Allahabad Court March 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. Ram Saran Das Johri Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All717
Bennet, J.1. These are two criminal revisions: one on behalf of Ramsaran Das Johri, who has been sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 18(1) of Act 23 of 1931 read with Sections 15 and 16 of Act 23 of 1932, and the other of Buddhi, who has been sentenced under the same Section 18(1) of act 23 of 1931 to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. Both cases come from Muttra District and the same pamphlet which is the subject of the charge against Johri, is one of she three pamphlets which were the subject of the charge against Buddhi. It will therefore be appropriate to pass one order in revision; and the cases have been argued together. It is admitted that this pamphlet dated 1st November 1933 was written by the accased Johri, and it is proved that it was distributed by the accused Buddhi. The charge against the accused is that the pamphlet comes under the definition of an unauthorised news-sheet by these provisions. Section 16(h) of Act 23 of 1932 refers to a pamphlet which...
Lachman Vs. Ratnakar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All836; 153Ind.Cas.670
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against the decree of the lower appellate Court directing the removal of a certain chaupal which the defendant has erected on the abadi land of the village. The first ground taken was that the land was the sehan of the defendant's house and that the defendant had a right to use it for the purpose of his tenancy and the land was appurtenant to the tenancy. The finding of the Courts is that formerly there was no piece of ground in front of the defendant's house and that the defendant apparently tied his cattle on a part of that ground which may be said to be using the ground as a sehan, but there was no wall round the ground, nor was it marked off in any way. The next finding is that not more than three or four years before the suit the defendant' made a shed or chaupal a kind of lean to against his house, which is stated to be for his purpose of protecting his cattle. The use of the land as a sehan does not in my opinion justify the ...
Hakim Mahmud Hasan and ors. Vs. L. Amba Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All941
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants arising out of a suit brought by seven Hindus for a declaration that the Hindu residents of Nanauta have a right to take out their processions with all paraphernalia along a route over the defendants' land as also to pass that way and take out their carts by that way and for the removal of certain doors which have been fixed by the defendants obstructing this right and for a perpetual, injunction restraining them from offering any such obstruction in future. It is denied that there was any public way along this path and the defendants also took other technical pleas as to the maintainability of the suit. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding that there was a public right of way across this land. The trial Court went into the question at considerable length and discussed all the important oral and documentary pieces of evidence. The lower appellate Court has not discussed the documentary evidence in the same manner, ...
A.F.H. Pushong Vs. Mrs. E.O. Pushong
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All624; 150Ind.Cas.543
1. This is an application by a guilty respondent to a divorce petition foe confirmation of the decree of the learned District Judge. The only point for our decision is whether such an application lies. Section 17, Divorce Act, under which this application is made, enacts as follows:Every decree for dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court.2. There is nothing in the wording of the section itself which gives any guidance as to which of the parties to a divorce petition may move the Court. We have therefore to look to the practice as it exists in England for guidance in this matter. The practice in England is clear. It has for long been held in England that only the innocent party can move the Court for a decree absolute. The Court will not listen to the guilty party. We may refer here to the well known case of Qusey v. Qusey (1876) 1 P.C. 56.3. The learned Judge ordinary in that case said as follows:The principle that the powers ...
Baijnath Rai and ors. Vs. Mt. Suberna Kuer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All654; 153Ind.Cas.420
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against concurring decree of the two lower Courts granting the plaintiffs possession of four plots. The lower appellate Court modified the decree of the Court of first instance only by refusing to grant the plaintiffs damages. The plaintiffs are admittedly zamindars, and the suit was brought under Section 44, Agra Tenancy Act, 3 of 1926, against defendants 1 to 13, as trespassers. The defendants claimed that they were in possession as mortgagees of a certain person called Subhag, who had, according to the plaint a grant rent-free for services, The mortgage in question has been produced dated 28th June 1893. Subhag died on 27th January 1925. The plaintiffs sued for possession of these four plots on the ground that the defendants are mere trespassers. The suit has been resisted and the appeal has been argued on a number of grounds. The lower appellate Court found as a fact that the grant was for services and not as the appellants arg...
Gajadhar Misir Vs. Bechan Chamar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All768
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. The facts which have been found by the lower appellate Court are as follows:A person Janki was stated to have been the owner of an agricultural plot No. 444 in the village area 65 acres. The question of the proprietary title of Janki in this plot was not in dispute, but it does not appear that any proof was put on the record that he had proprietary title in that plot. He may have been an owner of the plot as 'haqiat mutfarka,' but there is no copy of the khewat to show that, and the lower Courts proceeded on the assumption that he was the owner and had powers of transfer. On 30th June 1900 he executed a usufructuary mortgage of this plot to one Dukhi. On 1st June 1901, Janki executed an unregistered sale deed of his equity of redemption in favour of the defendants. As the sale consideration is stated to be Rs. 199, in this deed, registration was required by Section 54, T.P. Act, a...
B. Mahabir Singh and anr. Vs. B. Sheo Shankar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All883; 153Ind.Cas.672
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Ballia. The plaintiffs brought a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from opening a door in their house opposite a piece of land lying between the plaintiffs' and the defendants' houses. They also asked for a mandatory injunction ordering the defendants to close this door and an injunction to restrain the defendants from going out and coming in by this door and using this piece of land. The trial Court came to the conclusion that no action lay on the facts of the case. The lower appellate Court however decided that the plaintiffs should have an injunction restraining the defendants from using the land, but not an injunction ordering them to close the door. The defendants appeal. This is a peculiar and not an uninteresting case. The plaintiffs and the defendants are ryots. They have their houses in the abadi as appurtenant to their agricultural holdings. Between their house...
Jagernath Prasad Vs. Mt. Dhanpati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All969
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit against five defendants on the basis of simple mortgage bond of 19th February 1918, executed by Mt. Kustnan and by Mt. Dhanpati in favour of the plaintiff. The property mortgaged consisted of 3 pies zamindari share in Mauza Manhari, appertaining to Mauza Atwa, Mahal Payag Singh patti, Mt. Nand Rani, and a three pies zamindari share in Mauza Atwa, same mahal and patti and a grove No. 595 in Mauza Atwa. In para. 5 of the plaint it was stated that the property mortgaged was the stridhan of Mt. Kusman and Mt. Dhanpati. It was further stated that after the death of Mt. Kusman defendants 3 and 4 entered into possession of her share by right of inheritance. These persons were in fact sons of daughters of Bhairo Prasad, the husband of Mt. Kusman. One of these persons sold his share to Mt. Dhanpati, defendant 1. Mt. Kusman being dead, the plaintiff asked for a decree against the property in question. The written s...
Gajadhar Misir Vs. Bachan Chamar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.717
Bennet, J.1. This is a Second Appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. The facts which have been found by the lower Appellate Court are as follows;A person Janki was stated to have been the owner of an agricultural plot No. 444 in the village, area '65 acres. The question of the proprietary title of Janki in this plot was not in dispute, but it does not appear that any proof was put on the record that he had proprietary title in that plot. He may have been an owner of the plot as haqiat mutfarka, but there is no copy of the khewat to show that, and the lower Courts proceeded on the assumption that he was the owner and had powers of transfer. On June 30, 1900, he executed a usufructuary mortgage of this plot to one Dukhi. On June I, 1901, Janki executed an unregistered sale-deed of his equity of redemption in favour of the defendants. As the sale consideration is stated to be Rs. 199, in this deed registration was required by Section 54, Transfer of P...
Raghubar Dayal Misra and ors. Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All876; 152Ind.Cas.98
ORDERKendall, J.1. The circumstances in which this application in revision has arisen sue briefly as follows : The plaintiff-opposite-party had been the chairman of the Municipal Board of Sikandrabad, but he had been removed from that office by the Local Government on 17th October 1933. He thereupon brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif for an injunction against the members of the Board to prevent them from holding an election for electing another chairman. It has been made clear to the Court, that the plaintiff's object was also to obtain a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's removal from the chairmanship was in. valid. After removing the plaintiff from the chairmanship, the Local Government directed the members of the Board to fix a date for electing a new chairman, and the plaintiff therefore applied to the Munisif's Court for a temporary injunction against those members directing them not to hold an election, and not to elect; a new chairman. The Munsif issued a temp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »