Allahabad Court September 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.
Musammat Haydari Begum Vs. Syed Jawad Ali Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.820
1. This -is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant, Musammat Haidari Begum, prays that, on the grounds stated in her affidavit, this Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the opposite party (namely S. Jawad Ali Shah, the applicant's husband) to produce before the court the minor, Section Mazhar Ali Shah, at an early date and that thereupon the child may be delivered to the applicant. For the purpose of disposing of this application we need only state the salient facts very briefly. Syed Jawad Ali Shah was married in 1928 to the applicant. They had a son, Section Mazhar Ali Shah, whose age is now about 4f years. In July, 1933, the applicant was living with her husband and the child at Gorakhpur. On July 30, she left Gorakhpur for Lucknow in order to attend a ceremony at her parents' house. She left Gorakhpur by the night train. On her husband's advice she left the child with her husband, to avoid the risks of a night journey on the un...
Mt. Haydari Begam Vs. Jawad Ali Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All22
King, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P.C. The applicant, Mt. Haidari Begum, prays that, on the grounds in her affidavit, this Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the opposite party (namely, S. Jawad Ali Shah, the applicant's husband) to produce before the Court the minor, S. Mazhar Ali Shah, at an early data, and that thereupon the child may be delivered to the applicant. For the purpose of disposing of this application we need only state the salient facts very briefly. S. Jawad Ali Shah was married in 1928 to the applicant. They had a son, S. Mazhar Ali Shah, whose age is now about ii years. In July 1933 the applicant was living with her husband and the child at Gorakhpur. On 30th July she left Gorakhpur for Lucknow in order to attend a ceremony at her parent's house. She left Gorakhpur by the night train.2. On her husband's advice she left the child with her husband, to avoid the risks of a night journey, on the understanding that her husband woul...
M. Iqbal Bahadur Vs. Mt. Ram Sree
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All58; 147Ind.Cas.376
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal before their Lordships of the Privy Council from an order of remand passed by this Court under which an order of the Revenue Court returning the plaint for presentation to the civil Court was set aside. The suit was brought for the arrears of rent under a theka or lease of the year 1924. The document, which was a registered deed, covered both the zamindari and house properties. An objection was taken that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the lease related to house properties as well. The Revenue Court upheld the contention and ordered that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the civil Court. A Bench of this Court on appeal came to the conclusion that on a proper interpretation of the lease the two properties could be easily separated inasmuch as there was no specified sum fixed as rent as a lump sum, but only the lessee was to retain 7 per cent of the profits and pay the bal...
Dular Singh Vs. Ram Chander and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All165; 147Ind.Cas.509
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration. The facts which have given rise to the second appeal may briefly be stated as follows: Ram Chander, plaintiff, instituted a suit against Pearey Lai, defendant, to recover a sum of money on 29th April 1927 and on the same date he applied for attachment before judgment of a decree which Pearey Lai held against one Jwala Prasad. The application for attachment was granted by the Court. Earn Chander's suit was first decreed ex parte, but later on the ex parte decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed by the first Court. Earn Chander appealed with the result that his suit was decreed. On 2nd June 1927, subsequent to the date on which the attachment order had been passed, Pearey Lai executed a deed of as signment under which he assigned his rightsin the decree against Jwala Prasad to Dular Singh, defendant-appellant. After the suit of the plaintiff had been decreed by the appellate Court, h...
Sumera and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All326
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. Six persons named Sumera, Badri Bisal, Shyam Lal, Nannhoo, Debi Dayai and Bissey were tried by the learned Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, for an offence punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. The trial was by jury. The jury unanimously returned a verdict of guilty against Sumera, Badri Bisal and Shyam Lal accused and by a majority of 3 to 2 the jury held that the charge was also brought home to Nannhoo. The learned Judge accepted the verdict of the jury as regards these four persons and convicted them. The present appeal is by the four convicted persons. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty as regards Debi Dayal and Bissey. The learned' Judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury and has referred their case to this Court under Section 307, Criminal P.C., with the recommendation that the verdict of the jury so far as Debi Dayal and Bissey are concerned be set aside and they be convicted under Section 395, I.P.C. A reference to the charge to t...
Subhaddra Kuar Vs. Ram Sewak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All288
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Cawnpore. A 'taluqdar' of Oudh, the Raja of Sissendi thought fit in 1888 to remove his abode from Oudh to the banks of the Ganges in old Cawnpore. He acquired there certain plots under a sale deed and lived there until he died some years later. His wife, the Rani the present defendant, continued to live on the same land on which the Raja had built dwelling houses and a temple. On 7th September 1926, the plaintiff, who claimed to be the zamindar of the property, brought an action, claiming rent for three years amounting to Rs. 7-4-0 for the site of the buildings and the garden. It is interesting to note that 7th September 1926 was the precise date when the new Tenancy Act came into force. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff for rent on the ground that she was in proprietary possession of the plots. The learned Judge of the Court below came to the conclusion Shat the predecessors-in-title...
Sahu Nand Kishore Vs. L. Makhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All192
Bajpai, J.1. The opposite party before me obtained an ex parte decree against the appellant before me in a Revenue Court. He tried to put that decree in execution when the judgment-debtor objected that there was no decree which was capable of execution. The Assistant Collector overruled this objection and allowed execution to proceed. The judgment-debtor appealed but the District Judge agreed with the view of the Assistant Collector and dismissed the appeal.2. The judgment-debtor has come up in second appeal to this Court. A Preliminary objection has been taken on 'behalt of the respondent to the effect that no second appeal lies. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the orders passed by the Courts below were under Section 47, Civil P.C., and under the Agra Tenancy Act such orders are not decrees. A decree under Section 3, Clause 14 has been defined as an order which so far as the Revenue Court is concerned finally disposes of a suit. 'An order' under Section 47, Civil P.C., cannot...
Har Kishan Das and ors. Vs. GoshaIn Parshotamnand Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All793
Bajpai, J.1. This is an execution first appeal against an order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares dated 8th August 1931. The order purports to be one under Order 21, Rule 40, Civil P.C., but I have no hesitation in saying that it is a most unsatisfactory order under that provision. The facts are that the appellants before me were the defendants in a suit brought by the respondent to the present appeal. The respondent alleged in his plaint that he should be declared the lawful mahant of certain math properties inasmuch as one Mayanand Giri, the defendant, bad forfeited his rights to the gaddi of the said math. In that suit certain other defendants were impleaded on the ground that they were transferees from Mayanand Giri of the trust property. The trial Court held that Mayanand Giri had forfeited his rights to the property for various reasons and that the plaintiff was entitled to be declared a mahant of the property. As regards the defendants-transferees it ...
(Firm) Damodar Sarup Balsarup Vs. (Firm) Daya Shanker and Neader Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All956; 147Ind.Cas.59
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court: of Meerut decreeing the plaintiff's suit in part. The circumstances are that the plaintiff sued the defendant for a sum of money, and the parties subsequently agreed to refer the matter to the arbitration of an advocate of the Court, that is to say, the arbitrator was empowered to decide the dispute between the parties after hearing evidence. Subsequently the defendant made a statement in the course of which he said that if the plaintiff were to make certain statements on, oath a decree might be passed in accordance with the plaint. The plaintiff, in the wording of the order sheet, 'accepted to give a statement,' and when he did so he did in effect state on oath the facts which the defendant had required of him. In making his award however the arbitrator made some deductions from the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff' made an objection to the award, but the Court...
Masuria DIn Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All925; 147Ind.Cas.280
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the learned District Judge of Allahabad.2. A pauper had been unsuccessful in a case tried by the Munsif. He applied to the District Judge under Order 44, Rule 1. to be allowed to appeal as a pauper. The learned Judge issued notice upon this application to the opposite party and to the Government Pleader. Thereafter it appears that he decided the application summarily without hearing either of the parties to whom, notice had gone or the pauper himself. The order was as follows:Having carefully perused the judgment and decree appealed from, I see no reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or otherwise erroneous or unjust. I therefore reject this application.3. The pauper applies here in revision against this order. The applicant contends that the order of the learned District Judge was made without jurisdiction. He contends that once having issued notice, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »