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.
Ram Prasad Vs. Trilok Nath Minor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All424; 157Ind.Cas.614
Kendall, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order passed by a Bench of this Court rejecting an application for a review of judgment. It is admitted by Mr. Kunzru, who appears in support of the present application, that if it can be allowed at all it must be under Clause (c), Section 109, Civil P.C. and not Clause (a) or (b) of that section, that is to say, we should have to certify that it is a fit case for appeal to his Majesty in Council. The circumstances in which the application for review was made are these. The applicant was the defendant in a mortgage suit, and the issue on which he had failed both in the trial Court and on appeal in the High Court was in regard to a payment of Rs. 9,000 said to have been made to the plaintiff, and said by the defendant to have been entered in the plaintiff's account books relating to money lending. During the proceedings the defendant summoned the account books of the plaintiff but the plaint...
Hukum Chand Vs. Shambhu Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All346
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a judgment-debtor asking that the order of the lower. Court refusing to certify a payment of Rupees 410 as made in satisfaction of a decree should be set aside. The judgment-debtor was a judgment-debtor under two decrees in favour of Shambhu Nath and there was also a mort gage executed by the judgment-debtor in favour of Shambhu Nath and on 7th February 1934 the judgment-debtor executed a sale deed in favour of Shambhu Nath of a half share in certain zamindari. On the same date Shambhu Nath executed a receipt for Rs. 410 stated to have been paid by Hukam Chand, who is the judgment-debtor. It is not stated in the receipt that the payment was on behalf of the decrees. The allegation of the judgment-debtor was that the payment was made towards the decretal amounts. On the other hand the decree-holder said that the receipt was not for payment of money but was a document executed by the decree-holder and deposited with one Jagat ...
Mt. Sonkali Vs. Mahabir Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All379; 159Ind.Cas.51
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by a plaintiff against an order of 14th April 1934, by a Small Cause Court in the following terms:I accept the affidavit and set aside the ex parte decree on condition that the defendant pays a sum of Rs. 10 as costs to the vakil for the other side.2. The facts are as follows : Plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note and obtained a decree ex parte on the 22nd July 1931. The summons on the defendant was served by affixation on his house and the affidavit of the process server was given that the wife of defendant was present in the house. This service was under Order 5, Rule 17, and the Court held under Rule 19 that the summons was duly served. On the 22nd July 1933, the defendant made an application for restoration of the suit, decided more than two years previously, filing an affidavit that he had no knowledge of the proceedings and offering personal security. No order was passed on the application of 22nd December 1933, at the...
L. NaraIn Das Vs. Mannoo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All405; 157Ind.Cas.409
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by a Small Cause Court on the ground of limitation. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of money on a bond executed by defendant on 23rd April 1928. The bond contained the following terms:Dar soorat na ada karne sood mahawari kisi mah kai ya guzar jane miad muayam bala ek sal he har do surat me dain ko ikhtaiyar hai ki kul rupaya apne asal mai sood wa balai sood mujhse wa mere zat wa jaidad manqoola wa ghair manqoola se ba sarye nalizh adalat ek musht wasul kar lan.2. This is a very usual term and it provides that if the monthly interest is not paid or if the principal money; lent is not paid at the end of the year, in either case the creditor may sue. The finding of facts is not clear, but the judgment indicates that the monthly interest was not paid and that the cause of action arose before the expiry of the year under Article 68, Schedule 1, Limitation Act. The suit was actually brough...
Sheo Sahai Vs. Ganga Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All469; 158Ind.Cas.6
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the respondent for his share of profits. He has been given a decree for Rs. 72-3-1 with interest at 12 per cent, per annum from, the date on which the profits of 1335 F became due up to the date of the decree and future interest at 6 per cent, per annum and proportionate costs in both Courts.2. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate Court should have awarded him future interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum and not at 6 per cent. I think the contention of the learned Counsel is well-founded. There is no reason why the principle underlying Section 225. Tenancy Act, should not be applied to future interest after the decree up to the date of realisation. Accordingly, in a suit for profits against the lambardar the plaintiff cosharer is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem on his share of profits from the date when t...
