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.
Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Girdhari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All372; 159Ind.Cas.35
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in civil revision under Section 25, Small Cause Court Act, against the decree of a Small Cause Court passed in terms of an award dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. One ground is taken, ground No. 4 which is a point of law that the award was inavalid in form. The award stated:I am of opinion that the plaintiff's case is not proved. I accordingly recommend the Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.2. Learned Counsel argues that the award should say 'I dismiss the suit.' No authority is given for that proposition and there is nothing in the second schedule to, indicate that an arbitrator should dismiss a suit. I consider that the function of an arbitrator is to come to a decision on the issues which have been referred to him and when his award is received the Court decides the suit and it is not for the arbitrator to dismiss or decree the suit. Section 16, Schedule 2, indicates that it is the function of the Cour...
Manphool Vs. Budhu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All440; 157Ind.Cas.901
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by the plaintiff Manphooll against an order in appeal under section 476-B, Criminal P.C., passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. There: was an order passed by the Munsif under Section 476, Criminal P.C., refusing to take proceedings under Sections 209, 471, 463, 191 and 193, Penal Code, against Manphool on the complaint of Budhu defendant. This application was made by Budhu in connexion with the civil, suit before the Munsif. Under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., an appeal lay and Budhu brought an appeal in the Court of the District Judge. This was the correct Court, in which such an appeal, should be brought. The District Judge-however purported to transfer this appeal under Section 24(1)(a). Civil P.C., to the Subordinate Judge who has purported to dispose of this appeal. The question raised in revision is whether the Subordinate Judge had any jurisdiction to hear an appeal of this nature and whether the District Judge bad any jur...
Ganeshi Lal Kishna Lal Vs. Seth Mool Chand Nemi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All435; 157Ind.Cas.1084
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in a civil revision by a defendant against an order of a Small Cause Court allowing a review of judgment. The facts are that the predecessor of the Court below on 9th July 1932 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Subsequently there was an application by the plaintiff in revision in this Court which was dismissed. Later an application was made for review of judgment after the period of limitation had expired and the plaintiff the applicant for review, asked for the benefit of Section 5, Limitation Act. The application was based on the discovery of two post cards stated to have been written by the defendant and to have not been discovered at the time of the suit. Evidence was given that these post cards could not be discovered with due diligence and the lower Court has accepted that evidence. The lower Court has also allowed the application of Section 5, Limitation Act, on this ground that the matter only came to the knowledge of the plaintiff wi...
Lal Behari Lal Vs. Chaubey Gulzari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All457; 158Ind.Cas.33
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by a decree-holder Lal Behari Lal against an order dated 17th March 1934 passed by an additional Munsif on an application of the opposite party, Gulzari Lal, under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C. Lal Behari Lal held a decree against one Lalloo for possession of a house and the Amin went to obtain possession in execution of the decree and the objection in question was made. The Court held an enquiry and in its order it states:I have not allowed any oral evidence to be led by the parties as there is sufficient documentary evidence in the execution file itself and on the record.2. The Court then held that it was satisfied that the objector had been wrongfully dispossessed of the property and the objection was allowed. In the revision the first ground taken is that the Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not allowing the applicant to adduce oral evidence in support of his case, that ...
Bahal Singh Vs. Mt. Chameli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All606; 155Ind.Cas.495
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from an order passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut, disallowing his objection to an application for execution made by the respondent decree-holder. The only plea on which the application was resisted by the appellant was that it was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge over-ruled the plea. Hence this appeal.2. The respondent obtained a preliminary decree on foot, of a mortgage on 12th September 1923. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Additional Judge, Meerut, who dismissed it on 7th January 1924. A final decree was prepared on 4th November 1924 on the basis of the decree passed by the Court of appeal. The appellant preferred a second appeal to this Court, which was dismissed on 7th July 1926. After the decree passed by the High Court in appeal from the preliminary decree an application was made by the respondent that the final decree previously prepared be amended, as after the preparation thereof the High Court has uphel...
Har NaraIn and ors. Vs. Hoshiar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All341
ORDER1. In this case complaints were filed under Section 193, Penal Code, against the applicants in respect of previous statements made by them under Section 164, Criminal P.C., before a Magistrate. The Magistrate had not himself filed any complaint. The accused took objection that the Court had no power to take cognizance of the offence without such a complaint, but his objection was rejected summarily on the ground that Section 195, Criminal P.C. had no application. The learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the prosecution of the applicants is barred by the provisions of Section 195, Criminal P.C. As no direct case on this point was cited before the learned Single Judge, the case has been referred to a Division Bench.2. Section 195(1)(b) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 193, Penal Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint, in writing ...
Radha Kishen Beni Prasad Vs. P.L. Jaitly and Co. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All343
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a revision application by the decree-holders arising out of execution proceedings. The decree-holders obtained a decree against Messrs. P.L. Jaitly & Co., and the Budaun Electric Supply Co., for a sum of Rs. 54,211-10-9. This decree was passed by the Calcutta High Court. The decree-holders got the decree transferred to Budaun District and then put in an application for execution in the Court of the Subordinate judge of Budaun. The prayer was that the property owned by the Budaun Electric Supply Co., mentioned in a list attached to the application for execution should be attached. The Court ordered that notices should be issued to both the judgment-debtors. It appears that one Mr. Raghunath Prasad Tandon came forward and filed objections and pleaded that the property of the Budaun Electric Supply Co., should not be attached for the reasons given by him in his application. The decree-holders opposed this application. The plea taken by the decree-holders was t...
Rashid Ahmad Vs. Bansi Dhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All468
1. The appellant is the judgment-debtor in certain execution proceedings in which agricultural land belonging to him was ordered to be sold. The land was not ancestral within the meaning of the notification under which execution of decrees for sale of ancestral property had to be transferred to the Collector. It was however revenue paying land. All the execution proceedings had been taken in the civil Court and the sale alone was to take place through the Collector. The sale was fixed for 20th July 1932. Before it could take place the judgment-debtor made an application pointing out that under a recent notification (No. 576-I-A-93), the execution of decrees in which agricultural land is to be sold should be transferred to the Collector. The notification mentioned modifies the earlier notification of 1911 so as to extend its application to all agricultural land ancestral or otherwise. The judgment-debtor's objection was disallowed by the lower Court which held that the amending notifica...
Tej Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All490
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in criminal revision on behalf of three persons Tej Singh, who has been sentenced to Rs. 50 fine, and Wazira and Phul Chand, who have been sentenced to Rs. 15 fine and six months' rigorous imprisonment. The convictions are under Sections 147, 323 and 325, Penal Code. The latter two persons are servants of the mother of Rawat Raj Kumar. There was a civil suit in the Small Cause Court, Ghansbyam Singh v. Rawat Rajkumar filed on 12th August. On the same date an application was made for attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5(3) and an order was issued that the attachment should be made by Pandit Ramnatb Nagar vakil. On 13th August, the vakil and the plaintiff proceeded to the house of the defendant to make the attachment. The Sessions Court has found that the Rawat is mother informed them that the attachable property was not in the zenana quarters. Attachment then was carried on in the remainder of the house. This led to a quarrel and sub...
L. Beni Prasad and ors. Vs. Pt. Saligram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All651; 157Ind.Cas.112
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by the plaintiffs against an order dated 5th July 1934 by a Munsif on an application to amend the plaint. The plaintiffs brought a suit for possession of a certain plot of land alleging that the plot belonged to them as zamindars and that defendants 1 and 2 ,had made unauthorised constructions on the plot, and the plaint asked for possession after demolition of these unauthorised constructions and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs understood that defendants 1 arid 2 had made these constructions in a representative capacity and the plaint sets out that defendant 1 was president; of the Sana tan Dharma Sabha and defendant 2 was secretary of that society. The plaintiffs took proceedings with permission of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8 to make the defendants representatives of that society and of its members in the locality in question. The d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »