Allahabad Court October 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.
Kallan Khan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All160; 153Ind.Cas.469
Bajpai, J.1. Kallan Khan and Muhammad Hanif, two brothers have been convicted by a Magistrate under Section 332, Penal Code, Kalian Khan has been sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and Muhammad Hanif to pay a fine of Rs. 25 only. Their conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The prosecution case, as borne out by the statement of Miss Vancell, a nurse, has been believed by the Courts below. It is to the effect that during the prevalence of small-pox in the Cantonment Area at Benares, an order was passed by the Civil Surgeon and communicated to Miss Vancell that she should go and vaccinate ladies and children in the Cantonment Area. It is said that she on 2nd April 1934, went to the house of Kalian Khan and knocked at the front door. On not getting any reply, she went to the door behind the house and knocked at it. Somebody asked from inside the house as to who was knocking and Miss Vancell's identity was a...
Mt. Ram Dei Vs. Mangan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All195; 153Ind.Cas.572
Bennet, J.1. This is an Execution First Appeal by one Mt. Ram Dei against whom the opposite party Mangan Lal obtained a decree for sale of her share of a house and the share of other persons. In this Court in appeal Mt. Ram Dei obtained a reversal of this decree. Meanwhile the house had been acquired by the Improvement Trust and the four annas share of Mt. Ram Dei had been converted into Rs. 12,800 cash. The opposite party withdrew this money. After the decree of this Court Mt. Ram Dei applied for restitution of this money under Section 144, Civil P.C., which was allowed. Subsequently the present application has been made in which Mt. Ram Dei states that she desires interest oh the amount from the date of withdrawal up to 30th June 1932, the date on which she received the sum in question. Objection was taken that as she had made an application under Section 144 for the principal amount she had no further right of restitution both on the ground of her claim being barred by Order 2, Rule...
Thakur Prasad Vs. Kasturi NaraIn Shukla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All364
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal in execution by a decree-holder in the following circumstances:The decree-holder brought a suit, in the Calcutta High Court against the judgment-debtor and obtained a simple money decree and four minor decrees for different sets of costs. The decree-holder took out execution in Cawnpore of the main decree. During the course of those execution proceedings on the 20th July 1928, the decree-holder gave a document to the judgment-debtor stating that the decree-holder would not take out execution against the person of the judgment-debtor and he would not attach the money due to the judgment-debtor from the B. & N. W. Railway on account of loading and un-loading contracts. The judgment-debtor applied to the Court in Cawnpore to have this document certified as an adjustment of a decree. The Court held that it was not an adjustment of a decree because it did not state that any portion of the decree was satisfied, but merely dealt with the remedies which a de...
In Re: an Advocate High Court
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All503; 155Ind.Cas.1054
ORDER1. Several charges in which Mr. R. advocate, was charged with professional misconduct were remitted by the High Court to the Bar Council for investigation. The Bar Council held an enquiry and have now reported that in their opinion upon the evidence led before them the charges have been unsubstantiated. This is a finding of fact and to findings of fact of a committee of the Bar Tribunal the High Court usually attaches great weight. One of us is not satisfied that the findings of fact of the Bar Council in the present case are absolutely correct, but we are in agreement that there being no objections to the findings those findings should be accepted by this Court.2. In the result we accept the findings of the Bar Council. Let the papers be filed....
Ch. Rajender Singh Vs. Uma Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All117; 159Ind.Cas.193
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Chaudhari Rajendra Singh under the guardianship of Chaudhari Sher Singh applied to this Court for issue of notice to the plaintiff, Mr. Uma Pershad to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of the subordinate Court in respect of a notice dated 11th July 1934, sent on behalf of the plaintiff by Dr. M, his advocate. The application was directed against the plaintiff, Mr. Uma Pershad only, but as prima facie it appeared that a contempt had been committed by the service of this notice issued under the signature of the counsel, we ordered that notice should go to the counsel concerned as well. Both are now represented before us.2. It appears that a civil suit was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dehradun and had been brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Uma Pershad against Rajendra Singh minor under the guardianship of Chaudhari Sher Singh on the basis of a mortgage-deed executed by the deceased father of the minor defendant in favour of the deceas...
Radhey Lal Vs. Mt. Janki Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All204; 153Ind.Cas.477
ORDER1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the learned Munsif of Ghaziabad. It appears that one Kedarnath obtained a decree against the applicant, Radhe Lal, and in execution of that decree two buildings were to be put up to sale. At a sale held on 7th March 1933, Mt. Janki bid a sum of Rs. 1,800 for one of these buildings, which was a shop, and deposited 25 per cent, of the price. Her's was the final bid. Two days later, before the sale had been sanctioned by the Court, she made an application that she had bid for this building; under the misapprehension that she was bidding for the other building which was a residential house, and that the value of the building which had been put up to sale when she was bidding was much less than Rs. 1,800. The learned Munsif allowed her application that the sale is could not be enforced and directed that the 25 per cent, of the purchase money which she had deposited should be restored to her. The present applicant did not ...
Sia Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All217; 158Ind.Cas.129
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr, against an order of a Magistrate convicting the accused under Section 379, Penal Code, and sentencing them to a fine of Rs. 50 each. So far as this case is concerned the note made by the Magistrate under the heading 'plea of accused and his examination, if any,' was 'accused all plead not guilty.' There were no further particulars of any statement that the accused might have made. The learned Sessions Judge has therefore inferred that the accused were not at all questioned generally as is required by Section 342, Criminal P.C. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that non-compliance with Section 342, Criminal P.C., which was applicable to the summary trial, was a fatal defect.2. There has been some difference of opinion as to whether the latter provision of Section 342(1) applied to summons cases just as it applied to warrant cases. With the exception of the Madras and Rangoon High Courts it appears...
Mt. Fatima Bibi Vs. Shafiullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All206; 153Ind.Cas.476
ORDER1. Tins is an application in revision by a plaintiff. The circumstances, are that the plaintiff sued for possession and for mesne profits before the suit, estimating the mesne profits for the purpose of Order 7, Rule 2 as Rs. 50, A court-fee was paid on that amount. The suit was decreed by this Court for possession and for the mesne profits claimed without specifying any amount. The applicant has made an application under Order 20, Rule 12, alleging that the amount of mesne profits due is Rs. 4,899-7-0. The lower Court states, that the decree of this Court could only mean an ascertainment of the mesne profits in the suit itself under Order 20, Rule 12 and not in execution. No objection was taken by the parties to that view, but the lower Court proceeded to hold that the plaintiff must pay court-fee on Rs. 4,899-7-0, before the inquiry to ascertain the mesne profits prior to the suit could be held. No authority is shown for the proposition as to why court-foe should be paid before ...
Vishwanath Prasad Pathak Vs. Parkash Chandra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All278; 153Ind.Cas.502
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the property which has been attached in execution of the respondents' decree is liable to be attached and sold in execution of that decree. The plaintiff holds a money decree against the contesting defendant's father. The Court below has found that the property is joint and ancestral and that the debt borrowed by the defendant's father had been borrowed for an immoral purpose, and was therefore tainted with illegality. It, is therefore quite clear that the son is in no way bound to pay such a debt. At the same time it is equally clear that the father cannot repudiate his liability to pay the amount which he borrowed. Both the father and the son are alive. In these circumstances there appears to he no bar against the attachment of the father's interest in the joint property in execution of the decree which has been obtained against him. On the other hand, the defendant's share must be free from attachment. The ...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Irphan Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All284; 153Ind.Cas.684
ORDER1. This is an application in civil revision by a defendant against an order of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of possession of a house against two persons and the Munsif dismissed the suit. The plaintiff brought an appeal and the question arose whether a certain person Mohan Lal should have been joined as a party to the suit. The plaintiff stated, that he desired to make Mohan Lal a party and that for that purpose he desired permission to withdraw the suit and to bring a fresh suit under Order 23, Rule 1, and the appellate Court granted the per mission. The first argument of learned counsel was that the lower Court should have only allowed such permission on account of some formal de fact. Under the rule in question there are two Sub-rule (a) and (b), one for a formal defect and the other for any other sufficient grounds. A Court may act under either of these sub-rules. ] The Court below has acted on what j the Court considered to be 'other su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »