirpur he was assaulted by a number of persons. Seven of these persons were convicted by a Magistrate under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40 and under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »