Allahabad Court February 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.
NaraIn Das Gopal Das Vs. (Firm) Khunni Lal Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All569; 150Ind.Cas.942
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of suit No. 570 of 1933 from the Court of the Munsif of Bareilly to the Court of the Munsif of Agra. The applicant) firm Narain Das Gopal Das carries on the business of commission agent at Agra and the opposite-party, Khunni Lal Lachmi Narain, is a firm carrying on business at Bareilly. The applicant, on instructions received from the opposite-party entered into certain transactions of purchase and sale of yarn, and suit No. 570 has been filed by the opposite-party against the applicant for rendition of accounts and for certain other reliefs. In the plaint the opposite party alleged that the contract for the purchase and sale of yarn between the parties was entered into at Bareilly, and it was agreed between the parties that the accounting would be done at Bareilly and, accordingly, the Munsif of Bareilly had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These allegations were denied by the applicant in the writ-ton statement filed b...
Mewa Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All687a; 150Ind.Cas.1048
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an appellate order of the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri confirming the order of a Magistrate in which he convicted the two applicants of offences under Sections 430 and 353, Indian Penal Code. The facts are given sufficiently fully in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The application is made on the ground that the convictions under Sections 430 and 353, Indian Penal Code are illegal. In order to prove an offence under Section 430 it is necessary to prove mischief as defined in Section 425 and it is also necessary to prove that the act committed is likely to cause a diminution of the supply of water for the various purposes enumerated in the section. What has been proved is that the applicants forcibly opened the canal distributary, and apparently diverted the flow of the water, but there is nothing to show that they permanently diminished the utility of the distributary, or affected it injuriously or that they practica...
Cantoment Board Vs. Kishan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All609
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an execution second appeal arising out of a suit brought by the Cantonment Board through the Secretary of State for India in Council against the defendant, Kishan Lal, for recovery of certain grazing dues, which had been agreed to be paid in instalments to the Board under a lease, dated 6th July 1928. The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Muttra, and an objection was taken in the written statement that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court. The learned Munsif held that the Tenancy Act of 1928 did not apply to the Cantonment areas under the new Act. No doubt under Section 1 of the old Tenancy Act of 1901 the Cantonment areas, not being administered by the Lieutenant-Governor of the North Western Provinces, were excluded; but the language of Section 1, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926, was altered and the Act was made applicable to the whole of the Province of Agra, except certain areas mentioned in the schedule, which does not include a Cantonment ...
Shafi Ullah Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All589; 150Ind.Cas.139
ORDERYoung, J.1. This is an application in revision from the decision in an appeal by the learned sessions Judge of Bareilly. One Shafi Ullah was convicted under Section 114 read with Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., for abetting a bigamy. Mt. Majidan, when she was a minor, was married to one Tufail Ahmad, She did not live with her husband and after attaining the age of puberty she married again one Himayat Ullah. Himayat Ullah, Mt. Majidan and Shafi Ullah, a relation of Mt. Majidan, were charged; the lady with bigamy and the men with abetment of bigamy. The Courts below have given Mt. Majidan the benefit of Section 562 of the Criminal P.C. as a first offender. The second husband Himayat Ullah was acquitted on the ground that it was not proved whether he had known of the first marriage or not. Shafi Ullah was the only one convicted and he was given four months rigorous imprisonment. He appeals. In order to succeed in a prosecution for abetment of bigamy the prosecution must ...
Gupta and Co. Vs. Kripa Ram Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All620
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This case has been, referred to a Full Bench because of a. conflict of opinion in this Court. The-applicant firm was the plaintiff in the-Court of the Munsif of Agra in a suit brought to get a previous decree set aside. On a report made by the office that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient, the Court, having heard the plaintiff's counsel, held that the amount of the court-fee paid was insufficient and ordered that the plaintiff should make good the deficiency. Instead of either paying the balance of the court fee or allowing the plaint to be rejected and then appealing, from the order, the plaintiff filed an application in revision from the order of the Munsif challenging its propriety. The main question in the case is whether a. civil revision lies from such an order and can be entertained by this Court. It is not necessary to deal at length with the contention that the record having been sent for by a Single Judge of this Court the question whether ...
Mohamudul Hasan Vs. Mohammad Shibli Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All696
Young, J.1. This is second appeal from the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh. The plaintiff brought a suit for malicious prosecution and the lower appellate Court has given a decree to the plaintiff for Rs. 200 damages. The defendant appeals. The sole point taken by the defendant is that the lower appellate Court did not decide an issue on the question of malice. It is quite clear, as has been frequently pointed out, that proof of malice is essential in an action for malicious prosecution and it is equally clear that there must be a finding of malice. The learned Judge in the Court below does not say in words that there was malice on the part of the defendant. What he says is this:When all these facts ate taken into consideration, it becomes impossible to believe that the plaintiff could have been present or was present when the riot is said to have taken place.... The plaintiff was mentioned in the report as a safeguard and because he was a sympathiser of Chauthi and not...
Shibban and ors. Vs. Allah Mehar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All716; 150Ind.Cas.148
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession and injunction brought by the plaintiff's against four defendants treating them as trespassers. The plaintiff's case was that the land in question was their graveyard and the defendants wrongfully enclosed it. The defence was that the land was not a graveyard at all, but was a waste piece of ground which had been enclosed by the defendants with the permission of the zamindar and that the enclosure was an old one. The first Court found the facts in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the claim against all the four defendants. Two of the four defendants appealed to the lower appellate Court and impleaded the other two defendants as pro forma respondents. No doubt the ground taken in the memorandum of appeal was one common to all the defendants, namely, that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit as they had no interest in the land. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that the pl...
Kr. Sri NaraIn Dubey Vs. Kr. Ram NaraIn Dubey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All624a
This is an execution second appeal brought by the judgment-debtor against an appellate order of the District Judge dismissing an appeal from the order of the Assistant Collector dismissing the objection of the judgment-debtor. Under Section 249, Agra Tenancy Act, Act 3 of 1926, no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal. The second appeal therefore cannot lie. Learned Counsel argued that this second appeal should be treated sis a first appeal from the order of the Assistant Collector. That order was passed dismissing an objection to the sale in execution of a decree. The original suit was valued at over Rs. 5,000 and according to Section 248(3) an appeal from the order of the Assistant Collector lay to this Court. The judgment-debtor however by mistake brought an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, and after that appeal was dismissed he became aware that the appeal did not lie to the District Judge and therefore he made the present second appeal to this Court alleging t...
Sri NaraIn Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All704; 150Ind.Cas.751
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendant, Sri Narain, against whom the Assistant Collector has granted a decree for profits to the extent of Rupees 3,107-10-9, for the years F. 1333, F. 1334 and kharif of F. 1335. The plaintiff sued also for the rabi of 1332 F. which was dismissed by the lower Court. The family pedigree is as follows: Lakshmi Narain (died May or June, 1925) | ----------------------------------------- | | | | Sri Narain Kam Narain Padma Kamla (eldest son) (plaintifi) Narain Narain (defendant).2. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff owned a quarter-share in the khewat No. 1 of mauza Nenkhera in Saharanpur District, and that the defendant was the lambardar and collector of the rent and had realized the entire rent from the tenants but that he did not have the entire realizations entered in the papers; that Lakshmi Narain died in May 1925, and from the date of his death the defendant used to make collections and pay revenue. The written statement set out that...
Khedan Ahir and anr. Vs. Ram Rekha Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All934
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. A rival suit was filed by a third claimant shortly after the present suit which was connected with the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The transaction was ostensibly in the garb of a gift but the plaintiffs' case was that it was really a sale transaction. The trial Court found that the three plaintiffs had a preferential claim as against the defendant-vendee and that the transaction was in reality a sale deed. On 31st March 1932 the first Court accordingly decreed both the suits giving the plaintiffs in the first suit, who are the appellants before us, a decree for a 1/3 share each in the property in mauza Shahabpur on payment of Rs. 77-12.6 within two months of the date of the decree by each. It further provided that if any plaintiff made a default the other could pay the amount due from him within a further period of one month. The decree, however, omitted to provide what else was to happen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »