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.
Sri Nath Vs. Mata Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All476
ORDERKendall, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for the revision of an appellate order of the Subordinate judge of Mirzapur, upholding the decision of the trial Court. A preliminary objection has been raised that the provisions of Section 115, Civil P.C., will not cover such a case as the present. The circumstances areas follows:2. The plaintiff-applicant sued one Lachhu Ram in the Munsif's Court, and 27th April 1932, was fixed for issues. There were adjournments, first on the application of the defendant and then on that of the plaintiff until 11th July for which date the plaintiff summoned eight witnesses, but one of his witnesses, Ram Sagar, was unserved. The plaintiff however intimated that he was ready to go on with the case, but the defendant made an objection on the ground that all the witnesses should be heard on one day, and on this the plaintiff also asked for an adjournment with the result that the hearing was postponed until 17th August, far which date both parties summoned...
Mt. Bhagwati Devi and anr. Vs. Gajadhar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All294; 152Ind.Cas.822
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh asking this Court to set aside the order of a Magistrate who has refused to enforce an order for maintenance by taking proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P.C. The Magistrate refused on the ground that there had been a compromise between the parties and that he considered that a Criminal Court could not enforce a compromise and that only Civil Court could enforce it. The original order for maintenance was passed on 20th April 1930, and the order sets out that an application for maintenance was made on behalf of Mt. Bhagwati Devi and her son against Gajadhar Prasad, her husband, that Gajadhar Prasad had agreed to pay Rs. 50 maintenance for both, wife and child, per month and that the offer had been accepted. The Magistrate then passed an order for the sum of Rs. 25 to be paid monthly to Mt. Bhagwati Devi a.nd a sum of Rs. 25 to be paid to her minor son from 1st April 1930. The Magistrate who passed the or...
Sumeshar Bind and ors. Vs. Baldeo Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All390; 157Ind.Cas.51; 159Ind.Cas.683
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by the defendants arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover a sum of money. One Ram Sunder had executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff. He died. The defendants are the brothers of Ram Sunder, deceased. The plaintiff instituted a suit against them to recover the amount due on foot of the pro-note. Several pleas were taken in defence, but it is not necessary to refer to them. The learned Judge of the Court below found that the execution of the pronote was proved. He held that Ram Sunder and his brothers constituted a joint family and therefore the brothers were legal representatives of the deceased. The suit was decreed against them to the extent of the assets of the deceased which might be proved to have come into their hands. Three of the defendants have preferred this revision application against the decree made by the Court below. The only question for the de-termination in this case is as to whether or...
A. Williams Vs. (Firm) Kallu Mal Magan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All451
Allsop, J.1. This is a second appeal against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Jhansi in first appeal. The suit which gave rise to the appeal was instituted for the recovery of certain sums of money on the bsais of three instruments which were alleged to be promissory notes. In respect of one instrument which was executed by the wife of the defendant-appellant, no decree was passed. In respect of the other two instruments a decree was passed. The only dispute now is about interest upon the sum due on the basis of one of the instruments. About the other instruments there is no dispute. In the instrument which is in dispute, there is no reference to any payment of interest. The document is in these terms:Due to Kallu Bania for stores purchased the sum of Rs. 649-14-6 (Rupees six hundred and forty-nine annas fourteen and pies six) only.2. The inconsistency is in the original. It is doubtful whether this can be called a promissory note, but it is so called by the plaintif...
Durga Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All439
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of one Durga Prasad. There was a complaint under Sections 417 and 420. Penal Code, made against him which was dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.C., by a Magistrate and further inquiry has been ordered by the District Magistrate. The grounds of revision are that the matter was of civil nature and that after an inquiry, under Section 202, Criminal P.C., the District Magistrate should not interfere. Apparently the latter argument is that a District Magistrate should only interfere in the case of a complaint which is dismissed without inquiry. Section 202 however directs that there should be inquiry in every case in which process was not issued for the accused. Therefore it appears to me that the argument in ground No. 2 is wrong as this argument alleges that the District Magistrate should not interfere where there has been a full inquiry under Section 202. Criminal P.C. It is, in my opinion, in the case of such an inquir...
Surendra NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Lal Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All705
ORDER1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, rejecting an application filed by the applicants for the assignment of a security bond. The facts so far as they are material for the purposes of the present application are as follows:One Sarup Kunwar held a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,435-3-9. She died leaving two sons Raja Lal Bahadur Singh and Rajendra Narain Singh. Raja Lal Bahadur Singh applied for a succession certificate with a view to realize the decretal amount. Rajendra Narain Singh objected to the grant of the succession certificate to Raja Lal Bahadur Singh on the ground that he (Rajendra Narain) was also entitled to a half-share in the decretal amount. The learned Judge called upon Raja Lal Bahadur Singh to file security of immovable property with respect to the half-share of Rajendra Narain Singh in the decretal amount as a condition precedent to a succession certificate being granted to him (Raja Lal Bahadur). Raja Lal Bahadur...
Haider and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All504
Bennet, J.1. This is a jail appeal by two persons. Haidar and Muzaffar who were charged under Section 304, Penal Code,, with causing the death of one Hidayat Ullah and who were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 352, Penal Code, and sentenced to two-years' rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 150 each. The prosecution case sets out that the houses of the accuseds adjoin the house of the deceased, Hidayat Ullah, and that a quarrel arose between the parties in regard to certain constructions. On 28th May 1934 at sunset there was a dispute which arose by abuse being exchanged, by one Mt. Lali and was followed by abuse between Niaz Ullah and the two accused and the accused beat Niaz; Ullah with lathis and also hit Mt. Lali Hidayat Ullah at this stage interfered. by going upon his roof where the dispute was taking place and he was struck, by the accused with lathis and fell down unconscious. After this Alladia was beaten by the accused and Mt. Umdi received a blow...
Ganga Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All647; 155Ind.Cas.541
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in criminal revision on behalf of six persons who were sentenced by a Magistrate under Sections 147 and 452, Penal Code to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50, fine. On appeal the lower Court altered the conviction to one under Section 143, Penal Code, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment and maintained the sentences of fine. The case for the prosecution was that the accused objected to the complainant, Udai Singh, employing a Brahman called Khiali Ram as his priest and because they had out-casted Khiali Ram, the accused in a body forcibly entered the house of the complainant in order to overawe the complainant and threatened to beat the complainant and complainant ran away. The first ground which is argued was No. 3 in revision that the joint trial of the applicants along with the accused in the cross-case filed by Ganga Singh was illegal as prosecution evidence in one constituted the defence evidence in the other. There were these...
Chunnu Lal and ors. Vs. Swami Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All418
Niamatullah, J.1. The appellants were plaintiffs in the Court below. The suit' which they instituted was for the recovery of certain zamindari shares, shops, houses and trees which were at one time admittedly, for the most part, the property of one Ajudhia Prasad. They claimed this property as Ajudhia Prasad's reversioners. We may mention that it was alleged that a few of the properties had not belonged, to Ajudhia Prasad and there was some controversy upon this point in the Court below but these questions have not been seriously argued before us and in the view of the case which we take, it is unnecessary to go into them. Of the plaintiffs appellants 8 are the sons and grandsons of Faqire, Jagannath and Bankey who were the nephews of Ajudhia Prasad. The 9th plaintiff is a, transferee of part of the property from some of the other plaintiffs. It is admitted that the right of the plaintiffs to claim possession could not have arisen before the death of Mt. Lalta. Bai Ajudhia Prasad's dau...
Ram Sarup Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All446a; 158Ind.Cas.101
Kendall, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for the revision of an appellate order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Etah in the following circumstances. Ram Sarup, the applicant, had made a statement in the course of a suit which was being tried on the Small Cause Court side by the Munsif of Kasganj in consequence of which the presiding officer decided to make a complaint against him under Section 193, Penal Code. The order embodying this complaint was dated 18th March 1932, and it was signed by the presiding officer as Munsif of Kasganj and not as Judge of the Small Cause Court. The applicant made an appeal to the District Judge, who transferred this case, among others, to the Subordinate Judge for disposal, and the Subordinate Judge disposed of it in the order which is now the subject of the present application, dismissing the appeal.2. It is urged in support of the application that the original complaint should have been made not by the Munsif, but by the Judge of the Small Cause C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »