Allahabad Court December 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.
B.B. and C.i. Railway Vs. Raghib Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All437
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application by a defendant in civil revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act against an order refusing application for restoration of a suit. The order states:The suit was decreed ex parte on December 14, 1933, after waiting and waiting long enough for the defendant who went off to call his Vakil who never turned up. Under such circumstances I refuse to set aside the ex parte decree.2. Learned Counsel urged that on the day that the suit was decreed ex parte in the absence of his client, an application for restoration was made at 1-45 p.m., and two days later, an application with security was made as required by Section 17 Small Cause Courts Act. Learned Counsel has failed to produce any ruling in which this Court has interfered in civil revision where a Small Cause Court has refused to allow restoration. In Faqir Chand v. Harkishun Das 1929 All. 599 there was an order for restoration by a Munisif and it was held by a Bench of this Court that in rev...
Umrao Singh Vs. Mangla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All443
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by a Small Cause Court on the ground that it was time-barred. The plaintiff sued on a simple money bond execution 1st April 1931. The suit was brought on 6th July 1934, that is more than three years after the execution of the bond. The bond set out firstly that the money was payable on demand and further on it set out that interest should be payable six monthly and that the whole sum with interest should be paid within one year. The suit was brought within three years from the date for payment of 1st April 1932. Article 66. Limitation Act. applies to the case and the question is whether the period of limitation should run from the date of execution on the ground that the bond was payable on demand or whether it should run from the period of one year j specified in the bond as payable. The principle which applies in such cases appears be me to examine whether it was open to the debtor...
Sukhai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All517
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application by Sukhai for transfer of the proceedings pending against him under Section 110, Criminal P.C., an the Court of Mr. Kuldip Narain Singh. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Soraon. The ground given by the applicant, is that the learned Magistrate has rejected the various sureties for appearance offered by the applicant. The applicant was required to furnish two sureties in Rs. 300 each for his presence. Baikunt Nandan and Udit Narain sureties came forward with money and applied to the Court to stand surety for the applicant. The learned Magistrate instead of accepting them demanded an enhanced security from the applicant under Section 117(3), Criminal P.C., for a sum of Rs. 1,000. The applicant thereafter offered two sureties as demanded by the learned Magistrate under Section 117(3). but he rejected them also on receiving a police and tahsil report although the sureties were fit persons and had undertaken to keep the applicant with them. The learned...
Ram Charan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All549; 155Ind.Cas.119
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by four persons, Ram Charan, Ram Dayal, Bhimina and Jodha, who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri, under Section 394, Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each. The accused were charged under Section 396, Panal Code, by reason of having been participants in a dacoity in the house of Sahara Meghraj on the night of 5th and 6th March 1934, in. which Bahora Meghraj was killed. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution case was proved, but because two other persons who are alleged to have taken part in the crime were not before him, the number of accused was less than five and therefore Section 396, Penal Code, did not apply and he says that the accused committed robbery and voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased which was the least proved against them. He therefore did not find that the accused persons had caused death of the deceased, but only that they caused certain injuries to the deceased...
Ram Saran Das Vs. Mallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All565; 155Ind.Cas.249
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application am revision by a plaintiff against an order of a Munsif restoring a suit which was dismissed, ex parte. The defendants made an affidavit alleging various grounds, but the Munsif has merely recorded:The defendants' counsel had then stated that he had no instructions from his client. Ground is consequently sufficient.2. The Munsif has not recorded any reason why the defendants' counsel had no instructions or why the defendants were absent. Under Order 9, Rule 13, it is necessary that the Munsif should find that defendants were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.3. Another point was taken in ground No. 1 of the revision that the Court below had no jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte decree and the remedy open to the defendants was only an appeal against the decree as it stood. The defendants entered an appearance in the suit and filed a written statement. Therefore the case did not come prima ...
(Firm) Sansarchand Lachhman Das Vs. Dina Nath Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All645; 155Ind.Cas.571
Bajpai, J.1. This is a, plaintiffs' appeal and the facts which have given rise to this appeal may be stated : The firm of Sansarchand Lachhman Das has two branches, one at Saharanpur and the other at Hoshiarpur. On 10th January 1927, Dina Nath sued the Saharanpur firm in the Calcutta High Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,301. This suit was numbered as 72 of 1927. The record of the Calcutta case was before the Court below but in spite of attempts made by parties the record could not come to this Court. The plaintiff however has filed the plaint of the suit and a perusal of the same shows that Dina Nath's claim was formulated in the following way: He alleged that between 2nd May 1926, and 11th October 1926, he supplied goods of the value of Rupees 10,502-11-0 to Sansarchand Lachhman Das and again between 14th August 1926, and 11th October 1926, the defendant took delivery of four wagons of soft molasses of the value of Rupees 3,824-13-9 although the defendant had agreed to take deliv...
Ch. Tara Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Sagiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All446; 158Ind.Cas.903
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by the plaintiffs against an order of a Small Cause Court directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the suit was cognizable only by a revenue Court. The Court held that the suit lay under Section 48, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926. That section deals with a suit by a tenant from whom any sum of produce is exacted by his landholder in excess of the amount recoverable from him as an arrear of rent. The present plaint sets out that the defendant is a zamindar of one quarter share in the land of which the plaintiffs are tenants and that the yearly rent is Rs. 120 per annum and that Phundan Lal is the owner of the other three quarter zamindari share. Para. 2 sets out that the defendant collected for the years 1337 and 1338 Fasli arrears of rent of her own share and of Phundan Lal's share amounting to Rupees 254-9-0 and did not allow Rs. 30 remaining for Rabi. Prara. 3 sets out that later Phundan Lal got a...
Chandra Shekhar and anr. Vs. Manohar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All359
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders, who were defendants in the suit in which a decree was passed in their favour for costs against the plaintiffs. The latter were minors and were sued with their father, Manohar Lal as a next friend. The suit was for recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to be due to the plaintiffs. It was dismissed, and the defendants were' decreed costs incurred by them in the suit. They took out execution of the decree for costs and attempted to attach a house belonging to Manohar Lal, who objected on the ground that he was no party to the decree and that the decree-holders could not therefore proceed against property belonging to him personally. This objection found favour with the lower Court which dismissed the application for execution. The decree-holders have preferred the present appeal.2. It is pointed out by the appellants' learned advocate that Manohar Lal stated in his statement in pleadings that the money which was the subject-matter of the su...
Budhan and ors. Vs. Korhey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All381; 159Ind.Cas.147
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by the defendants against an order under Order 23, Rule 1 by a Munsif allowing the plaintiff to withdraw his suit with permission to file it afresh. The first point which was argued was whether this Court can interfere in revision with an order of that nature. For the opposite party reference was made to Jhunku Lal v. Bisheshar Das 1918 All. 418, where a Bench of this Court held in the year 1918 that the trial Court had jurisdiction to grant, leave to the plaintiffs to bring a fresh suit, and the fact that the Court may have exercised, and probably did exercise, a wrong discretion in granting the plaintiffs' application was not 'Sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Section 115, Civil P.C. In that case the trial Court had held that it was necessary for the plaintiffs to give formal proof of a certain plaint and the evidence in the case had concluded and the stage of argument had been reached. One learned Judge held...
Babu Ram and ors. Vs. Inam Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All411; 157Ind.Cas.533
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against whom a personal decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. has been passed by the Court below.2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as, follows: On 15th November 1915, Ahmad Huisain, Hamid Huisain, Mt. Maqbul-un-nissa and Anwar Husain sold some immovable property to Mool Chand, Babu Ram, Makhan Lal and Raghunath Das, for a sum of Rs. 12,266. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 3,030 was left with the vendees for payment to one Moti Lal, a creditor of the vendors. The vendees did not pay the said amount to Moti Lal and the vendors thus obtained the right to recover the amount of unpaid purchase money from the vendees. This right was sold to Imam Ullah the present plaintiff 1.3. On 16th November 1921, Inam Ullah together with the original vendors brought suit No. 220 of 1921, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,030 together with Rs. 2,727 as interest against Mool Chand Babu Ram, Makha...