D.D. Vidyarthi Vs. Ram Pearey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All690; 157Ind.Cas.122
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by a defendant against whom the Small Cause Court has passed a decree. The first, three grounds deal with the question of jurisdiction. The suit was for Rs. 759-14-11. It. was filed in the Small Cause Court, in Gorakhpur On 11th July 1934, this suit along with certain other suits was transferred by the District Judge from the Small Cause Court to the Subordinate Judge under Section 24, Civil P. C. The Subordinate Judge tried the suit on the regular side. The form heading has the words 'Judge of Small Cause-Court' altered to the words 'Subordinate Judge. Gorakhpur' and the evidence is taken at considerable length. The argument which has been put, forward for the applicant, is that under Section 16, Provincial Small Cause Courts-Act, the trial by the Subordinate Judge was illegal because there was a Court of Small Causes in Gorakhpur, at the time by which the suit was triable. It was necessary for the applicant, in revision to show tha...
Bhagwan Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All717; 155Ind.Cas.560
1. The seven appellants have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Budaun of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, and Bhagwan Das has been sentenced to death and the other six appellants to transportation for life. They have also been convicted of offences under Sections 147, 325 and 323, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year, respectively, under those sections. They have all appealed against their convictions and sentences, and the record has been forwarded by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on Bhagwan Das. The incident in the course of which Chhote Lal was killed on 26th May 1934, has been described by the witnesses as follows : Chet Ram, in the course of executing a decree against Kallu, his judgment-debtor, attached a house, and Mullu filed an objection to this attachment which was to have been heard in the Court of the Munsif of Budaun on 26th May. On that date the decree-holder, Chet Ram, C...
Qasim Raza Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All657; 155Ind.Cas.605
ORDER1. This is an application for the revision of an appellate order of the Sessions Judge of Agra, dismissing an appeal from an order of the City Magistrate in which he convicted the applicant of an offence under Section 30 of the Police Act of 1861 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100. It appears however that the Magistrate intended to convict the applicant of an offence under Section 32 of the Act, which provides a penalty for disobeying orders issued under the three preceding sections or for violating the conditions of a licence. The circumstances of the case are fully stated in the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. It is only necessary to repeat here that, the applicant, who is a Shiah Muhammadan had been, up to 1931 in the habit of taking out a procession called the 'Duldul' procession from his house in the City of Agra, that in 1931 and the two following years the procession had been discontinued owing to pertain orders passed by the authorities, and that i...
NaraIn Mohan Dev Vs. Mt. Krishna Ballabhi Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All292a; 158Ind.Cas.35
ORDER1. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted a suit in order to. obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the service by the plaintiffs of an idol and asking the Court to frame a scheme, so that they and the defendants might be entitled to carry on the service of the idol and to enjoy the emoluments of the office separately and without interference from each other. The first relief was valued at a sum of Rs. 100 and the court-fee was paid ad valorem. The second relief was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at a sum of Rs. 5,400, but a fixed court-fee of Rs. 10 was paid upon it. An objection has been taken by the Chief Inspector of Stamps that this was a suit for a declaration with a consequential relief of injunction and that an ad valorem court-fee should have been paid upon the value assessed on the second relief for the purposes of jurisdiction. It seems to us that there was no question of declaration. The plaintiffs maintained that they were enjoy...
Ram Charan Das Vs. Mt. Nazeeran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All342; 158Ind.Cas.4
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision in which the only ground argued was one of jurisdiction the allegation being that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I Should have thought that the relief asked would be the usual one that the plaint should be returned under these circumstances to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court but the relief asked in this revision is that this Court will dismiss the suit. That would be impossible if this Court agreed that the trial Court had no jurisdiction. Another point to be noted is that the decree in question was passed by an Assistant Collector dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and directing the parties to bear their own costs. The plaintiff has not brought this application in revision but the application in revision is brought, by Ram Charan Das, defendant, and lie again asks the Court to do what the lower Court has already done, that is, to dismiss the suit. The trial Court had found that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »