Allahabad Court January 1934 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.
Kunji Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All60
Bennet, J.1. This is an application on behalf of one Kunji Lal asking for review of an order of this Court dismissing an application in Criminal Revision which had been signed and sealed before the application for review was made. The first question was whether such an application for review lies as learned Counsel contends under Section 561-A, Criminal P.C., or whether such an application is barred by the provisions of Section 369, Criminal P.C. In the Criminal Procedure Code. Act 10 of 1882. Section 369, appeared in the form:No Court, other than a High Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except as provided in Section 395 or to correct a clerical error.2. This section was reproduced in somewhat similar terms in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898:No Court, other than a High Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except as provided in Sections 395 and 484 or to correct a clerical error.3. In 1923 there was introduced ...
Mahabir Prasad and anr. Vs. Radhunath Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All430; 150Ind.Cas.141
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for possession has been dismissed by the lower Court. The plaintiffs were defendants in a suit on a hypothecation bond of 29th June 1914, brought by the defendants and the defendants obtained a mortgage-decree for Rs. 3,848 against both plaintiffs and against the property hypothecated and also a simple money decree for rupees 6,531 against plaintiff 1, alone, who is the father of plaintiff 2. In execution of that decree there was a sale of property and the plaint set out that the defendants wrongly declared the property to be ancestral and fraudulently took this proceeding and kept it concealed from the plaintiffs and that in fact the property is not ancestral. On account of this fraud the property worth Rs. 40,000 was sold for Rs. 16,000. The sale is unlawful and therefore the plaintiffs ask for possession of the property as owners as no title passed to the defendants. The written statement pleaded that the suit of the p...
Mathuri Vs. Bhola Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All517
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. Originally the plaintiffs brought a suit in the Court of Small Causes to recover Rs. 50 as house rent for three years against the defendant. In the written statement the defendant pleaded that the house did not belong to the plaintiffs at all but belonged to the defendant, and denied his alleged tenancy. The plaint was accordingly returned by the Court of Small Causes for presentation to the proper Court, and it was later filed in the Court of the Munsif. The defendant again took up the same position. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs' case that the house belonged to them was not established and that the house appeared to have been built by the defendant's ancestors. It accordingly dismissed the claim. There was no other option, because the plaintiffs' claim was based on the allegation that they were entitled to the house itself.2. On appeal to the District Judge, the finding of the first Court t...
Bharat Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All816
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit for a declaration. The Court of first instance decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court dismissed it.2. It appears that the defendant Ram Prasad obtained a simple money decree against the father of the plaintiff-appellants. In execution of that decree he attached some zamindari property belonging to the judgment-debtors. The property being ancestral, proceedings for execution of decree were before the Collector. It was sold for Rs. 3,000 which was the last bid of the decree-holder himself. He had an incumbrance on the property which was; Sold. Apparently there was a misapprehension in the mind of the decree-holder who thought that the sum of Rs. 3,000, offered by him, would include the incumbrance. Subsequently the sale had to be set aside, because the decree-holder did not deposit the one-fourth of the amount of bid, as he should have done under the law. The Assistant Collector returned the papers to the...
Muhammad HussaIn and ors. Vs. Sanwal Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All397
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The facts of this case are as follows : On 20th February 1902, Mohammad Raziuddin executed a mortgage-deed in favour of the respondents for Rs. 1,000, carrying interest at rupee 1-80 per cent per mensem 'promising to repay the same in eight years.' The strictly literal translation of the vernacular words, though not grammatical, would be 'on the promise of eight years payment.' The deed provided that if the interest for one complete year remains unpaid the creditors shall have power to recover the interest and shall also be at liberty to recover the principal and interest without having any regard 'for the stipulated period.' On 8th September 1903 another mortgage deed was executed by the same person in favour of the same mortgagees for Rs. 700 at the same rate of interest 'promising to pay off the amount in eight years.' There was a stipulation that if the interest and compound interest were not paid for one year the creditors shall, after the expiry of one year, have...
Musi Imran Vs. Collector of Bijnore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All434
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of an amount due to the lunatic Syed Ale Imran from the defendant Syed Muse Imran. The defendant was appointed manager of the estate of the lunatic and held possession from the 3rd March 1920 till the 29th of August when he was discharged or dismissed from the management. The Court of Wards appears to have taken over superintendence of the estate of the lunatic under Section 8 Sub-section (1) Clause (d)(2) of the Court of Wards Act. According to the plaintiff, the Collector, who was in charge of the estate on behalf of the Court of Wards, did not discover till the 7th May 1925 that the defendant manager had allowed a decree for money against himself to be realised by attachment of the rent of Barlowgang Post Office belonging to the lunatic. There can be no question that the defendant was liable to refund this amount to the lunatic. The only plea that was taken in the written statement was that the claim wa...
Mt. Amina Khatoon and anr. Vs. Mohammad Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All453
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, whose suit for recovery of Rs. 273 odd was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, though it had been decreed by the Court of first instance. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned advocate for the defendant-respondent that no appeal lies having regard to Section 102, Civil P.C., which provides that no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of small causes when the amount or the value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 500. I shall deal with the preliminary objection in the latter part of this judgment. Suffice it to say here that, in my opinion, it is not well founded. One Ali Hasan had two wives and issues by both of them. The plaintiffs are one of the wives and a son by her. The defendants are his children by the other wife named Kaniz Fatima. Ali Hasan had executed a lease in favour of one Farzand Ali in respect of a property known as 'Dhara' property. ...
Ahmad Ali and anr. Vs. Raihan Raza
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All525
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench because of the question of law which arose in it. On 19th February 1917, a sale-deed was executed by the two plaintiffs and their predecessor in favour of the defendant's wife conveying several items of properties. Out of the sale consideration a sum of Rs. 119-1-0, was left in the hands of the vendee for payment to a decree-holder who was a creditor of the vendors. On the same date the defendant, who was the husband of the vendee, executed a security bond under which he agreed to pay to the plaintiffs in part the amount left in the hands of the vendee which remained unpaid, together with interest which might accrue under the decree on account of delay in payment as well as costs and damages if any, suffered by the plaintiffs on account of any contingency. The vendee did not make the payment to the decree holder of the vendors and the plaintiffs ultimately had to raise Rs. 130 under a hypothecation bond carrying interest ...
In Re: Jot Ram Sher Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All559; 150Ind.Cas.197
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application by a firm styled Sher Singh Joth Ram of Muzaffarnagar, under Section 66(3), Income-Tax Act, for an order requiring the Commissioner of Income-Tax to state a case and to refer certain questions for decision by this Court. The case relates to the assessment of Income-Tax on the applicants for the year 1930-31. The assessees made a return, in which they showed a loss of Rs. 2845-5-0 in 1929-30. They had to be assessed on the income of the preceding year, i.e., 1929 30, corresponding to the Sambat year 1986. A notice was issued under Section 23(2) requiring them to prove the correctness of their return. They produced certain accounts, and were assessed, on the 30th May 1930, on an income of Rs. 5,113. The order of assessment, recorded by the Income-tax Officer, shows that the account books for 1986 Section were before him, whether complete accounts had been produced or those for a particular branch of the assessees business were the only accounts th...
iswar Das and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All693a
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Bench of special Magistrates of Meerut requiring that both the accused should appear in person to make an explanation under Section 342, Cr.P.C., Prior to the order the attendance of the accused had been excused under Section 205, Cr.P.C. Section 205(2) states:But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and if necessary, enforce such attendance in manner herein before provided.2. Section 342 lays down:For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.3. The language used is compulsory as it is stated that the Court shall question him. Learned Counsel has argued that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »